Pope Benedict XVI Resigning as Pope!!

[heckles]

I understand that you believe it to be as you have described it. From someone who is not Catholic, it is hard to know the rules of the Catholic church. I would attend Mass with my college roommate. I knew that there were rules about who could and could not take communion, but thought from my point of view that it was offered to me freely. So I participated - now it seems that I was not ready or totally trained/engulfed in what it means?

Many Protestant denominations practice "open communion" or "open table", in which someone who was eligible to communion in one Christian denomination, including Catholicism, is also eligible for communion at their services. A Catholic visiting a Presbyterian service can receive communion, but the Catholics will not return to the favor to a visiting Presbyterian.

[overedge]

Well they were former Episcopalian Churches.. That are now in the Catholic Church but use an Anglican Use rite...

So they are now Catholic churches. What they started out as is irrelevant. I am pretty sure, from what I know of parishes like this, that they don't want to be known as former Episcopalians either.

[bek]

So they are now Catholic churches. What they started out as is irrelevant. I am pretty sure, from what I know of parishes like this, that they don't want to be known as former Episcopalians either.

Of course they are Catholics now! I was just saying the service was molded after the Anglican services because there were a lot of differences between that and my normal mass. I didn't mean to affend anyone it is Catholic not Anglican.

[Rob]

It appears he believes he is too old and weak in body to continue with the office. He has apparently been told not to take any more transatlantic flights and feels he cannot represent the papacy as he feels it should be.

The pope is pooped.

[agalisgv]

How did you arrive at that figure? From what I know, it's 4-12% depending on the surveys and we can never have a close estimate anyway because of all the obvious reasons (people being closeted, not wanting to reveal it even confidentially, people being unsure, sexuality being fluid and so on and so forth).

I'm just focusing on the US population--it could be different elsewhere. The most reliable estimates I've seen have the LGBT population in the US to be around 1-5%, with the consensus number at around 3.5%. The most recent Gallup survey (the most reliable estimate available) confirms a 3.5% figure.

This is the largest single study of the distribution of the LGBT population in the U.S. on record, and the first time a study has had large enough sample sizes to provide estimates of the LGBT population by state.

...All states are within a couple of percentage points of the overall LGBT national average of 3.5%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160517/lg...th-dakota.aspx

Of that, gay men are considered to be disproportionately more represented in that figure than women--hence gay men likely make up about 2% of the overall population.

Numbers like the Kinsey report estimating 10% or more of the population being gay have been pretty widely debunked. Here's Sullivan's commentary on why some estimated the LGBT numbers to be considerably higher than they were/are:

When I was a newbie gay, the mantra was 10 percent. We were “one in ten”. Seriously.

This immediately struck me at the time as a) obviously propaganda and b) ridiculously insecure. There was no way to know for sure, given the ubiquity of the closet back in the 1980s, but ten percent is a hell of a lot of people: 30 million. Why did I keep bumping into faces I recognized wherever I was in the US? If it were really ten percent, where were they all?

And why on earth does it matter if we make up 10 percent or 1 percent? A minority’s civil rights are not dependent on how many of them there are or how large a segment of society they form... It struck me then and now as part of a wearying tendency among some gays to think that every straight dude is just a few beers away from being gay (that’s not how it works); or a desperation to feel somehow more significant because of larger numbers.

Which simply make it all the more of a relief to see that Gallup has finally come up with a believable number of around 3.5 percent.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/17/3-5-percent/

[nlloyd]

I believe Catholicism is right although I could see the claims of the Oriental/Eastern Orthodox mainly because I can't believe Christ wanted 50,000 denominations...

I guess what I don't understand is how you have come to make this issue of unity and uniformity the single most important criterion in deciding on your faith tradition. Is it a biblically based criterion? I don't see Christ prioritizing it in his teachings and you seem to acknowledge that when you say, "I can't believe Christ wanted . . ." Is it based on what the Pope says? If so, that would be circular reasoning. Why would you not follow the Church whose teachings were most similar to those of Christ, as you understood them? To me it would make more sense if you argued that the Catholic Church's teachings best encapsulated the teachings of Christ and that this is the reason you've embraced Catholicism. But that is not what you're arguing here.

[rjblue]

All:The's Lord's Prayer- first part

Priest: Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day in your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ. All:For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and for ever.

Men choosing the priesthood CAN be openly gay or openly straight. They just have to be take a vow of celibacy for the Western Rite.

I've been reading up on some of the more likely candidates. It is interesting how some of them have had clearly more liberal statements or actions and then "clarified" their statements. And in the haze of coverage of the churches handling of sexual and birth control issues, the tremendous effort of many of these powerful men on behalf of the poor and opressed doesn't get enough coverage.

My daughter is a member of Catholics for Choice, and my 80 year old mother is going to a protest in front of our cathedral with some nuns she is friends with, in support of empowering women in the Church. I'm glad my family is working for change within.

[allezfred]

And in the haze of coverage of the churches handling of sexual and birth control issues, the tremendous effort of many of these powerful men on behalf of the poor and opressed doesn't get enough coverage.

It shouldn't be getting any coverage while they are propagating the Church's dangerous teaching on sexuality.

[cruisin]

It shouldn't be getting any coverage while they are propagating the Church's dangerous teaching on sexuality.

Why shouldn't they cover the men and women who are trying to change things?

[bek]

I guess what I don't understand is how you have come to make this issue of unity and uniformity the single most important criterion in deciding on your faith tradition. Is it a biblically based criterion? I don't see Christ prioritizing it in his teachings and you seem to acknowledge that when you say, "I can't believe Christ wanted . . ." Is it based on what the Pope says? If so, that would be circular reasoning. Why would you not follow the Church whose teachings were most similar to those of Christ, as you understood them? To me it would make more sense if you argued that the Catholic Church's teachings best encapsulated the teachings of Christ and that this is the reason you've embraced Catholicism. But that is not what you're arguing here.

Because I think its difficult for me to go back 2,000 years and recreate Christ's Church. I'm 2,000 years removed. Folks have been doing this for centuries.

For me what I felt like was your not sure, why not look at what the earliest sources have to say about baptism Communion. Because they are closer to Christ/apostolic teaching than you are. There's some gaps. But I frankly like that Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy take this position. It involves a lot of humbleness. And it also takes into account Scripture's promise to send the Holy Spirit and guide the Church... This promise was for all generations...

Then there's the fact that I think a lot of fighting that honestly I have no clue what position Christ wants? Some of these issues especially the controversy between the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics that completely go over my head. There's a lot of language and cultural differences going on as well. For me though if its very difficult for me to understand, I suspect its difficult for a lot of folks to understand too. So in the end is it really worth breaking off?

At the end of the day God is beyond all of our comprehension. And there are thing about Him and aspects of him we are going to spend eternity trying to understand if not longer. I think there has to be a means of settling things types of arguments... And asking yourself am I really right?

Plus too in somethings they are really not fighting over too... Accepting that just like I don't get to make judgments on what's Constitutional or not, I can accept that maybe I don't get to decide if we are going to baptize babies or not. (although I'll decide with my kid).. I'm okay with this. There has to be some kind of order.

And I think this order is Scriptural. I guess I can say too my biggest concern with going just what I think Christ taught is how easy it is to make what I want, whether than what is actually true. For example I'd probably want to be able to just say the Sinners prayer than do whatever I want (I know most who believes this don't teach this but.). However it doesn't make this true... Scripture talks about Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.. It also mentions no prophecy of Scripture being off private interperation.

In the end I'm convinced Catholicism is right about Scripture being read in the lens of the Church and being read as the Whole Church as read it. And one thing I like is that having this kind of Tradition also keeps our leaders in check theologically too...

Everyone is different though. Please don't get me wrong if the Pope ever got up there and attacked a dogma, clearly taught truth. I.e like the Eucharist.. I'd be taking serious things. But things less defined, things that can go either way... Well for that....

[allezfred]

Why shouldn't they cover the men and women who are trying to change things?

Read the sentence that I quoted again. None of the people within the Catholic church trying to change things can be classed as powerful.

[skatesindreams]

None of the people within the Catholic church trying to change things can be classed as powerful.

If they never make the attempt; they stand no chance of having influence at all.

[allezfred]

If they never make the attempt; they stand no chance of having influence at all.

The Vatican suppresses any freedom of expression by its clergy. You should change your sentence to "if they make the attempt, they stand no chance of having influence at all."

Just to demonstrate the nastiness of the people that people like bek look to for moral guidance, apparently the pope resigning is all the fault of THE GAYS!

[Angelskates]

Vatican scandal cited in Pope resignation

[bek]

The Vatican suppresses any freedom of expression by its clergy. You should change your sentence to "if they make the attempt, they stand no chance of having influence at all."

Just to demonstrate the nastiness of the people that people like bek look to for moral guidance, apparently the pope resigning is all the fault of THE GAYS!

Whoa! First of all gay or straight priests/cardinals etc have a vow of celibacy. So them acting quite a bit different in real life is a major, major issue. And its not just that but also the vatican bank and other issues. Pope Benedict gets a lot of the blame for the sex abuse scandals but i hate to say it however most of this happened in John Paul II watch. I think Benedict is thinking he needs someone in there young enough to handle all of this.

And second I go with the Church as long as they stick to Church teachings and that includes nothing-new. So its not really them in and of itself I'm listening too...

[IceAlisa]

Vatican scandal cited in Pope resignation

[michiruwater]

Agal, where did you get your stats for the 50%+ figures for Catholic priests being gay?

[Latte]

I didn't read this thread so this may have been said before.
My gut feeling is that there is some scandal that he is mixed up in that he has been told to resign or it will come out.
It may have happened decades ago.

[PDilemma]

I didn't read this thread so this may have been said before.
My gut feeling is that there is some scandal that he is mixed up in that he has been told to resign or it will come out.
It may have happened decades ago.

I'm not arguing the existence of problems and scandals. Anything could be going on on that front. But who exactly can force the pope to "resign"? The answer, actually, is no one. He does not actually answer to anyone to hold his office. There is not even an official means to remove a rogue pope in canon law. Technically, he did not "resign" at all, he "renounced" or "abdicated" much as a monarch would.

[Latte]

The whole congress of cardinals could "suggest it" and the press could threaten to publish.
In that way he could be "forced" to resign to save himself embarrassment or who knows, criminal charges.
This was just a thought on why he resigned, not a statement of truth.