There seems to be an awful lot of posts criticizing the new pope. He seems like a good man to me. He was picked to defend the church against encroaching secularism and erosion of faith in western civilization. Here's an article about him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/opinion/20novak.html?ei=5090&en=94bf6b87f2fd8aac&ex=1271649600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&position=

I'm done with being nice about a church that coddled child molesters and insists on population growth and preaches against the use of condoms when AIDS kills millions.

Excuse me, but thats a crock.

The people who are spreading disease in aftrica by going to whores and having sex without condoms ARE NOT the same people going to mass every sunday morning.

The message about not using birth control goes hand in hand with only having sex with your spouse and if you are a dedicated enough catholic to not use birth control because thats what the church says, then you are dedicated enough to follow the other rules also, like being faithful to your spouse.

I don't want to get into population growth, but I disagree entirely with the idea that population growth is a bad thing.

Sorry, please allow me to moderate my previous statement.

I am for the use of birth control, especially condoms, however, I'm even more in favor of religious freedom and the right of the catholics to have their own beliefs about right and wrong. Even if I disagree on a personal level, their right to set ethical and moral standards as a religion should be inviolate.

I feel the same way about the scarves and coverings of the muslim women, as long as it is their choice.(I don't think it is in a most cases, however, as you can see from Afghanistan.)

As long as they are consistant, and the practice of their faith doesn't violate MY rights in any way, they have the RIGHT to practice and believe any way they want.

tfreridge -

The thing is hon, it's not that simple.

It's not just direct message that the Vatican puts out that has an impact, but also the wider subtext that its policies promote. Such things as the innate superiority of men, actually encourages men to go out and have sex, to go out and have unprotected sex, it encourages higher domestic violence rates, etc. I know you are intelligent enough to understand such things.

And honestly, I too wouldn't care a hoot what the Catholic Church believes IF their beliefs and pronoucements didn't effect my world and my life.

Unfortunately that's not the way it works. Ratzinger actually was the one that suggested that priests deny mass to those politicians that support a woman's right to choose, or right to contraception, as a direct attempt to control the american presidential election (Kerry is a Catholic).

Further, the strength of such a huge institution as the Catholic Church means their pronouncements have cultural effects that construct social frameworks that provide an mileau that is unsafe for particular minority groups. It's a fairly widely accepted fact in the social sciences that statements from leaders do actually have an effect on the way in which a society treats minority members.

I know Ratzinger was appointed to continue the dogmatic legacy of JP2 over a short interim period. But that legacy has been created through Ratzinger playing Hardy to Karol's Laurel, the result a compromise between the two of them. Without JP2 there, I shudder to think of what this VERY conservative bigot might do.

Plus, I'm still trying to look into the mirror and figure out how precisely I resemble an "ideology of evil". :)

Sarah - In my mind, no one as honest and open as you write could be considered an "ideology of evil".

The issue is choice. If the Catholics choose to follow a pope that was freely elected by their leadership then that's their problem. As a practicing Catholic, John Kerry has to either comply with his church, or not. I don't have a problem with that. You can't say that you are a born again christian unless you've been "born again" and follow their doctrine, either. I would say rather that John Kerry had parted ways with the teaching of the church.

Also, you call him a bigot. I don't believe that is true. He believes everyone is equal in the eyes of the lord, but unless you follow his path and live by his moral code, then you are doomed to hell(and or purgatory). Most religions of the world teach a similar theme. This isn't bigotry, its religious closemindedness(if thats a word). It's kind of silly to think that the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church, the oldest Christian religion in the world, is going to have an open mind about moral code and behavior.

I think you are overlooking the tremedous amount of good that the catholic missions do in the third world, however. They are aguably the most successful charity and fighters of poverty in the world.

PS. Congrats on civil unions in vermont. I don't like to gloat, but "I told you so". As long as "civil unions" are seperate from "marriage" to keep the fudementalist happy, they have to allow civil unions in order to not violate the constituationaly of contract law.

tfreridge -

I agree, the issue is choice. But I tend to also see a problem in access to choice (it's similar in a general sense to making abortion legal, but then making people pay for it out of pocket) and the way the Vatican is operating right now, there isn't a lot of laity input happening. Moreover, as I argued above, even if you 'opt-out' (so to speak *smile*) of being Catholic, you're gonna be impacted by them, particularly if they have any say.

But, I'm going to stick by the bigot comment. Yeah, I agree, it's kinda silly to expect a real liberal to suddenly appear as the head of the Vatican, but they certainly could have done better than this guy in someone more moderately conservative.

The reason why I call him a bigot, is that I have heard that at least these religious leaders are being dogmatically 'consistent'. But that doesn't completely wash with me. There is an AWFUL lot that is in the bible that is not adhered to by catholic dogma, and to kick up such a stink about something that is mentioned so vaguely, so rarely, as being gay in a text that has been editted so many times in history, that the descriptor 'consistent' doesn't pop immediately to mind. And honestly, religion is not an excuse for bigotry, it's merely a vehicle.

Oh, and thanks for the congrats! (I'm thinking you mean Connecticut [sp.?] though *smile*) I completely agree, civil unions (especially when you are holding the 'marriage gun' to their heads) are eminently more palatable to fundamentalists. But still, civil unions are always gonna be 'seperate but equal' which as we all know means 'seperate and unequal' in reality. I'm not gonna settle until we have the same rights as everyone else.

Btw, thank you hon for the 'ideology' compliment ... I was wondering if I was giving myself too much credit :)

Amanda -

thanks ever so much for the nice words, particularly since all I have ever been to you, over in 'Bush vs. Choice', even though I disagreed with you, is respectful. Nice to see you feel that you can also disagree with someone and yet be mature enough not to insult them personally (/sarcasm).

oh, and if you're not the same Amanda as over in Bvs.C, then I apologise profusely to her.

*blink*

okay, since someone seems to have taken it upon themself to delete Amanda's comment ... then you can delete those of mine in reply to her if you want too ... that was just weird in it's entirety ...

Howdy all. I've been enjoying the tet-a-tet, but there's a couple of items in the postings that need comment.

tfreridge - It seems uncharitable to condemn women living with HIV and AIDS as whores. Prostitution is product of poverity, not moral deviance. As to your comment that the Catholic Church's right to set "ethical and moral standards as a religion should be inviolate," that's bunk. Democratic pluralism demands we compromise on private standards to promote the general good. We don't tolerate groups that promote hate mongering because it leads to violence. The same logic applies to the Church.

As for the the "good" the Catholic Church has done, you'd do well to review your world history. The Catholic Church fascilitated the genocidal destruction of Native American populations. They supported or ignored European dictators in the 20th century. Not if they sold all Church possessions, gave the money to the world's poor, and embraced real impoverished service for two centuries could they begin to atone for the destruction the Church has supported. Turning a blind eye to pedofilia is just a sad page in a book of horrors.

As point of doctrine, the pope does not believe everyone is equal in God's eyes. Catholics are not saved by faith alone, but by works and attention to Catholic service requirements (i.e. confession). The line about equality is biblical, not literal, and the host of old men in red dresses attending to JPII's funeral is sufficient proof of hierarchy.

I'm not trying to be snarky, or paint the Catholic Church as evil. As you noted, they do tremendous good in many parts of the world. But you can't escape your past, only improve on it.

cheers,
DJN

It's a fairly widely accepted fact in the social sciences that statements from leaders do actually have an effect on the way in which a society treats minority members.

True, many social scientists make such claims. They are apologists, offering excuses for poor behavior. Perhaps they should advocate for personal responsibility, instead.

Yeah, I agree, it's kinda silly to expect a real liberal to suddenly appear as the head of the Vatican, but they certainly could have done better than this guy in someone more moderately conservative.

As a non-Catholic, I see the role of the Pope as preserving the traditions of the church. If others in the church want to advocate change, fine, but this is nowhere near the Pope's job.

Prostitution is product of poverity, not moral deviance.

Plenty of poor women have the self-respect not to resort to prostitution—that is, to becoming whores. Such strong women deserve every ounce of praise and respect we can muster, because they are truly the greatest people alive. Throwing away one's dignity and selling your "wares" to the most base and primal drives... becoming animalistic just to make an easy buck... It is disgusting, and it reinforces sexist stereotypes.

We don't tolerate groups that promote hate mongering because it leads to violence.

We tolerate all opinions and educate as to their strengths and weaknesses—even extremists opinions, which is why the KKK and ACLU are still permitted to function within our society. That said, your broad-brushed comparison of an organized religion to "hate mongers" is dubious and patently absurd.

Apparently, your grasp of Democracy includes quite a bit of censorship. Never mind the fact that we do not even live in a nation of "Democratic pluralism." Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

Not if they sold all Church possessions, gave the money to the world's poor, and embraced real impoverished service for two centuries could they begin to atone for the destruction the Church has supported.

Atonement? Clearly, someone has not mastered the art of forgiveness. You would do well to spend some time in church yourself; maybe some day you will finally "get it."

I wish to reserve the right of inconsistencly, thank you. In the case of the Catholic Church, I would prefer it, as its consistency is rather thick, sticky and powerful. Inconsistency please.

Don't call it inconsistency. Call it relativism.

The people who are spreading disease in aftrica by going to whores and having sex without condoms ARE NOT the same people going to mass every sunday morning.

The very idea that the heathens spreading disease in Africa should have the information that would save their lives withheld, because we believe that they should follow the Christian moral code is tantamount to murder.

Here's one American heathen who thinks that's wrong. It's premeditated. Is it racist? A little homophobic?

I know enough about the great philosopher and leader of men, Jesus Christ, who said "Judge not lest ye be judged", to know that he would not be impressed.

Also, lots of people are SUNDAY Christians. Do you think only non-christians frequent prostitutes? They might feel worse, but they do it.

Marty, I prefer to say inconsistent. Maybe in the same way I prefer gooses to geese.

"heathens spreading disease in Africa should have the information that would save their lives withheld"

Ridiculous. No one is witholding information. If the catholic church chooses to spend its money teaching monogamy to its followers, that is a GOOD thing. It is not even in the same realm as deliberately witholding any "life saving" information.

You are the one who is racist. Your implication that africans aren't capable of controlling their sexual behavior lends itself to the worst form of stereotyping. They aren't children, or stupid, they are just like you and me.

Tfreridge:

I can't speak for Jane, but I don't believe that Africans will control their sexual urges through abstinence until marriage. Nor do I believe Americans will do so. Nor any other culture. I believe the Church's expectation that people would do so was unrealistic even when it had complete government backing and total ideological hegemony, and it is even more illogical now.

Now and I a racist?

The people who are spreading disease in aftrica by going to whores and having sex without condoms ARE NOT the same people going to mass every sunday morning.

Shit, if church doesn't stop whoring here, why would it in Africa? Surely we aren't all so naive here to think that religion actually prevents sinning.

The United States Government is who is withholding this information with their insistence on abstinence only family planning and aid programs.

I did not imply that Africans are incapable of anything. I said that it is murderous to withhold life saving information from them, based on your ideas of religious perfection. I'm sure they have belief systems already in place which may or may not include celibacy for some members, at some times.

This is information which is widely available to Americans, though only because we haven't let it be supressed.

Are we pretending that we care about thier souls? It would certainly be easier to convert people who are alive.

If you guys are right about god, I know I'm going to hell. That's my problem and it's decision I make with full information.(I'm sorry this hurts the Christians who love me) I'm pretty sure that you guys who are intentionally sending others to hell prematurely with your self-rightous twaddle will meet me there.

The Catholic Church is murderous because they don't teach your secular ideas??

Thats just silly.

If you don't like what they have to say DON'T BE A CATHOLIC.

We have free will in this, and so do all the Africans.

Thomas - even if you are right(and i don't believe you are)are you saying that the Catholic Church has an obligation to teach birth control at their missions?

What about the issues of free speech? You would censor their viewpoint because it disagrees with yours?

Jane is just silly, but I would of thought that a good libertarian like you would at least grant that the Catholic Church(and its members) has the right to their own beliefs.

Apologies, I got carried away, if anyone is silly, it's me. I sincerly hope I didn't offend you, Jane. I let my passion for discussion get the best of me.

Since when is "freedom of speech" for the church defined as freedom from criticism? Yes, people make "choices"--like the choice to withhold information and condoms from Africans because they don't want to offend the religious conservatives in their constituency. If it weren't for religions pushing the impossible abstinence standard, our government would not hesitate to save lives with aid money instead of propagandize a few specific religions' view of sexual morality.

Tfreridge, I'm late to this thread and I don't expect the Catholic Church to teach anything they don't believe.

However, (1) it is not racist to criticize the Catholic Church for eschewing methods of disease prevention that one believes will work in favor of standard one believes history has proven unworkable. It's not racist, and you were wrong to tell Jane it was. She didn't say that Africans couldn't control their urges as distinguished from us rich white folk. She said they won't be abstinent. Which we as a people are not either. But we have access to condoms because Americans, Catholic or not, as a whole reject the Vatican's teachings on abstinence and contraception. Poor, rural nations don't have cheap, good quality condoms at CVS. They don't even have CVS.

(2) I think Catholics in the developed world are in fact voting with their feet away from the Church. If the Pope really thinks he's under orders from God, there's nothing he can do about it, but that's what I see. American and European Catholics manifestly disagree with and ignore the Church's positions on sex and sexuality, and the divide between the Vatican positions and the facts of people's everyday lives and attitudes grows every day. After ten years of Benedict XVI, the Church may be the province of radicals and crackpots in the developed world.

As an atheist, I judge religions and religious folks by how their doctrine and behavior maps my preferences, i.e. how much they agree with me. So I root for liberal Catholics to change the Church. I root for Gene Robinson and the pro-gay Episcopalians. I root against conservatives. If the Church sees its support slipping and moves left with the next Pope, it may be evidence of inconsistent theopogy -- but I don't care. I don't believe in god. I root for the liberals because I agree with them on more practical issues.

Amanda - you've missed my point entirely. How can it be considered "withholding" when the church has no obligation to give them condoms or education to begin with?
The term "withholding" implies that you have it to begin with and are purposefully not giving it. In this case the "it" being condoms or other birth control.
I'm not sure but I don't believe that the catholic church purchases Trojans in wholesale quanities just to give them away to africans. I don't believe they are under any ethical or moral requirement to do so, either.

Thomas - voting with their feet? Yes indeed.
http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=78625&format=text

Amanda - so.... religion = morality = too high of standards = HIV ?
Is that the line of thought?
And the goverment would fix it by spending money?

Tfreridge, nobody disputes that the Catholic Church, as well as Protestant denomination, Islam and even the Mormons are growing by leaps and bounds in the developing world. I said people were voting with their feet in the developed world against the Catholic Church. If it keeps on like this, the Catholic Church in the West will be a phenomenon of primarily historical interest, and the Church will preside over a flock overwhelmingly composed of folks from developing nations. If that's what they want, they are welcome to go that route.

Ah yes, the pass the buck argument! The favored of the Bush administration, no less. "Why yes, we told them to torture, and when they followed orders, we hold them fully responsible. We didn't actually torture anyone." The church instructs politicians to withhold the condoms. The condoms get withheld. The church is culpable. I pay someone to murder and we both go to jail. See how that works?

And yes, money is the fix. Last time I purchased a condom, they didn't accept all the prayers in the world for payment. They wanted cold, hard cash. Stupid grocers, thinking they should get paid for their work.