Lash wrote: ... I don't think you can have it both ways.
And there you have it; neither does, ever has, or ever will, The Church. That's not simply somethin' "You can take to the bank", that
IS The Bank.
A trivia note: Pius IX, who's 32-year Papacy (1846-1878) remains the longest on record, was by contemporary liberalists expected to bring The Church out of its authoritarian, patriarchal, tradition-bound past and more into line with the progressive, egalitarian, pluralistic currents of the time. Their disappointment bordered on outrage, disappointment reflected in Pius IX bein' accorded the sobriquet "Papa NoNo".
Have the Germans had a Pope before---or what was that area...Prussia and Austro-Hungary...?
Anyone from those environs?
8 Pontiffs have been of Germanic origin. Gregory V assumed the Papacy in 996, appointed by his German cousin King Otto III, who was duly rewarded when Gregory V (996-999) crowned Otto Holy Roman Emperor later that year. In 1046, Clement II was appointed by Germany's King Henry III, who received the same reward given Otto. Clement's demise less than a year later (under questionable circumstance) was followed by the Papacies of Damasus II, Leo IX and Victor II , all Germanic, all appointees of Emperor Henry. Damasus II lasted a bit more than 3 weeks, and had no impact whatsoever on The Papacy - or much else. Leo IX (1049-1054, now St. Leo IX), however, established The College of Cardinals and declared the Bishop of Rome was the sole head of The Church. This led, in 1054, to The Eastern Schism, the separation of the Western, or Roman, from Byzantium's Eastern, or Orthodox, Church. Victor II (1055-1057) pressed the reforms begun under Leo IX, most notably the celibacy of clergy. The last of the 11th Century German Popes was Stephen IX (1057-1059), the first pope selected by The College of Cardinals. In the early 16th Century, there was Hadrian VI, the last non-Italian Pontiff for over half a millenium. Hadrian VI's greatest claim to fame prolly was the fact he was sittin' there when The Protestant Reformation really took hold. A staunch opponent of The Reformation, he didn't last long either; less than 2 years (1522-1523).
Those dismayed by Benedict XVI's Papacy and its implications for liberalism within The Church might take comfort from the notion that German Pontiffs have traditionally not had particularly long reigns - around 2½ years, on average. On the other hand, there really is little reason for any who favor liberalism within The Church to take comfort in any precedent involvin' either the Papacy or The Church.
Sidebar: From before the time of Charlemagne, The Holy Roman Emperor named the Pope. The Holy Roman Emperor, and later successors the Austro-Hungarian Emperors, had veto power over the College of Cardinal's selection of Popes until the Lateran Treaty of the early 20th Century. It was pretty much a pro forma thing though, and had little impact on the Papacy or Papal succession.
Top-of-the-head stuff here - may be off a year or two on some particular, but that's pretty close.
Lash wrote:Um, but I never covered my head.
There you go. I think it could be called picking and choosing. I would also guess that covering your head was not the only thing you ignored. Somehow I just cannot picture you keeping silence, even in church. :wink:
Lash -- When you think about gay priests and monks and women who practice birth control, then you have to realize that the Catholic Church is, at root, pretty much what each individual practioner makes of it. Many of us saw the Church as the starting point for the social justice movement that triggered what people call '60s activism. Today, many think of the Church as hidebound and conservative.
Well, Mesquite, let me be clear. I'm in no way happy about what the Bible says about homosexuality.
I am in no way happy that many sweet people, who feel attached to the Catholic Church are made to feel thay can't belong. Actually, the whole gay thing is probably my biggest 'problem' with the Bible. If one believes strongly that people are born with innate sexual drives, and some of them are born with drives that define them as homosexual, yet God condemns them for that very thing-- I'm sort of stuck there.
But, to equate what the Bible says about the "proper behavior of women" and homosexuality is too much of a stretch to take seriously.
They went on about it pretty extensively.
And, to me, the harsh thing is: with homosexuals, it's more about who you are than what you do. Women can't do this--or this--or this--
Homosexuals are wrong out of the gate, it seems.
plainoldme wrote: ... Many of us saw the Church as the starting point for the social justice movement that triggered what people call '60s activism. Today, many think of the Church as hidebound and conservative.
It ain't The Church that changed.
It's been interesting to watch the fall-out of the election of Pope Benedict in my real-life world. A couple of colleagues, and a couple of acquaintances have stopped attending church. Primarily people who were of the Newman House persuasion.
If this extrapolates at all, the Catholic church isn't going to have many North American attendees left.
I imagine The Church feels herself well rid of those who choose to leave over this. I suspect as well their departure will be overall of no significant negative impact on Church attendance.
I don't know who will do the leave-taking first.
I think Benny has his papal boot on the ass of North America.
Oh, I think Europe and Latin America will get a good deal of critical Vatican attention too; I figure Benny for an equal opportunity butt kicker.
I find it quite ironic, that the Catholic church doesn't except homo..... excuse me... LAYMEN homosexuals. You know.... "Let he who is without sin," etc.,etc.
Not sure you have a point there, boo; The Church does not "exclude" those of homosexual orientation, it anathemizes homosexual
PRACTICE. So long as they remain chaste - that is, not given to lewd or lascivious thought or behavior, and remain celibate other than as sanctioned within the sacrament of Matrimony, homosexuals are welcome within The Church. The Church, in effect, says its OK to
BE homosexual, its just not OK to
DO anything about it
I didn't realize that a certain strain of voodoo is called Catholicism in Brazil (and other exotic locales.)
The history is so inneresting.
The colonizing Spanish, you know, took Catholicism with them everywhere they went--and were so intent in spreading Cathol, that they sort of morphed it with the local animism and Brazilians have been killing chickens in the name of Mary ever since.
Seems like if they'll allow that, a few homos doesn't seem so bad.
I mean, its voodoo.
from the point of view of an outside observer :
in the almost 50 years that we have lived in canada - it'll be 49 years come august -, we have made many catholic friends and have had many catholic neighbours. it seems to me that there are two very distict groups of catholics : those that take the take the commands of the church as absolute and those that are able to accept those commands of the church that they accept as reasonable.
the interesting observation i've made is that people coming from italy and portugal - of which we have quite a few here - seem to be able to be "good catholics" and still live their personal lives according to their own standards. i know that particularly regarding the question of birthcontrol many of these "good catholics" have told us quite frankly, that it's none of the business of the church or the priest what they do us a couple within the confines of their bedrooms. another catholic i know quite well and who is quite active in the church has told me that when it comes to contraception, the church is simply wrong and he feels that he must not simply accept incorrect teachings - this fellow came from poland, is very well educated and has travelled the world.
about two or three years ago, there was a mini-series on the canadian CBC network that dealt with the religions of the world extensively. it interviewed both the leaders/priests/rabbis and the members of church-groups intensively; here too, it was quite clear that the members of any religion often had quite a different take on their obligations from those perceived by the so-called "leaders" of the various faiths.
nothing ever stands still; things move forward, backwards, sideways, but they don't stand still for long - and neither does the catholic church ... IMO. hbg
Are you referring to
Santeria (or
Candomble Jege-Nago, as it is called in Brazilian Portuguese) Lash? If so, I'd hardly say The Church is fond of it at all; it is among the issues I expect will be addressed rather sternly in the near future. It and leftist "Liberation Theology" are two things about Latin America The Vatican frowns on fairly officially.
My point is that when a priest is caught in the act "doing the do" there's no punishment. The priorty is protecting the priest, rather than vindicating the underage victims.
Yes. Santeria. We looked into Liberation Theology, as well.
I heard the church has openly opposed liberation theology--but I hadn't heard of them addressing Santeria.
And, if Boo is making the point that the church should have loaded up the perverted priests in the Popemobile and dropped them off at the Police Department--I agree. Nothing short of that is supportable, IMO.
Good link, Timber.
OK - I see where you're coming from. Reasonable, I suppose, but perhaps misinformed. Indeed there were coverups - thats matter of public record. Less well publicized have been instances both of internal sanction within The Church and of abuse perpetrators being turned over to civil authorities. That doesn't make for good tabloid coverage, though. The Church is going to have to do some pretty concerted doing to overcome the stigma of the coverups. I expect those doings already are well under way. Stay tuned. The second act just might be a real wowser.
