The pope is an idiot. Catholics are dumb in general.

[kurto]

For the record.... many Catholics don't necessarily agree with the Pope (though I think this kind of almost makes them not-really-Catholics). So, I think its fair to say you can disagree with the Pope, call him narrowminded, whatever, but that doesn't mean all Catholics fit in the same boat.

The Pope may forbid birth control, but of all the Catholics I've met, I've only met one who was a virgin and who wouldn't use Birth Control.

I think a lot of Catholics 'like the Pope' but don't buy the part where he's supposed to be the conduit of God's word. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many sexual Catholics. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of Catholics 'like the Pope' but don't buy the part where he's supposed to be the conduit of God's word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course 'that part' doesnt exist. The sad fact is that many Catholics are not very knowledgeable about their faith and the basis of it. IMO, it makes for a rather flimsy position and makes it very easy to accept only parts of the doctrine that they agree with. ANd of course people in general are very ignorant as well about the Catholic Church.

[kurto]

I once had an argument with a Catholic friend of mine where I said he wasn't really a Catholic. lol He said he thought the Pope was wrong. I said one of the things that seperates Catholicism from other sects of Christianity is that Catholics believe the Pope is the absolute authority on all matters of faith... to not accept that, in my eyes, kind of didn't make him really a Catholic.

Though its an exxageration, I think it would be like a Christian saying he didn't believe Jesus was the son of God... just a prophet. That would make someone closer to being Jewish. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]

(Mind you, I'm not saying that such a stance in life is completely wrong or misguided. I'm saying that adopting it as the proper way of living one's life, as some sort of universal cannon, is totally inappropriate. Not to mention, advocating it as a means of ...stopping AIDS!)



[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it an inappropriate way to adapt it as a proper way of living one's life?

And by the way, the lack of premarital sex has halted the spread of AIDs pretty well in many parts of the middle east, thank you very much.

Thinking about complex moral issues isn't as simple as thinking about being progressive or reactionary. In some ways, progress can be bad. For a fictional example of why this can be so, see the title.

[ACPlayer]

If a catholic was to ignore some (any one) piece of teaching of the church (say contraception) would the Church opine that this person was not a good catholic or not a catholic? Would the Church opine that said person was a Sinner?

Curiosity and lack of ignorance about the importance of the Papal word.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
If a catholic was to ignore some (any one) piece of teaching of the church (say contraception) would the Church opine that this person was not a good catholic or not a catholic?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Church would not say the person was not a Catholic. Excommunicable sentences are rare. It would be regarded as a sin however and not in keeping with Church's teachings.

[vulturesrow]

Papal infallibility is a doctrine which many people, including Catholics, get tripped up on. It doesnt mean that the Pope cant be a sinner (he is still human), that he cant say things that arent wrong etc. Papal infallibility only applies to theological items.

Here is the explanation from Vatican II:

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").


Read the rest from the article on Papal infallibility at the Catholic answers website.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it an inappropriate way to adapt it as a proper way of living one's life?

[/ QUOTE ] Not inappropriate at all! Every individual is perfectly entitled to do so. What I said was that the Church or the State invading the realm of personal choice and condemning a sexual act between consenting adults (eg "promiscuous sex" - yummy!) and then imposing laws or cannons on our lives is wrong. No two ways about it, either.


[ QUOTE ]
The lack of premarital sex has halted the spread of AIDs pretty well in many parts of the middle east.

[/ QUOTE ] The relative scarcity of sex in the Middle East might be due to other factors, as well. We cannot imply so casually that traditional, tribal moral values in Africa are more sexually permissive than the Middle East's.

But I agree that in emergency situations, emergencvy measures are needed. If the state must interfere and prohibit any kind of sex for six months, for instance, this might well be the right thing to do, under appropriate circumstances.

Do we have such an emergency now? Are we obliged by circumstances to prohibit pre-marital sex altogether through a Church dictat? Answer : No, we don't, the Church simply uses the AIDS epidemic to scare us back to good ol' victorian values.

More importantly, why does the Church focus exclusively on sexual abstinence and refuses to acknowledge the need for sexual education, in parralel?

Answer : Because that would mean people would gain the knowledge that would lead them to a healthier and improved sex life. But anything that promotes personal pleasure ("mindless sex" for instance - yummy!) is anathema to the Church.

Q.E.D.

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking about complex moral issues isn't as simple as thinking about being progressive or reactionary. In some ways, progress can be bad. Re: Brave New World

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that progress is, by definition, "good". Everything that's "new" is not necessrily "good".

But we all know what I'm talking about. For the last three hundred years, after the time of the French and the American revolutions, humankind has advanced by leaps and bounds in matters of philosophy, science and politics. The reactionary powers in Church wish to roll back time and the political conservatives are right behind them in this.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Papal infallibility is a doctrine which many people, including Catholics, get tripped up on. It doesnt mean that the Pope cant be a sinner (he is still human)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right. It's why priests can f*** little boys and just say a couple of hail mary's after

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
The relative scarcity of sex in the Middle East might be due to other factors, as well. We cannot imply so casually that traditional, tribal moral values in Africa are more sexually permissive than the Middle East's.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read up on the success againt AIDS in Uganda. Their approach has been a very high emphasis on asbtinence. Compare this with other African countries that have focused on means such as condom distribution.

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, why does the Church focus exclusively on sexual abstinence and refuses to acknowledge the need for sexual education, in parralel?

Answer : Because that would mean people would gain the knowledge that would lead them to a healthier and improved sex life. But anything that promotes personal pleasure ("mindless sex" for instance - yummy!) is anathema to the Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

Answer: Because the Church believes that abstinence is the only acceptable way of approaching sex outside of marriage. Furthermore, the Church is focused on spiritual wellbeing, which sex education doesnt exactly apply to outside of what I have already talked about. Pope John Paul II's body of work known collectively as the Theology of the Body deals in depth with human sexuality and its role. Which brings me to your second assertion,

[ QUOTE ]
But anything that promotes personal pleasure ("mindless sex" for instance - yummy!) is anathema to the Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is a great of example of hyperbole. I'll leave it at that. I am sure anyone with half a brain can think of many things that promote personal pleasure that the Church supports and even condones, sex included so long as it is within marriage.

[ QUOTE ]
For the last three hundred years, after the time of the French and the American revolutions, humankind has advanced by leaps and bounds in matters of philosophy, science and politics

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the Church had a large hand in this progress, mostly through their preservation of Western Civilization. Lets not forget that much of what we take for granted now in terms of values, etc. had their roots in Christian philosophy, e.g. inherent dignity of human beings.