Ok - so you are calling Bush supporters bigots, yet you use an incredibly offensive term to describe someone who is conservative.
You sir, are a bigot - as most liberals are.
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: NTB
Great! But who is it?
Nate
I wouldn't be surprised if it's that nazi boy ratzinger
Originally posted by: raildogg
Catholocism avoids individualism which goes against the Christian community.
Originally posted by: Siwy
It's kind of hard having balls or moral convictions when you are 14 and have been brainwashed for the past 8 years, don't you think?
And he was definitely not a Nazi like some people like to imply; he deserted the army at the age of 17 while the minimum membership age for Nazi Party was 18. So there goes that conspiracy theory.
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: NTB
Great! But who is it?
Nate
I wouldn't be surprised if it's that nazi boy ratzinger
Ok - so you are calling Bush supporters bigots, yet you use an incredibly offensive term to describe someone who is conservative.
You sir, are a bigot - as most liberals are.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The Church goes through exhaustive efforts to educate its higher members (bishops, cardinals) in the mannerisms of ethics. I would wager almost all of the cardinals have a PhD (if not more than one) in philosophy and related areas. This makes them eminently qualified to say what is right and wrong. That said, the Church doesn't dictate to non-Catholics what they should be doing. It does dictate to its members, as is its duty. However, those who are not Catholics would be foolish, in my opinion, to cast aside the opinions of such learned men, without due consideration, when they offer their opinions on ethical matters. The very reason they hold these positions is so that they may ponder these important issues and develop a completely unbiased ethical stance on them. They have no motivation to do otherwise. I think this is why so many people consider the teachings of the Church when discussing ethical issues, even in the US, which is not a 'Catholic' nation by a long shot. For myself, it is this ability to learn from objective, learned men that I remain a Catholic (or at least one of the major reasons). I put a lot of thought into ethics, but I have a job so I can't dedicate my life to the study of these issues. Therefore, I put a lot of stock in the unbiased opinion of someone who can.
People need to want to be there or they will get nothing out of it. All the Church can do is tell it like it is and people will choose to accept it or not.
The job of the church? What job is that? To continue the lie of a divine Christ? To continue the lie of an "infallable" Pope? To perpetuate ignorance of birth control? To foster the sexual molestation of young boys?Originally posted by: Crimson
Yeah thats why the left keeps winning elections.. oh wait.. I might agree with you that the world has been moving left, however, I think recently, especially in the United States, its moving back to the right.. Many think we went too far left.Originally posted by: conjur
Since it's obviously oblivious to you, the world has become more socially liberal as time has marched on. The Catholic Church prefers to be Left Behind.Originally posted by: Crimson
Awwwww, how touching seeing all the Sheeple critical of the Religious leader because he doesn't support their liberal views. So 'Open-minded' thou art.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Awwwww, how touching seeing all the Sheeple defend the Religious Mob Ruler.
Again, the job of the church is not to validate your liberal views..
Originally posted by: illustri
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: NTB
Great! But who is it?
Nate
I wouldn't be surprised if it's that nazi boy ratzinger
Ok - so you are calling Bush supporters bigots, yet you use an incredibly offensive term to describe someone who is conservative.
You sir, are a bigot - as most liberals are.
well... the former cardinal was a former soldier in the wehrmacht, and a hitler youth, (during his time it was mandatory to join both organizations) so that descriptor (though highly debatable) wasn't a stab at conservatives, just Ratzinger
your response however, is completely without merit
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
"The Inquisition, what a show.."
This is another sad day for the catholic church. A possible place for them to move forward into the 21st century and they look back to the 19th..
A good Pope for the left would be one that would endorse abortion, and throw out all traditional teachings like marriage between a man and a woman, etc.. Its absurd that the left on this forum acts like they have a CHOICE in who is the Pope. You decry there is no god, religion is a waste, then complain when someone else decides who they want for THEIR religious leader.. If you don't like the choice, DON'T BE A CATHOLIC.
I was raised Catholic and although I'm not practicing, even I recognize that this guy is dangerous to the Church. Are you Catholic?
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
"The Inquisition, what a show.."
This is another sad day for the catholic church. A possible place for them to move forward into the 21st century and they look back to the 19th..
A good Pope for the left would be one that would endorse abortion, and throw out all traditional teachings like marriage between a man and a woman, etc.. Its absurd that the left on this forum acts like they have a CHOICE in who is the Pope. You decry there is no god, religion is a waste, then complain when someone else decides who they want for THEIR religious leader.. If you don't like the choice, DON'T BE A CATHOLIC.
All I'm asking for is a Pope that:
A) Supports contraceptives as AIDS eliminates massive parts of the world.
B) Supports women's rights in the church.
C) Removes child molesters from the Church.
Is that too much to ask? Apparently, with this choice, yes.
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Originally posted by: illustri
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: NTB
Great! But who is it?
Nate
I wouldn't be surprised if it's that nazi boy ratzinger
Ok - so you are calling Bush supporters bigots, yet you use an incredibly offensive term to describe someone who is conservative.
You sir, are a bigot - as most liberals are.
well... the former cardinal was a former soldier in the wehrmacht, and a hitler youth, (during his time it was mandatory to join both organizations) so that descriptor (though highly debatable) wasn't a stab at conservatives, just Ratzinger
your response however, is completely without merit
He may have been a brown shirt at one time, but that does not mean that he is a Nazi - at least now. By all accounts, this is a pretty decent guy.
That is like saying that Sen. Byrd is a klansman. He was one, but not today. Or is it that only liberals can be "reformed"? :roll:
Part of being a bigot is pre-judging others. Explain how Phokus is not being a bigot.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My Local News Stations just called him a former Nazi.
Is the MSM Media wrong on this???
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Originally posted by: illustri
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: NTB
Great! But who is it?
Nate
I wouldn't be surprised if it's that nazi boy ratzinger
Ok - so you are calling Bush supporters bigots, yet you use an incredibly offensive term to describe someone who is conservative.
You sir, are a bigot - as most liberals are.
well... the former cardinal was a former soldier in the wehrmacht, and a hitler youth, (during his time it was mandatory to join both organizations) so that descriptor (though highly debatable) wasn't a stab at conservatives, just Ratzinger
your response however, is completely without merit
He may have been a brown shirt at one time, but that does not mean that he is a Nazi - at least now. By all accounts, this is a pretty decent guy.
That is like saying that Sen. Byrd is a klansman. He was one, but not today. Or is it that only liberals can be "reformed"? :roll:
Part of being a bigot is pre-judging others. Explain how Phokus is not being a bigot.
In this you are absolutely correct. However, in the interim period, in which you have not had the time or wisdom to perceive right or wrong in a given circumstance, is it not prudent to rely on the word of objective, learned men?Originally posted by: JackStorm
I think about ethics, morality and such things often(I ponder things quite often, philosophy is among those things). And even though the Church in many ways is right. I just have this problem with their 'Absolutes'. I believe people should always question things until they REALLY know the truth(Or what they, in their hearts, believe is right). I don't put much trust in blind faith, so to speak. However, if one questions and THEN desides that the Church's way is the right way. Well, then that's all well and good. Since they at least they put some thought into it.
Funny, then, that:Originally posted by: illustri
well... the former cardinal was a former soldier in the wehrmacht, and a hitler youth, (during his time it was mandatory to join both organizations) so that descriptor (though highly debatable) wasn't a stab at conservatives, just Ratzinger
your response however, is completely without merit
What is your job here? To perpetuate your own ignorance among the other forum members? To go on and on about things that you simply don't understand? It is a fool who criticizes that which he does not understand. Wisdom is that which allows us to see truth despite the shortcomings of mere humanity.Originally posted by: conjur
The job of the church? What job is that? To continue the lie of a divine Christ? To continue the lie of an "infallable" Pope? To perpetuate ignorance of birth control? To foster the sexual molestation of young boys?
Which part? We've got about 200 posts here.Originally posted by: illustri
cyclowizard
read above
Originally posted by: sandorski
Couple comments:
1) calling the new Pope a "Nazi" or some other such nonsense is overthetop. He was part of the Hitler Yout(when it was mandatory) True. He was also part of the German Army(who wasn't?), but he was reprimanded for choosing to become a Priest and also was a Deserter from the Army. Hardly a stellar career as a "Nazi".
The troll dodges questions YET AGAIN!Originally posted by: CycloWizard
What is your job here? To perpetuate your own ignorance among the other forum members? To go on and on about things that you simply don't understand? It is a fool who criticizes that which he does not understand. Wisdom is that which allows us to see truth despite the shortcomings of mere humanity.Originally posted by: conjur
The job of the church? What job is that? To continue the lie of a divine Christ? To continue the lie of an "infallable" Pope? To perpetuate ignorance of birth control? To foster the sexual molestation of young boys?
The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.
The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'
The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.
It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.
Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.
Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.
He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.'
British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for children abused by Catholic priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as 'explosive'.
He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'
Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse was a modern phenomenon.
He claims the discovery of the document will raise fresh questions about the actions of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.
Murphy-O'Connor has been accused of covering up allegations of child abuse when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Instead of reporting to the police allegations of abuse against Michael Hill, a priest in his charge, he moved him to another position where he was later convicted for abusing nine children.
Although Murphy-O'Connor has apologised publicly for his mistake, Scorer claims the secret Vatican document raises the question about whether his failure to report Hill was due to him following this instruction from Rome.
Scorer, who acts for some of Hill's victims, said: 'I want to know whether Murphy-O'Connor knew of these Vatican instructions and, if so, did he apply it. If not, can he tell us why not?'
A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders were part of any organised cover-up and claims lawyers are taking the document 'out of context' and 'distorting it'.
He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked about is aimed to protect the accused as applies in court procedures today. It also takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy involved in the act of confession.' He also said that in 1983 the Catholic Church in England and Wales introduced its own code dealing with sexual abuse, which would have superseded the 1962 instructions. Asked whether Murphy-O'Connor was aware of the Vatican edict, he replied: 'He's never mentioned it to me.'
Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.
Rev Thomas Doyle, a US Air Force chaplain in Germany and a specialist in Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: 'It is certainly an indication of the pathological obsession with secrecy in the Catholic Church, but in itself it is not a smoking gun.
'If, however, this document actually has been the foundation of a continuous policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another issue. There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm.
'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'
His comments are nothing but anti-Catholic jackassery. Feel free to discuss with the troll if you want, but I am not required to do so. If you aren't going to address him, take your own advice: STFU and whine somewhere else.Originally posted by: sandorski
2) Cyclo: Your following around and lashing out at Conjur everytime he gives Any(good, bad, indifferent) opinion concerning Religious matters is getting to be a sad joke. STFU and address his comments in the thread in question and quit dragging previous discussions along so you can whine incessantly off topic!
Originally posted by: conjur
Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.
Makes me wonder how much an influence the Propagandist *did* have in the selection of the new Pope. Very curious.Alongside predictable exchanges on Iraq, the Middle East and religious liberty, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in her Feb. 8 visit to the Vatican also received an unexpected request -- to intervene in a U.S. lawsuit naming the Holy See as the defendant in a sex abuse case.
Church sources told NCR that Rice was asked by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State, whether the United States government could stop a class-action lawsuit currently before a United States District Court in Louisville, Ky., that seeks to hold the Vatican financially responsible for the sexual abuse of minors.
Sources told NCR that Rice explained that under American law, foreign states are required to assert claims of sovereign immunity themselves before U.S. courts.
Vatican spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls, asked by NCR for comment, responded March 2: "It's obvious and reasonable that the Holy See would present its positions as a sovereign entity to the American State Department, and recall the immunity for its acts that international law anticipates."
It's not the first time, according to observers, that the Vatican has asked the State Department for help on a legal matter.
Originally posted by: conjur
Vatican asks Condoleezza Rice to help stop a sex abuse lawsuit
http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn030305.htmMakes me wonder how much an influence the Propagandist *did* have in the selection of the new Pope. Very curious.Alongside predictable exchanges on Iraq, the Middle East and religious liberty, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in her Feb. 8 visit to the Vatican also received an unexpected request -- to intervene in a U.S. lawsuit naming the Holy See as the defendant in a sex abuse case.
Church sources told NCR that Rice was asked by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State, whether the United States government could stop a class-action lawsuit currently before a United States District Court in Louisville, Ky., that seeks to hold the Vatican financially responsible for the sexual abuse of minors.
Sources told NCR that Rice explained that under American law, foreign states are required to assert claims of sovereign immunity themselves before U.S. courts.
Vatican spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls, asked by NCR for comment, responded March 2: "It's obvious and reasonable that the Holy See would present its positions as a sovereign entity to the American State Department, and recall the immunity for its acts that international law anticipates."
It's not the first time, according to observers, that the Vatican has asked the State Department for help on a legal matter.
I hope this suit goes through. Many, many cases of abuse here. One even involves a priest who was at the Catholic school I went to. I remember him leaving very suddenly one year. They shipped him off to some rural church about 50 miles away. We always wondered what happened.
WASHINGTON
In the free fall of TV news, ABC's attempt to create a successor for Ted Koppel's "Nightline" will go down as one of the most hilariously embarrassing moments.
One show tested recently, according to reports, was set in a nightclub. It had white tablecloths, candles, a jazz quintet, a live audience at little tables and - this is not a joke - faux fog.
We've gone from the fog of war to the fog of news.
The nightclub segments that were tested had Gen X hosts and guests, and red-blue debates on Michael Jackson, the Olsen twins' "dumpster chic" and "mad as hell" rants.
ABC decided not to go with the smoke machine. Still, Ted Koppel - who vowed last year to leave "Nightline" before he was forced to cover "wet burka" contests - must be spinning in his country home.
Les Moonves of CBS has said that with the sonorous era of Dan, Tom, Peter and Ted coming to an end, viewers are no longer interested in "voice-of-God, single-anchor" formats.
But who knew they would prefer the voice of Frank? A ring-a-ding Sinatraesque "one for my baby and one more for the road" network voice?
In Washington last week, Rupert Murdoch echoed Mr. Moonves in giving the American Society of Newspaper Editors some bad news about young people in the age of the Internet, blogging and cable news:
"They don't want to rely on the morning paper for their up-to-date information. They don't want to rely on a god-like figure from above to tell them what's important. ... They certainly don't want news presented as gospel."
So media big shots are moving away from patriarchal, authoritarian voice-of-God figures, even as the Catholic Church and politics are moving toward patriarchal, authoritarian voice-of-God figures.
The white smoke yesterday signaled that the Vatican thinks what it needs to bring it into modernity is the oldest pope since the 18th century: Joseph Ratzinger, a 78-year-old hidebound archconservative who ran the office that used to be called the Inquisition and who once belonged to Hitler Youth. For American Catholics - especially women and Democratic pro-choice Catholic pols - the cafeteria is officially closed. After all, Cardinal Ratzinger, nicknamed "God's Rottweiler" and "the Enforcer," helped deny Communion rights to John Kerry and other Catholic politicians in the 2004 election.
The only other job this pope would be qualified for is "60 Minutes" anchor.
President Bush has also long acted as if he channeled the voice of God. And now Tom DeLay and Bill Frist are also pandering to the far-right-wing and evangelical Christians by implying that God speaks - and acts - through them, too.
Mr. Bush's more subtle obeisance to the evangelical right is no longer enough. Puffed up with its electoral clout, the Christian right now wants politicians to genuflect openly.
The doctor who would be president is down on both knees. He's happy to exploit religion by giving a video speech on a telecast next Sunday that will portray Democrats who block the president's judicial nominations as being "against people of faith."
A flier for the Christian telecast, organized by the Family Research Council, shows a confused teenage boy with a Bible in one hand and a judge's gavel in the other. The text reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."
The born-again Tom DeLay has been fighting his ethical woes by acting like a martyr for some time. Dr. Frist, by contrast, was not known for playing the religious card before. But he is clearly willing to turn himself over, lock, stock and barrel, if it will help him marginalize such Christian-right faves as Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, and garner support from those who always vote because they see elections in terms of eternity.
Even Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Bible-Belt Republican, seemed surprised by the brazen move by Dr. Frist, the Senate majority leader. He told Newsweek: "Questioning a senator's motives in that way is a very dangerous precedent."
And, of course, the Democrats are apoplectic. "I cannot imagine that God - with everything he has or she has to worry about - is going to take the time to debate the filibuster in heaven," Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois said.
As they toy with less lofty multiple-anchor formats, the networks may be more open to women. But at the Vatican and in the Christian right's vanguard, we can be sure that the voice of God is not female.