1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi all! No longer will threads be closed after 1000 (ish) messages. We may close if one gets so long to cause an issue and if you would like a thread closed to start a new one after a 1000 posts then just use the "Report Post" function. Enjoy!

Pope Benedict XVI Resigning as Pope!!

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Lorac, Feb 11, 2013.

  1. oleada

    oleada Well-Known Member

    Honestly? I have a couple of reasons. First, to make my mother happy. It would mean a lot to her, and since my parents will be (likely) helping finance the wedding, there might be conditions attached. Second, I'm from a very Catholic culture. My extended family was big into the Catholic Charismatic movement which was (and is) big in Latin America. I've only been to 1 non Catholic wedding, EVER, so I have a hard time imaging a wedding without the Catholic ceremony. I'm an atheist, and I find the Catholic church in most ways quite awful, but it is very closely linked to my culture.
  2. numbers123

    numbers123 Well-Known Member

    I did read the post as I assume taf and suep did. You could, and did argue that celibacy is mandatory to be able to devote his time to his parishioners. I don't see this as true. 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. I doubt that his being a pastor lead to that affair after all there are many women and men who have affairs, not just pastor's spouses. I think that the pastor who has a son who is on the streets because of drug use can relate to people with those problems, or the pastor whose newborn daughter died on Christmas can relate to his/her parish. Just as the pastor who lost his best friend to AIDS on the day his son was born. Pastors who have happy marriages - everyone of them have experiences that can be used in practice.

    Just because you believe that one has to be totally committed to something completely doesn't mean that he makes a better priest than the married priest. And children of any person who is supposedly moral or is in a public spotlight are expected to have certain behaviors. It's just how the parents and the child react to the situation that counts.
  3. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    It's not just in Germany. It's everywhere.

    I'm an atheist but I find the pomp and circumstance of the Catholic Mass to be majestic. But that's probably because I was raised Catholic so it's part of my childhood.

    I think the idea that your marriage won't be recognized by the Church unless you agree to raise your kids as Catholics to be a form of blackmail. If you say that marriage is a sacrament, then you should only let Catholics do it. Which means the non-Catholic should convert in order to be allowed. But leave any theoretical kids out of it. If you are going to let a non-Catholic be married in the Church if they agree to raise their kids as Catholic, then there is no reason you can't let them if they don't agree. You are using the fact that the person very much wants to be married in the church for whatever reason to exhort a promise out of them that they might not have given if they didn't have to in order to get married in the church. There is no ethical justification for it.
    taf2002 and (deleted member) like this.
  4. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    Replace "priest" with any job position and I think you've hit something on the head here. :) Just because someone devotes their entire life to something doesn't mean that they're necessarily better. All our life experiences give us lessons we can pass on.
  5. bek

    bek Guest

    And unmarried celibate priests don't have life experiences? Just because they never married means they don't have ailing sick family members etc. Experienced daily struggles etc.

    I'm inclined to go with whatever way the Church wants on the subject. However Paul talked about how the unmarried can be devoted to things of God whereas the married man has to focus on his wife and children. In fact there's a great recent example. I once heard James Dobson tell a story of how his father was a traveling Evangelist. And he traveled all over but James was starting to give his mother some trouble so the mother called the father and said, I need you here. So the father dropped everything all of his Evangelistic events and took a small church in Texas during James's teaching years.

    Once James went to college, the Dad went back to traveling preaching, but his ministry was never as big again. Of course his son became very successful and the father did the absolutely right thing. How can he call responsiblity to others if he's not showing responsibility to his own family.... 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.

    It is what it is, I will go with whatever my Church decides on it. And I could point you can have christian counselors who are married etc.

    As for marriage at the end of the day, I think the Church would ask how can the a Catholic who is truly Catholic and truly believes in what the Church teaches be a-okay with their children not being raised Catholic.
  6. nlloyd

    nlloyd Well-Known Member

    But should "growth" be the criterion by which Christians assess the Church's success? That doesn't sound like a scriptural value - was that Jesus's mandate? It sounds like quite a "worldly" approach to me.

    Also, what in Jesus's life leads you to believe that unchanging tradition is all important. Yes, Christ respected the Jewish traditions and institutions within which he was raised, but also opposed them or innovated on them when they ran counter to the needs of the people e.g. healing on the sabbath. For me (an erstwhile Christian and now an agnostic), it is the interpreting of the Bible and tradition in the light of contemporary needs that defines faith. It is an adventure with God, not a paint-by-numbers thing. And the need for a community of believers with whom to do this, is what gives the Church vitality and makes it relevant.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  7. bek

    bek Guest

    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?

    That's why the Good Samaritan is such a great story with the Levite in the Priest who passed the man on the side of the road probably because of purification laws. They had to be pure for the temple and to "worship God". However, Jesus was saying how is that truly worshiping God?

    And the point is correct leaving the man besides the side of the road violates Jewish law. Essentially what you have in all of those stories is just Jesus calling out a few for their legalism. It was really unlawful to do good on the Sabbath.

    Jesus showed kindness to the outcasts of society, but He did not in any way state that immoral behavior was a-okay. And in fact Jesus actually took some moral stands and took them a step further. For example when he condemned divorce and called remarriage adultery. He would continously tell people your sins are forgiven-sin no more.

    When I talk about Traditions I'm not talking about things like Latin Mass, priestly celibacy. I'm talking teachings on morals and also theology too. These are things that are non changing. Practices can be.

    Jesus came to preach repentance but also to in the end bring attention to that main law, I mentioned. However He did not come to the main moral laws...

    Every culture has its issues and its big time problems/prejudices. I don't want to go into Scripture God's word and read them with my own biases/wants. Its very easy to go into something and want to see things your way, even if you don't mean to. Instead I want to go in there with a humble attitude which says what is the Truth God-what do you have to say. That's how I want to read Scripture.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2013
  8. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    The idea that people don't want the church to change it's traditional teachings just horrifies me.
  9. Prancer

    Prancer Slave to none, master to all Staff Member

    What? The Catholic Church holds positions that are not logically sound? :eek:

    The Church doesn't recognize my marriage--or does it? My husband and I had a civil ceremony. But he considered it important to have our kids baptized, so we did that. 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.

    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.
  10. PeterG

    PeterG Well-Known Member

    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! :lol:)
    taf2002 and (deleted member) like this.
  11. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    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.

    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.
  12. escaflowne9282

    escaflowne9282 Reformed Manspreader

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

    nlloyd Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  14. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa discriminating and persnickety ballet aficionado

    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 :scream: What's the moral value in that?
  15. paskatefan

    paskatefan Well-Known Member

    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).
    IceAlisa and (deleted member) like this.
  16. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    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:
    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
    jamesy and (deleted member) like this.
  17. bek

    bek Guest

    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....

    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2013
  18. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. Norlite

    Norlite Well-Known Member

  20. GarrAarghHrumph

    GarrAarghHrumph I can kill you with my brain

    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?
  21. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    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'. :wall:
  22. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    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!

    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.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  23. Corianna

    Corianna Active Member

    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.
  24. Southpaw

    Southpaw Saint Smugpawski

    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.
  25. DarrellH

    DarrellH New Member

    New Pope name? Pope n' Fresh
  26. Kruss

    Kruss Not Auto-Tuned

    My cousin in Italy's comment: "I knew it, I knew it! Berlusconi wants to be Pope!" :lol:
    kwanfan1818 and (deleted member) like this.
  27. nlloyd

    nlloyd Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  28. Prancer

    Prancer Slave to none, master to all Staff Member

    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.
  29. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    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. :(
  30. cruisin

    cruisin Banned Member

    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 :lol:.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013