Pope Frantic

[BC_chick]

The Pope warned against what he said was a "cultural context marked by relativism" and against any views of marriage as merely a legal union "that human will could manipulate as it pleases, even depriving it of its heterosexual nature."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/vatican_family

He's lashing out against religion's two biggest fears - exclusiveness and moral relativism.

In a way though it's sad at the same time it is funny, to see how the mighty fall.

[jefferiah]

The mighty??? The guy is a bent old man. He is not some totalitarian dictator. Really, I am not a fan of the Catholic idea of infallibility of the Pope and all that, but these people who are so anti-pope never fail to astound me. Seriously the Pope knows the world is going to go against what he says anyway. He is just saying what he believes is right, and making a warning to the world that he feels is necessary. People dont warn you of things because they hate you.

[jefferiah]

Reading the article he doesnt sound frantic at all. Just firm in his belief.

"Each marriage is certainly the fruit of free consent between man and woman," the Pope said in an audience at the Vatican marking the beginning of the judiciary year.

"The union occurs because of the design by God, who has created them male and female and gives them the power to unite those natural and complementary dimensions forever," he said.

This sounds right to me. He is not forcing people to listen to him. But he is making his concern known. That is not sad at all.

[BC_chick]

The mighty??? The guy is a bent old man. He is not some totalitarian dictator. Really, I am not a fan of the Catholic idea of infallibility of the Pope and all that, but these people who are so anti-pope never fail to astound me. Seriously the Pope knows the world is going to go against what he says anyway. He is just saying what he believes is right, and making a warning to the world that he feels is necessary. People dont warn you of things because they hate you.

By "the mighty" I meant the Catholic Church of which the Pope is the top-figure. IOW how the once most powerful establishment on earth is now down to a "bent old man" (borrowing your description here) whose words fall on deaf ears.

[BC_chick]

Reading the article he doesnt sound frantic at all. Just firm in his belief.

"Each marriage is certainly the fruit of free consent between man and woman," the Pope said in an audience at the Vatican marking the beginning of the judiciary year.

"The union occurs because of the design by God, who has created them male and female and gives them the power to unite those natural and complementary dimensions forever," he said.

This sounds right to me. He is not forcing people to listen to him. But he is making his concern known. That is not sad at all.

Blaming moral relativism for exclusiveness indicates frantically trying to find to cause and effect for the rejection of his doctrine.

Please don't take it so literally.

[ft.niagara]

Blaming moral relativism for exclusiveness indicates frantically trying to find to cause and effect for the rejection of his doctrine.

Huh??? Either you are talking above me, or you are talking silly.

[blueblood]

The mighty??? The guy is a bent old man. He is not some totalitarian dictator. Really, I am not a fan of the Catholic idea of infallibility of the Pope and all that, but these people who are so anti-pope never fail to astound me. Seriously the Pope knows the world is going to go against what he says anyway. He is just saying what he believes is right, and making a warning to the world that he feels is necessary. People dont warn you of things because they hate you.

By "the mighty" I meant the Catholic Church of which the Pope is the top-figure. IOW how the once most powerful establishment on earth is now down to a "bent old man" (borrowing your description here) whose words fall on deaf ears.

The similar words which helped destroy communism in eastern europe???

[BC_chick]

Blaming moral relativism for exclusiveness indicates frantically trying to find to cause and effect for the rejection of his doctrine.

Huh??? Either you are talking above me, or you are talking silly.

I vote for the former.

[BC_chick]

By "the mighty" I meant the Catholic Church of which the Pope is the top-figure. IOW how the once most powerful establishment on earth is now down to a "bent old man" (borrowing your description here) whose words fall on deaf ears.

The similar words which helped destroy communism in eastern europe???

If you want to compare the fall of the Catholic Church to the fall of Communism, be my guest. The similarities are there indeed. I'll take that a step further and compare today's religious-minded people to the Castros of the world and their followers who are grasping onto a proven ill-functioning ideology either because of greed or sheer stupidity.

[jbg]

The Pope warned against what he said was a "cultural context marked by relativism" and against any views of marriage as merely a legal union "that human will could manipulate as it pleases, even depriving it of its heterosexual nature."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/vatican_family

He's lashing out against religion's two biggest fears - exclusiveness and moral relativism. In a way though it's sad at the same time it is funny, to see how the mighty fall.

I don't think he's frantic at all. He's supporting the core practices and beliefs that have made the West a great place to live, and much of the rest of the world a sh*thole. Before you tear down great institutions you better d@mned well have something to replace them with.

Blaming moral relativism for exclusiveness indicates frantically trying to find to cause and effect for the rejection of his doctrine.

Please don't take it so literally.

Huh? I'm too dumb to understand that.

[jefferiah]

That bent old man believes in what he believes in and he is not softening his position to be popular. I rather think that he has not fallen at all. When the Catholic Church was full of might it was then fallen. But "when I am weak I am strong." The Pope just achieved a victory, and you dont understand it. The truth is the truth even when it falls on deaf ears, BC Chick.

[theloniusfleabag]

That bent old man believes in what he believes in and he is not softening his position to be popular. I rather think that he has not fallen at all.

I have to agree with jefferiah here. While I have no love for churches, (at least not the ones made out of gold) he is merely stating that which he believes should be the moral stance of the church. It would be pretty much the same thing if the Dalai Lama called upon everyone "To end conflict through meditation and enlightenment".

Everyone's dogma will be 'morally relative' to what they believe.

(When I first read the thread title, I thought the pope had died and they just named a new one named "Pope Frantic". But then I realized Pope Ratz is the youngest one they've had in a while, so he'll probably last at least another 10-20 years lol.)

[BC_chick]

I don't think he's frantic at all. He's supporting the core practices and beliefs that have made the West a great place to live, and much of the rest of the world a sh*thole. Before you tear down great institutions you better d@mned well have something to replace them with.

Actually, what sets the West apart from the "sh*tholes" IS its progressiveness. IOW, refusing gay-marriage is much more a characteristic of the "sh*tholes" out there, than it is our society where civil and human rights are a priority.

Blaming moral relativism for exclusiveness indicates frantically trying to find to cause and effect for the rejection of his doctrine.

Please don't take it so literally.

Huh? I'm too dumb to understand that.

Moral relativisim = believing that most things are a shade of gray, and very few things are black or white

Exclusiveness = believing that people are people no matter what colour skin they have, what God they believe, or what gender they sleep with

Still lost?

[BC_chick]

That bent old man believes in what he believes in and he is not softening his position to be popular. I rather think that he has not fallen at all. When the Catholic Church was full of might it was then fallen. But "when I am weak I am strong." The Pope just achieved a victory, and you dont understand it. The truth is the truth even when it falls on deaf ears, BC Chick.

A former ominipotent institution replaced now by a whining old-man whose words "fall on deaf ears" (again, your words) about something which one nation after another is going through with anyway - okay fine, your're right, that's NOT an example of how the mighty fall.

[jbg]

Moral relativisim = believing that most things are a shade of gray, and very few things are black or white

Exclusiveness = believing that people are people no matter what colour skin they have, what God they believe, or what gender they sleep with

Still lost?

Still incoherent.

[geoffrey]

Moral relativisim = believing that most things are a shade of gray, and very few things are black or white

That's an awfully generous definition of moral relativism. I'd phrase it as: "What is moral for BC Chick, can be moral without being moral to me." It means that everyone can have their own morals and be right.

In essence moral relativism from a philosophical point of view is simply a cop out from trying to find real solutions IMO.

Exclusiveness = believing that people are people no matter what colour skin they have, what God they believe, or what gender they sleep with

The Church was ok with that, besides the what God they believe in aspect. It goes against the reality of religion to say that others are equally right, when in fact, they believe in something completely different.

If people think otherwise, well hey, you can't enlighten all the ignorant of the world.

[BC_chick]

Moral relativisim = believing that most things are a shade of gray, and very few things are black or white

Exclusiveness = believing that people are people no matter what colour skin they have, what God they believe, or what gender they sleep with

Still lost?

Still incoherent.

Did you try inserting the definition in the place of the word in the original sentence? You still didn't get it?

Either you're playing dumb, or you're not playing. I think it's the former so I'm feeling a little silly trying to amuse you here, but in case you're really not playing, I'll bite.....

Two of the Church's enemies, historically, have been:

1) Moral-relativism whereby individuals do not think in terms of either something is completely wrong, or completely right - but rather judge every issue on its personal merit.

2) Exclusive society where believers and non-believers alike are treated with the same respect and dignity.

Accepting gay-marriage is a manifestation of number two above. The reason for this exclusiveness is the breaking down societal barriers during the last 50 years since the advent of the civil rights movements which advocated extending rights to all individuals despite race, religion, or sexual-orientation.

It is therefore funny to see the pope trying to take away the human-right element out of the equation, and instead blame the cause of our accepting of gay-marriage on the Church's second enemy (number one in the example above).

I say this because if moral-relativism was indeed the actual "culprit" for people accepting gay-marriage, then we would have a lot less citings of human rights as the reason for gay-marriage. Instead they'd be saying "well, I guess gay-marriage could be allowed under certain circumstances...."

Sorry for my sarcastic tone, but a silly question deserves a silly answer.

[BC_chick]

That's an awfully generous definition of moral relativism. I'd phrase it as: "What is moral for BC Chick, can be moral without being moral to me." It means that everyone can have their own morals and be right.

Even according to that definition, MR is an enemy of the Church because it allows for room in making judgements.

See my post to jbg, I am arguing that developments with civil-rights in the last fifty years are the catalyst for GM, not MR. The pope is trying to remove the human-right element, and he is placing his efforts into blaming another historic enemy of the Church (MR) when in fact the two are separate of each other.

IOW the reason Canada accepted gay-marriage was not from a moral perspective, but a constitutional one.

[geoffrey]

IOW the reason Canada accepted gay-marriage was not from a moral perspective, but a constitutional one.

While I don't really care too much about SSM, I think that putting more faith in a piece of paper than objective reasoning is a rather dangerous road to travel down.

[jbg]

Accepting gay-marriage is a manifestation of number two above. The reason for this exclusiveness is the breaking down societal barriers during the last 50 years since the advent of the civil rights movements which advocated extending rights to all individuals despite race, religion, or sexual-orientation.

It is therefore funny to see the pope trying to take away the human-right element out of the equation, and instead blame the cause of our accepting of gay-marriage on the Church's second enemy (number one in the example above).

I say this because if moral-relativism was indeed the actual "culprit" for people accepting gay-marriage, then we would have a lot less citings of human rights as the reason for gay-marriage. Instead they'd be saying "well, I guess gay-marriage could be allowed under certain circumstances...."

Sorry for my sarcastic tone, but a silly question deserves a silly answer.

Sexual orientation is far, far different from race or religion. While I favor gay rights, this is by no means absolute, as color and religion-blindness must be for a civilized society.

[BC_chick]

Sexual orientation is far, far different from race or religion. While I favor gay rights, this is by no means absolute, as color and religion-blindness must be for a civilized society.

That's nice.

But what does that got to do with what I was saying about the Pope blaming moral-relativism for GM?

Edit: Are you saying that your personal beliefs about gay-rights have any impact in the debate on whether or not human rights was the catalyst for GM?

[BC_chick]

IOW the reason Canada accepted gay-marriage was not from a moral perspective, but a constitutional one.

While I don't really care too much about SSM, I think that putting more faith in a piece of paper than objective reasoning is a rather dangerous road to travel down.

Where is the objective reasoning in denying GM?

[BC_chick]

(When I first read the thread title, I thought the pope had died and they just named a new one named "Pope Frantic".

I missed this before. It does have a Popish ring to it, doesn't it?

Pope Frantic, the 3rd.

[WestViking]

Moral relativisim = believing that most things are a shade of gray, and very few things are black or white

Exclusiveness = believing that people are people no matter what colour skin they have, what God they believe, or what gender they sleep with

Hardly - but your definitions leave a lot to be desired:

Moral relativism is associated with a thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons.

Exclusiveness is the opposite of your definition; selectiveness and restrictiveness are synonyms. You may mean inclusiveness.

Moral relativism is used as a club against those one disagrees with - it is rare for anyone to claim moral relativism.

The Church as guardian of Christian morality is hardly open to moral relativism; one cannot sin a little bit. If you sleep with your neighbour's wife or daughter, it is hardly relevant that he somehow wronged you in the past. You are not only morally wrong, you have brought innocent people into a quarrel they had no part in.

Cultures that allow wife-beating exist but their existence does not make their behaviour morally correct. I do not have to accept that cruelty to another person is allowed or to be condoned no matter what justification they may put forward.

[tml12]

The Pope warned against what he said was a "cultural context marked by relativism" and against any views of marriage as merely a legal union "that human will could manipulate as it pleases, even depriving it of its heterosexual nature."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/vatican_family

He's lashing out against religion's two biggest fears - exclusiveness and moral relativism.

In a way though it's sad at the same time it is funny, to see how the mighty fall.

It is unbelievable to find yet another attack on Roman Catholicism out there. I do not think the Pope has said anything vulgar or distasteful toward homosexuals, certainly nothing in the vein of what radical evangelicals have said. The Pope is merely stating the facts: that, according to our Roman Catholic beliefs, marriage is a sacrament that represents the union between a man and a woman in order to procreate and spread new life on earth.

In terms of homosexuality and what to do with homosexuals, many of us are divided. Moderate Catholics, like myself, support civil unions but do not support changing the definition of marriage. Liberal Catholics would change the definition of marriage, whereas conservative Catholics (whom I will admit more or less represent the establishment) approve of neither of those options.

That being said, to lash out at Catholicism as being "exclusive" and supporters of "moral relativism" is crazy. Most Catholics I know are modern, secular in their public life (including myself), and very open to dialogue and discussion on world affairs. Few of us today would support closed-minded exclusiveness and morals by definition are not and cannot be relative. I am a male in my 20s and few individuals that I deal with every day, save for my close family and friends, know what my religious faith is. I surround myself with people of various faiths in order to try and better appreciate my own faith. Faith and spirituality are so important...to typecast religion as being outdated and fearing modernism is unfathomable.

In terms of homosexuals, though, if the Church supported same-sex marriage it would be unprecedented. It would be a direct challenge to the nuclear family and undermine a practice that was defined in the Old Testament by the Jews of Ancient Israel. It is not just Catholics who are against same sex marriage, but also Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and other religious faiths have issues with this. The Church welcomes homosexuals into the faith, but cannot accept marrying them at this time.

Opening up a dialogue and preaching peace has been a goal for the Church in recent years. Hopefully, both conservatives and liberals of all faiths will take Catholics up on this offer. We are often better than the ridiculous debates that we get ourselves into.