Pope Benedict XVI Resigning as Pope!!

[MacMadame]

The first priest was senile and didn't check the record, but the second time, the priest did check the record and refused to baptize my poor bastard daughter until my FIL made a donation to the church. Then everyone was all smiles and the baptism took place just as if we had had that sacrament after all.

That sounds about right.

My husband and I were raised Catholic and were actually practicing at the time we got married. So we got married in our parish church. Because we were baptized and confirmed, no questions were asked. We were living together, are pro-choice, and think women should be priests and there's nothing wrong with being gay. But there were no issues with our marriage being sanctified.

The idea that the Catholic Church is seen by some as a bastion of religious purity standing firm in its beliefs as it is assailed from within and without by the forces of liberalism amuses me. The Catholic Chuch might lag behind the curve, but the Church has been quite willing to adapt and absorb the world's heathen ways whenever it has been seen as necessary enough.

Well, yes, I remember when the mass was all in Latin and we all abstained from eating meat on Fridays and how shocked some my neighbors were by Vatican II. But I think the Church is kind of like the Republican Party now. They are clinging to the hard-core traditional beliefs with all their might whereas at other points in history they seemed more flexible and willing to compromise.

[escaflowne9282]

I hope he and his boyfriend will be very happy.

(My apologies if somebody already used a similar joke, I couldn't be bothered to read anything other than the first few posts! )

Well, this thread apparently has him and Ziggy playing the Odd Couple. God I love that show.

[nlloyd]

Jesus changed practices. Jesus did not change fundamental teachings. For example on the issue of healing on the Sabbath Jesus asked "is it wrongful to do good on the Sabbath" Jesus was calling them out because they were keeping some outward signs of the Law but not the heart of the Law. Jesus would say that the whole point of the Law was "Here Oh Israel the Lord your God is One. You shall Love the Lord your God with all your Heart, Soul and Might, and Your Neighbor as Yourself." That was always the main law. And that was the point Jesus was trying to make. The purification laws and the rituals they all were there for a purpose and served a point. However they were never suppose to be more important than the main law which was loving your neighbor as your self! So what Jesus was trying to say is don't you understand? Don't you understand what the main Law is and that this is how everything else should flow from?

See, here I think you are making a rather fine (unsustainable) distinction. I think that for Jewish people in Jesus's era not healing on the sabbath was a moral value and not just a practice. For me, Christ was criticizing those Jewish leaders who made a moral value out of a practice.

I like your theology about the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. I just think that you don't take it far enough. I think Jesus's teachings were far more radical than you portray. For me, for example, today Jesus would accept homosexuality and value homosexuals precisely because in so doing he would demonstrate the importance of love in his teachings. Not some vague, airy-fairy notion of love, but a love that revolutionizes the Church, theology, social institutions by reminding us what they should actually be about. I think that for this reason the gospel resides with those who have been excluded and denigrated; they are those who understand its radical meaning best.

[IceAlisa]

Can you guys please explain to this non-practicing Jew what non-healing on Sabbath means? Does this mean if you are sick, you cannot receive medical care on Sabbath? That would be What's the moral value in that?

[paskatefan]

In (rabbinic) Judaism, saving a life takes precedence over observing the Sabbath (and other major Jewish holidays). I can't speak for Catholicism/Christianity since I was raised as a Conservative (middle of the road) Jew, and continue as such to this day (affiliated with an egalitarian Conservative synagogue).

[agalisgv]

You could, and did argue that celibacy is mandatory to be able to devote his time to his parishioners.

Well, no, she didn't argue that. She said there are downsides to having families when you are in the ministry, and that's true.

Since both you and suep have publicly identified as Methodist, I'll point out that in the Methodist tradition, a person can only enter the ministry if their spouse fully supports it. Why? Because the rigors of ministry are very hard on marriages and responsible for a great many divorces. This is widely known in the denomination and in other denominations, so spouses are screened along with the ministerial candidate.

Suep's comment that pastoring is just a job like any other I think is off the mark as well (and counter to church teachings on the matter). The expectation is that when you enter the ministry (even in Protestant circles), it's a lifelong commitment. That expectation doesn't hold for any other job. The screening involved to become a minister is unlike any other vocation one can pursue. It's called a calling for a reason, and the level of church involvement in one's private life as a clergy member is significant because of that--what pastors do in their private sphere impacts parishioners in profound ways. To say:

I think that the pastor whose wife had an affair with another man in the parish experiences the pain of that and can relate to others.

is to miss the point that such a situation will tear a congregation apart. That's not what pastors are called to do. There's a reason there's a scriptural injunction against leaders in the church serving when they have messed-up families. Such issues can and do tear apart churches. There's really no other position where your private life so directly impacts your ability to fulfill your calling as it does in ministry. Pointing that out doesn't necessarily mean celibacy is the answer, but it is a real issue and shouldn't be glossed.

As to the issue of Jesus being a radical departure in his day, I think it's pretty clear Jesus fell into the Hillel camp at the time, but it just so happened Beit Shammai rose to power when Jesus was alive, so there was the conflict. But with the exception of the treatment of women, Jesus was pretty clearly a Hillelite.

jmho of course

[bek]

See, here I think you are making a rather fine (unsustainable) distinction. I think that for Jewish people in Jesus's era not healing on the sabbath was a moral value and not just a practice. For me, Christ was criticizing those Jewish leaders who made a moral value out of a practice.

I like your theology about the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. I just think that you don't take it far enough. I think Jesus's teachings were far more radical than you portray. For me, for example, today Jesus would accept homosexuality and value homosexuals precisely because in so doing he would demonstrate the importance of love in his teachings. Not some vague, airy-fairy notion of love, but a love that revolutionizes the Church, theology, social institutions by reminding us what they should actually be about. I think that for this reason the gospel resides with those who have been excluded and denigrated; they are those who understand its radical meaning best.

I'm sorry but your not correct here. According to Jewish law, the Sabbath is to be kept However, the Sabbath rules are to be set aside if a life can be saved. So guess what observant Jewish doctors and nurses they do their jobs on the Sabbath. Jesus's argument that it was certainly lawful to do good, help others on the Sabbath. To save lives etc. That was not some new idea in Jewish law. If anything Jesus himself was taking positions within the school of Rabbinic law. And he was trying to show these are the correct positions. He was by no means violating Jewish Law. He was fulfilling it.

I doubt the authors of the Gospels who were Jewish were thinking that Jesus was violating Jewish law. Nor Luke who had close relations with Jewish Christians. They were rather in Scripture trying to show that Jesus was showing up his critics by responding brilliantly towards their excuses. And how it was the critics who were violating the law. Unfortunately you have so many Christians 2,000 years later who don't know or understand Judaiasm and so they get the idea that these people Jesus are criticizing are clearly 100% representing Jewish law and its frankly not true.

Jesus was an observant Jew his entire live....

Jesus was making points that are clear for all of us regardless of our religion. God looks at the heart of our actions. Not the outward appearance.

And the problem with what your mentioning is Jesus never stated Jewish moral traditions in regarding sex-was wrong. He was clear the woman with several husbands that she was sinning....

Well, yes, I remember when the mass was all in Latin and we all abstained from eating meat on Fridays and how shocked some my neighbors were by Vatican II. But I think the Church is kind of like the Republican Party now. They are clinging to the hard-core traditional beliefs with all their might whereas at other points in history they seemed more flexible and willing to compromise.

These aren't dogmas. The are practices. Catholicism differentiates between practices that can change with the times and with the needs of the people. And dogmas that don't change. Vatican II felt some changes in practices were made but it didn't change any core teachings. Its unforunate though that the changes were not fully explained.

[Skittl1321]

Hon I'm an atheist, and I find the Catholic church in most ways quite awful, but it is very closely linked to my culture.

If you are an atheist then you don't believe in God so God's word against sinning probably doesn't matter to you. If you really want a Catholic wedding, just tell them you plan to raise your kids Catholic, only you know in your heart it isn't true. It's not like they go back and check later. Morally to someone who is not religious, it is a little white lie that doesn't hurt anyone in anyway, so it is up to you whether or not you could do that.

I actually know someone who went to confession to tell a priest that her family had a change of heart and her kids would not be raised Catholic. When she and her husband (not a Catholic) made the statement, she meant it, and she didn't know he didn't. In the end- they baptised them Catholic, but they didn't go further than that. The Church doesn't unmarry you and and take your kids away.

[Norlite]

I don't think God is all that happy with this decision.

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2...s-announcement

[GarrAarghHrumph]

However in our Church, priests can be sent anywhere at any time, there's no family to think about or consider. That makes them more flexible. They can be moved any where at a moments notice because there frankly isn't the ties.

I know John Paul II was very strong on keeping a celibate church. Partly because back in his days in Poland John Paul from what I understand did a lot of very dangerous risky things against the Communists (and maybe the Nazis too). He feels that he was partly able to take these stances-do these things because he didn't have a families safety to worry about.

This is true of some other professions where people can have families, though. The military, for example. There are also certain civilian roles which require constant travel/sudden moves to far-off destinations, some of which are "hardship posts." So it's not necessarily the case that being married/with family makes one less able to serve in these types of jobs. It's more about the expectations of the job, and knowing them upfront when you sign up, and being allowed to make that choice for yourself.

I believe that allowing priests (and nuns) to marry will get more people into these roles. The church has said there is a shortage of religious, and this would help bring more people into these roles. What do you think?

[MacMadame]

If you are an atheist then you don't believe in God so God's word against sinning probably doesn't matter to you. If you really want a Catholic wedding, just tell them you plan to raise your kids Catholic, only you know in your heart it isn't true. It's not like they go back and check later. Morally to someone who is not religious, it is a little white lie that doesn't hurt anyone in anyway, so it is up to you whether or not you could do that.

No, it doesn't work like that. Just because one is an atheist doesn't mean it's not against ones own personal moral code to lie like that. It would be against mine and it would be against a lot of atheist's moral code.

And, bek, your = it belongs to you; you're is 'you are'.

[Skittl1321]

No, it doesn't work like that. Just because one is an atheist doesn't mean it's not against ones own personal moral code to lie like that. It would be against mine and it would be against a lot of atheist's moral code.

You'll notice I say "it is up to you whether or not you could do that." I think severity of the lie makes a difference, and to me- if an atheist did this, it is a little white lie that does no harm. It's like telling the person at the supermarket you're 'great' when they ask "how are you?", when really it has been a miserable day and there are a million things wrong.

I don't believe atheists are immoral, but I also don't believe there is a person on the Earth who hasn't lied about something. Since plenty of Catholics who are marrying non-Catholics lie about this one, I don't really think it would be that troubling from an atheist. I would have a very hard time lying inside of a church to a priest, but if you don't believe in the sanctity of it, how is it different from a small lie in any other facet of your life?

Now, if you lied to your partner about it, intentionally, that is not a little white lie!

the assumption that atheists don't have a moral code.

I don't believe this at all, and clearly chose my words wrong. Merely that GOD's word about sinning is unimportant, since there is no belief in God, so any lie told in the church is no different than a lie told in normal life. For people who are religious, the church is more sacred than normal life, so there is a different line.

Atheists also don't believe in the 10 commandments, and thus their decision not to murder people has nothing to do with God telling them not to. Rather it is just because they really ought not do that.

[Corianna]

Someone on FSU signed with the tag, "I just discovered I'm a nontheist." Unfortunately I can't remember who, and can't find it again. I googled the word, and discovered it wasn't made up, but has a long history in theological discussions. It's right on topic for what you're talking about re: the assumption that atheists don't have a moral code. BTW I think we are the next minority group that should come out of the closet and demand respect and equality.

[Southpaw]

Well, this thread apparently has him and Ziggy playing the Odd Couple. God I love that show.

I can watch that episode when the tour bus from Częstochowa shows up at Ziggy's apartment at 3am over. And over. And over again.

[DarrellH]

New Pope name? Pope n' Fresh

[Kruss]

My cousin in Italy's comment: "I knew it, I knew it! Berlusconi wants to be Pope!"

[nlloyd]

I'm sorry but your not correct here. According to Jewish law, the Sabbath is to be kept However, the Sabbath rules are to be set aside if a life can be saved. So guess what observant Jewish doctors and nurses they do their jobs on the Sabbath. Jesus's argument that it was certainly lawful to do good, help others on the Sabbath. To save lives etc. That was not some new idea in Jewish law. If anything Jesus himself was taking positions within the school of Rabbinic law. And he was trying to show these are the correct positions. He was by no means violating Jewish Law. He was fulfilling it.

<snip>

Jesus was making points that are clear for all of us regardless of our religion. God looks at the heart of our actions. Not the outward appearance.

Bek, I’m not talking about contemporary Jewish law, but rather about the mores that existed during Jesus’s time. I don’t dispute the fact that Jesus was an observant Jew throughout his life. Those Christians who argue otherwise seem often to contribute to an anti-semitic strand within Christianity. What I am saying is that his teaching/behavior challenged those who took too rigid an approach to the law and/or to the mores of the day. I see this in his staying behind in the temple in Jerusalem as a twelve-year old (against his parents wishes), preventing men from stoning the women caught in adultery, befriending women, identifying social outcasts as his community. There seems to me to be a critique here of how religion was practised by some of his audience, an internal critique within Judaism. If this was not the case, why did those who saw Jesus heal on the Sabbath remain silent when he asked them “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” Why did he even need to ask that question?

For me, if God looks at the "heart of our actions," I think God would be appalled by those churches/Christians who compel gays and lesbians to make a choice between between their spirituality and sexuality, two such core aspects of our being. The refusal of these Christians to review long-held morals, teachings, traditions despite the very real suffering they cause others is, for me, equivalent to those in Jesus's audience who would refuse healing to those who sought it on the sabbath.

Agalisgv, I would be interested in learning more about the divisions within Judaism in the first century. Could you say more about this? I do feel, however, that the presence of a regular critique by Jesus, as represented in the gospels – whether aimed at the Beit Shammai or more broadly based – serves as sufficient grounds for my argument. One could take a rigidly historical-critical approach and reduce Jesus’s teachings to the simple feud between two factions within Judaism, but what would the import of that be for Christians? I think that it is because of the absence of a careful, sufficiently relevant interpretation of scripture, tradition, teachings, that many leave the Church.

[Prancer]

You'll notice I say "it is up to you whether or not you could do that." I think severity of the lie makes a difference, and to me- if an atheist did this, it is a little white lie that does no harm. It's like telling the person at the supermarket you're 'great' when they ask "how are you?", when really it has been a miserable day and there are a million things wrong.

Since it was up to me, I would have to say that I don't equate those two at all.

Saying "Great" when I'm having a bad day is being polite and not subjecting the person who asked to an unwanted harangue about my bad day.

Saying that I will raise my children as Catholics when I have no intention of doing so would be lying about something important to both me and the people I was lying to in order to get what I want. I consider such a lie an excellent example of lack of integrity. It has nothing to do with God or sinning from my perspective, although I do think that other perspectives should be considered in such things; it has to do with what I consider a standard of moral conduct for myself.

I would have no more trouble telling a priest a social lie than I would anyone else; I don't see promising to raise my children a certain way or not as a social lie. I take raising children seriously. I take promises seriously. Lying about either of those things would not a be a little white lie to me.

[Anita18]

Since it was up to me, I would have to say that I don't equate those two at all.

Saying "Great" when I'm having a bad day is being polite and not subjecting the person who asked to an unwanted harangue about my bad day.

Saying that I will raise my children as Catholics when I have no intention of doing so would be lying about something important to both me and the people I was lying to in order to get what I want. I consider such a lie an excellent example of lack of integrity. It has nothing to do with God or sinning from my perspective, although I do think that other perspectives should be considered in such things; it has to do with what I consider a standard of moral conduct for myself.

I would have no more trouble telling a priest a social lie than I would anyone else; I don't see promising to raise my children a certain way or not as a social lie. I take raising children seriously. I take promises seriously. Lying about either of those things would not a be a little white lie to me.

I agree with this, and I'm not an adherent to any church. If the truth was important (especially if it was part of a life calling, like having more people in the church for a priest) to one of the parties, lying about it would make me feel terrible.

[cruisin]

It's the Episcopalian church in the US and in a few other places, but the Anglican church or Church of England everywhere else.

Yes, I knew that, but I wanted to be sure. Apparently Anglican can be incorrectly used for other Protestant groups. Thanks . Being Episcopal, I always refer to myself as Catholic Lite - all of the religion 1/2 the politics .