Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Lorac, Feb 11, 2013.
So he is against equal marriage, right?
From what I can tell, like pope John Paul I he took "the first" as part of his name. No waiting for a second. This surprised me as it seems the opposite of humble, as he is described. It is like implying that someone will honor you by taking the name the second. I'm sure that wasn't his intention, but its how I see it ,
I say it closer to jez oo whit, but the z isn't really hard.
Wow, that's actually quite amazing. I guess he's probably going have to become more hardline now but I am really impressed by this!
So, I'm reading Catholicism for Dummies right now, because I was raised an Atheist, have never read the Bible, and mostly understand squat about it, and just last night the part I read specifically said that the Pope is infallible in terms of teaching/guarding matters faith and morality to Catholics. He's not infallible when it comes to history, politics, etc., but morality is one of the two important matters in which he is supposed to be infallible and is in charge of, so to speak. So I find this interesting.
If the book is wrong, though, feel free to tell me.
He is only infallible when he chooses to specifically issue an infallible statement of doctrine. He is not infallible when he picks out his shoes or decides how to cook his eggs for breakfast or even when he speaks or writes on a matter of faith, morality or doctrine without invoking infallibility. Invoking it is called speaking "ex cathedra" literally "from the throne/chair". It is actually rare for popes to do so at all.
The book made it sound like he is infallible in those two subjects no matter what. It said that Catholics believe that if a Pope ever attempts to say something regarding faith or morality that is not in line with God's wishes then God will in some way prevent it from happening, even if it means striking down the Pope.
I am not sure of what that means.
He is against the use of the word "marriage" to describe the legal binding, something to do with the religious meaning of the word in itself.
He is against "gay adoption" because he thinks that it is a form of child discrimination (which, thankfully, almost everybody in the country thinks is idiotic)
Marriage is sacred, don't ya know?
That is the way it is commonly misunderstood. Just last Friday, I had a nasty (and non-Catholic) relative on my case about the pope infallibly declaring we can't eat meat on Fridays during Lent and how silly I am to believe such things. Except that lenten abstinences are practices not dogmas or doctrines and are not infallible teachings at all. In fact, they can differ from place to place.
The last pope to issue an infallible or ex cathedra doctrine was Pius XII in 1950. Matters of morality and most matters of doctrine are typically the result of consensus of the magisterium rather than by popes alone.
Here is an informative article about the matter: http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings
Thank you! This whole subject makes me feel like... well, a dummy
IceAlisa - I say jez-you-it. No idea if that's right, but that's how everyone I know says it!
Thanks! That's sort of how I say it. All these TV anchors have me confused.
Yes, this is correct. He is just Pope Francis.
Sometimes, bek, I wonder where you get your information and whether you just make things up to make it sound like you know what you're talking about.
When you consider that there weren't any Catholic religious orders to speak of until the Early Middle Ages, it turns out that about a sixth of all Popes during the pertinent time period did belong to religious orders, including four out of the last twenty popes (over the course of two centuries) before the accession of the new pope. That's hardly avoidance.
I generally go with what I read. Today I looked up the whole Adam thing and I actually was shocked to read must be a descendant in that sense source was wrong. I had read in terms of articles I read that generally popes aren't from orders. And here's the thing Vagabond, I am not sure what your saying here proofs me wrong.
16% is a small percentage-its not even a quarter. Nobody's saying Popes don't come from orders; however, mots popes don't.
And here's the thing a lot of those orders you are mentioning and I haven't had a chance to look them up, a lot of them are a lot older than the Jesuits-centuries older.
There are some things that I do feel more knowledgeable about I'm not the most knowledgeable on the church's position on science although I know I can believe in evolution, the Saints, or orders of Popes.
The Benedictines were formed in 529, and are the oldest of the listed Religious Orders from Vagabond's post.
bek, if you don't understand the difference between "generally" and "always," there's not much point in responding to your last post except to say en parlant de mots, il faut épeler les mots correctement. (Pardon my French.)
I am not sure why I worded that way. I know I said "always avoided" however I meant avoided in the sense of something not preferred. In general and I was hearing this a lot, the conclave tended to steer away from members of orders. However I wasn't actually trying to make the claim that people from orders NEVER happened...
In terms of infallible we believe the Church teaching and not just the pope is infallible on faith and morals. However, the Church also has to declare it infallible. Not everything the pope says even in regards to faith and morals is infallible because there are issues that the Church is actually praying about, contemplating it. Declaring something infallibly also puts in the Church in the position of having to keep it.
One thing I liked about Pope Benedict is in his series Jesus of Nazareth he stated nothing in her is infallible, feel free to criticize etc...
I am glad Pope Francis is from the developing world and has knowledge of all the issues there. And that he's a Cardinal too who turned away from the Palace etc, in an area where so many had nothing.
I am not one of those who thinks the Church should for example sell all of its art. Does the Pieta truly belong in someone's private collection? And I would imagine too that if the Church attempted to sell of such things, the Italian government would well very quickly step in..There is a balance.
I am hopeful though that this new Pope will lead to Romero's canonization and the embrace of Romero's message. Romero was not a liberation theologian in the sense that he was only concerned with the material world. He actually condemned both Marxism and facism. He though was a man who called deeply for social justice, and of course such things got him killed and enemies throughout the world including the Church.
I think Romero hasn't been embraced as a Saint (partly because the Church understandably doesn't want Che Guevera along with a Catholic Saint together on a poster... But I have no doubt 100 years from now Romero will be a saint, and 500 years from now he may be considered as influential as a Francis...
(It still shocks me that there's even a question of Romero being considered not a Martyr. Anyone would would kill someone during the Sacrifice of the Mass (kill at all but during the Mass) is showing hatred of the faith.
Bek said popes from specific orders were avoided, not all orders. Jesuits promise
Jesuits are not even supposed to become bishops. So having one become a pope is very unusual, he had to have some sort of exception. Other orders don't necessarily have the same restriction.
I hope this is true and Pope Francis is really cleaning house:
New Pope bans Cardinal Law from church, reports British tabloid
I'm cautiously optimistic.
Le Figaro says the Pope Francis gets up at 4:30 am and that he is not to be called Francis I, the Vatican insists, and certainly not to be confused with the French king Francis I.
Also, it says that he is missing a piece of the lung, not the whole lung and that while he has never revealed the nature of his illness, specialists think it was TB. Le Figaro also says that he withdrew from the 2005 race with Ratzinger citing poor health and that his health is indeed fragile. OTOH, the Vatican spokesman says that "those who know him, had always seen him in good health."
More here in French: http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-fr...ispensables-a-savoir-sur-le-pape-francois.php
A round-about spokesperson answer, if you ask me. Regardless, I hope he stays healthy and strong. He is going to be busy.
I am cautiously optimistic, too, and thought of Romero immediately when I heard who was chosen Pope. I have a collection of Romero's homilies, I just remembered, that I will have to dig out and read through.
Anyway, one thing about Pope Francis I liked was reading about him criticizing priests for refusing to baptize children of single mothers. I like a lot of what I have read of him criticizing other priests or bishops for being the opposite of pastoral. Cautiously optimistic....
It turns out that maybe he did.
Cardinal was in physical relationship with accuser
This makes me very happy to hear. When it was originally reported that he selected the name Francis I I thought that was so haughty. Let him be the first when later there is the second.
I thought this was an interesting debate on whether Pope Francis is Latino. Seems to be the Latinos in the article can't agree among themselves. Does being Latino means being part of the culture, ethnicity or both?
If he ever pulls up stakes again and moves to the United States, I might call him a Latino. While he's living in the Vatican, in my book he's just another elderly white guy.
Latinos can be any race/ethnic origin from what the SF Gate article says. I would think that includes whites. The Free Online dictionary defines it as (1) a Latin American and (2) someone of Latin American origin living in the US. This implies one doesn't have to reside in the US to merit the term, although usually one does. Confusion reigns.
Well, I can tell you that here in Puerto Rico there's absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that he's Latino, of Italian ancestry. This discussion about who's Latino and who's not is just a lot of navel gazing by American Latinos. And I say this as a Latina myself, who has been told that I'm not Latina enough because I'm white and from Puerto Rico so I "couldn't" understand the struggles of illegal immigrants and didn't really encounter racial or ethnic prejudice against me in all the time I was in the US.
When I was living in the mainland US, it always struck me how some Latino activists tended to exclude people from their group based on race and class. It was annoying. Who where they to decide who felt Latino and who didn't? It was self defeating, really, and just fostered animosity and division.
IMO, Latino groups are not that way as much anymore.
I recently was able to hear a convincing and concised sum up.
John Paul II was elected pope for political reasons: he was the breach that should have backed up catholicism in Poland and fight comunism and the eastern block. A lot of money destinated to that cause, that many people, countries and institutions couldn't have been able to give openly, transited through the Vatican Bank. In that contest, a lot of laundry money went on too.
John Paul II also seemed to have a natural way of communicating with people. Pope Benedict XVI had a very long relationship with John Paul II, and they never really disagreed on anything, except the handling of the pedophilia amongst priests issue: John Paul II and his Secretary of State Sodano, wanted to keep things under the wrap, both to preserve the image of the Catholic Church and for financial reasons (not so much the money they'd have to pay to victims - although that too - but the money some known pedophilies were able to raise, and the way they had to attract large numbers of catholics into churchs and future priests into seminars.
Pope Benedict XVI was convinced that not only the Church should have had pedophilia scandals blow, but it should have let priests being brought to trials, and not just wait for after death justice. He did what he could (well, he could have done more, but I'm going to say about this in a moment) to start this process as soon as he knew John Paul was dying.
Pope Benedict XVI was elected because John Paul's era was considered successful, and cardinals thought Benedict was going to be the natural appendix to that. Wrong: Benedict couldn't charm people, and attendance in Rome to his functions started to go thinner. Also, Benedict wanted to clean up the dirt arond sex, abuse and money, that got even deeper while John Paul was sick.
Benedict tried, and we really know he tried because he found himself completely alone. He started to make mistakes and say stuff in fron of the press that could have been easily spared, had he got people around him to advice him in the areas he lacked the most.
So he wanted to be effective on the pedophilia issue, and only achieved small steps, because he was fighting alone against his crew. And he obtained nothing at all on the verge of the Vatican Bank: Gotti Tedeschi was made president of the Vatican Bank to reforme it, and he found himself at some point bringing home files, prooves, writing diaries and fearing for his own life, until he was let go. And the Vatican Bank, many believe, prooved itself to be unreformable.
Benedict was a conservative catholic, that's very true. He sucked at communication. But he was clean and he wanted a clean Church. And that's rare in there. In my opinion, nothing counts more.
Benedict personal secretary decided to leak a number of documents to tell that story, as he was seeing Benedict struggle and being left alone to hang himself with his own weaknesses, such as publically saing that condoms are infact going to aggravate the spreading of STDs.
Benedict didn't really want to be elected pope in 2005, and there are things that lead to think he was contemplating to quit from 2009.
Francis was the closest in line to be elected in 2005, after Benedict. But he said he wasn't ready, so there it went.
I wish you were right about that. I guess it depends what part of the world you look at.
-- One final thought: Benedict tried to be clean and payed a huge price. Whoever comes after him, knows that the attempt is going to put him on the spot, so it'sll take twice the courage. For a number of reasons, I don't see that happening, I'm cautiosly pessimistic.
Do you respond to this type of comment, Jimena, or do you bite your tongue? And if you do respond, what do you say?
I am always fascinated how judgmental, bigoted, and presumptuous people can be when telling others that they "can't" or "don't" understand something about discrimination, cultural identity, etc.
It's true though. You're not going to encounter racial and ethnic prejudice if you are perceived as white. At least not to the same extent as if you were seen as 'coloured.'
You must not have spent very much time in places with a substantial non-white population.
More specifically, with substantial Latino populations.
There's white and there's white in the US at least and always has been, and white skin doesn't give one automatic entry into white-white. At various times and still in specific places Jews aren't white people, Italians aren't white people, Irish aren't white people, Catholics aren't white people, immigrants from places that have only white people aren't white people, and Latinos aren't white people.
When I read Jimena's comment, I though of a Mexican friend who is Caucasian, who when moving out west to join her husband and started a job hunt, although the market was strong all the time and she had a degree from one of the Top 10 MBA programs and terrific job experience back East, got zero response when she used her maiden name, and as soon as she changed it to her (very Anglo) married name, suddenly was actively recruited, and this was in a region where the high tech industry has thousands of Chinese- and Indian-born employees, and it's not an isolated place ethnically.
I don't think you got my point. Whatever they thought about my experience in the US, I'm Latina. Period. Even if I haven't lived through those struggles myself, I have close family (parents and siblings) and friends that have gone through that, and it doesn't mean I'm not "Latina", or that I don't identify with those struggles, or that it doesn't piss me off that some people think they can get away with saying racist things in front of me or to me because I have a very good education, or I barely have an accent, or my skin is pale and I can pass as white (which, I'm not, at least as it is generally defined in the US. We're all racially mixed in PR in some way or another.).
And don't you think it's prejudice when some members of an ethnic group tell me that I'm not Latina enough? Hell, Spanish is my first language, I was raised dancing Salsa and with Latin American soap operas, reading Mafalda and very aware of the US history in Latin America, the dictatorships and human rights abuses and the plight of the indigenous populations. There are a lot of Latinos in the US who do not have any of that history and still consider themselves Latinos. Who am I to deny them what they truly believe they are? The more the merrier, IMO. And our presence is stronger because of our diversity.
Jimena, as a Latina who has been told I'm too white or pale or speak too proper to really be Latina, I could not agree more. You took the words right out of my mouth!
So sounds like being Latino/Latina is more about culture than race. In which case Pope Francis qualifies.
But all it takes is saying where you're from.
Then comes the classical "But you don't look Brazilian/Latin!"
I realize I may be walking on eggshells here, so I'm already apologizing in case it comes across wrong.
Everyone looks Latin. Specially in places like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay... due to heavy immigration form basically everywhere in the world.
The whole latino label seems more related to the indigenous people of Latin America.
The Brazilian community in US and Canada is huge, yet they are not called latinos.
I'm as white as white gets, with French and German last names, born, raised and residing in South America.
I'm Latina. I think it's about culture, regardless of skin color.
From my experience, being Latino simply refers to originating from a country in Latin America. One can be any race and still be Latino. But I see people differentiating between those who are meztizo, and everyone else. Colloquially that can take the form of "She's not really Latino--she's white."
I tend to see those distinctions more in the West/SW.
That happens to me too, I'm Latina, but white and green-eyed, I have Italian last names (my grandparents) and my married name is Chinese (his grandparents). I when I have new patients expecting Dr. Chou to be Chinese and I come out
Pope Francis is definitely Latin, here the news was one of our own is Pope... even if the people here don't like Argentinians* all that much
*Porque siempre nos ganan en futbol
I did get your point. But I can also understand the point of view of the activists who told you what they did because it's also true that you're much less likely to encounter racism when you can pass as white. So there's a certain level of prejudice which you will not encounter and they do.
Separate names with a comma.