Options

Pope declares war on "the occult", sets up "exorcism squads"

2»

Posts

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Neaden wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ...John Paul pretty much set records for expanding the tolerance of the Church and its doctrines regarding other religions. I mean, he's the first Pope to ever sit in the Roman synagogue let alone calling together that summitt thing of all the world's religious leaders. Even when he was promoting Catholicism he would still speak inclusively rather than taking out the long needles.
    But neither is Benedict. As a matter of fact, he has been talking to the Eastern Church's a whole bunch lately. The media narrative of Benedict=hyper conservative just got a started and is going to continue no matter what actually happens.

    Do I need to requote the whole muslim thing?

    moniker on
  • Options
    HarrierHarrier The Star Spangled Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    From what I can tell, Benedict's concern is that, in all the progress John Paul made connecting with other faiths, his attempts at outreach may have been taken too far, if not by John Paul himself, then by the people his leadership encouraged.

    Benedict seems to be trying to point out that, for all the importance of different religions recognizing their common goal of otherworldly truth and enlightenment, and despite how crucial it is for people of faith not to settle their differences with violence, the major belief systems of the world are not simply different facets of the same broad, general spiritualism. Christianity has tenets that clearly and distinctly separate it from Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and every other religion or ethical system, and these are in turn clearly distinct from each other. Moreover, within Christianity, Catholicism has some clear points of contention with the many denominations of Protestantism.

    For all the progress in ecumenical outreach between the world's religions, they haven't all sat down and agreed that everyone is partly right. As a Catholic, my respect for the tenets of Islam and the fondness I have for my friends who are Muslim does not prevent me from believing that Christianity is the most true religion.

    Harrier on
    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • Options
    PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Harrier wrote: »
    For all the progress in ecumenical outreach between the world's religions, they haven't all sat down and agreed that everyone is partly right. As a Catholic, my respect for the tenets of Islam and the fondness I have for my friends who are Muslim does not prevent me from believing that Christianity is the most true religion.

    From Nostra Aetate
    The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these
    religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
    and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in
    many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
    reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Harrier wrote: »
    From what I can tell, Benedict's concern is that, in all the progress John Paul made connecting with other faiths, his attempts at outreach may have been taken too far, if not by John Paul himself, then by the people his leadership encouraged.

    Benedict seems to be trying to point out that, for all the importance of different religions recognizing their common goal of otherworldly truth and enlightenment, and despite how crucial it is for people of faith not to settle their differences with violence, the major belief systems of the world are not simply different facets of the same broad, general spiritualism. Christianity has tenets that clearly and distinctly separate it from Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and every other religion or ethical system, and these are in turn clearly distinct from each other. Moreover, within Christianity, Catholicism has some clear points of contention with the many denominations of Protestantism.

    For all the progress in ecumenical outreach between the world's religions, they haven't all sat down and agreed that everyone is partly right. As a Catholic, my respect for the tenets of Islam and the fondness I have for my friends who are Muslim does not prevent me from believing that Christianity is the most true religion.

    But you don't go around being a dick to them over their faith. That's sort of the sticking point. Ratzi has made some really stupid, bad mistakes and that's why he gets the bum rap. I mean, noone was expecting him to follow in the footsteps of John Paul. He is the deep breath after the plunge. The thing is, what little expectations he did have set upon him were mostly the 'don't fuck shit up' category and he did. He's hardly a bad pope, he just isn't really a good one. He's the Gerald Ford of Popes rather than being a Jimmy Carter.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires.

    Hmm, free thinking and openmindedness is an obsticle to his church, eh? That's not hardliner at all...
    Catholicism says "Follow the Law." Relativism says "There is no law." Opposing relativism is part of his job as Pope. This is in absolutely no way an extremist position, and those who interpret it as such are either ignorant or biased.

    Interestingly, although the Daily Mail bit is fabricated, each Diocese does have an official Exorcist. It's generally an office bestowed on the most senior priest, and is (with exceedingly rare exception) an entirely ceremonial position.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The previous pope did get a bit of criticism but perhaps that wasn't so evident because he did a lot of other stuff that caught media/public imagination - like the world tours and the anti communist thing. I understand he is still considered conservative compared to his very recent predecessors.

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Options
    DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I'm sorry if I offended anyone... the original post was a goof, I was just goofing off in response.

    I used most of my "serious" on the Bhutto thread.

    Dracomicron on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    For all the progress in ecumenical outreach between the world's religions, they haven't all sat down and agreed that everyone is partly right. As a Catholic, my respect for the tenets of Islam and the fondness I have for my friends who are Muslim does not prevent me from believing that Christianity is the most true religion.

    From Nostra Aetate
    The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these
    religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
    and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in
    many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
    reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

    ...so how did the crusades happen again? Or is this just a religious flip flop?

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    For all the progress in ecumenical outreach between the world's religions, they haven't all sat down and agreed that everyone is partly right. As a Catholic, my respect for the tenets of Islam and the fondness I have for my friends who are Muslim does not prevent me from believing that Christianity is the most true religion.

    From Nostra Aetate
    The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these
    religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
    and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in
    many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
    reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

    ...so how did the crusades happen again? Or is this just a religious flip flop?

    ...really? Are you really gonna go 800 years to the past, and still show how ignorant you are of middle age politics?

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Options
    KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well if you want a more recent example of the Church acting like a bunch of jerks go do some reading about the Spanish Civil War

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Options
    Satan.Satan. __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    Harrier wrote: »
    For all the progress in ecumenical outreach between the world's religions, they haven't all sat down and agreed that everyone is partly right. As a Catholic, my respect for the tenets of Islam and the fondness I have for my friends who are Muslim does not prevent me from believing that Christianity is the most true religion.

    From Nostra Aetate
    The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these
    religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
    and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in
    many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
    reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

    ...so how did the crusades happen again? Or is this just a religious flip flop?

    What the fuck are you on about? This has very little to do with the crusades. The crusades were mostly a political action. The first crusades were helping defend a few towns against invading Turks and they stumbled over to Jerusalem for shits and/or giggles.

    Satan. on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The crusades were mostly a political action.

    Jesus Christ. Yeah, sure; huge numbers of common people and nobles in Europe suddenly decided that maintaining the territorial integrity of the Byzantine Empire was incredibly important to them.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The crusades were mostly a political action.

    Jesus Christ. Yeah, sure; huge numbers of common people and nobles in Europe suddenly decided that maintaining the territorial integrity of the Byzantine Empire was incredibly important to them.

    More like they were tricked into thinking it was a free pass into Heaven. Sounds familiar, but I don't know why...

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Of course the vatican denies it. That's what you do with black-ops.

    "Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to exorcise this public schoolteacher who was observed to be speaking in tongues. If you are caught the papacy will disavow all knowledge of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds."

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The crusades were mostly a political action.

    Jesus Christ. Yeah, sure; huge numbers of common people and nobles in Europe suddenly decided that maintaining the territorial integrity of the Byzantine Empire was incredibly important to them.

    Because it was caused entirely by grass roots outrage at the taking of the holy land by Turks and not in any way influenced by the Pope trying to exert his influence/power over the bishop of Constantinople. Nope, those two were like peas in a pod. Which is why the Eastern Orthodox faith has been so historically tight with Catholicism that they even give each other hats for Christmas. Those damn serfs, causing horrible grief and bloodshed while calmer, nobler, holier heads should have prevailed.

    moniker on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Because it was caused entirely by grass roots outrage at the taking of the holy land by Turks and not in any way influenced by the Pope trying to exert his influence/power over the bishop of Constantinople.

    You act like
    a) those two things are mutually exclusive
    b) Bishops arguing with each other is political, not religious

    The Crusades were mostly about religion and equivocatory, present-minded areligious revisionism is shitty history.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The politics of the time were intimately tied with religion though right?

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    ManticMantic Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Well if you want a more recent example of the Church acting like a bunch of jerks go do some reading about the Spanish Civil War

    This right here is what really needs more attention. As far as I know, they never apologized for supporting Francisco Franco and his regime.

    Mantic on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Because it was caused entirely by grass roots outrage at the taking of the holy land by Turks and not in any way influenced by the Pope trying to exert his influence/power over the bishop of Constantinople.

    You act like
    a) those two things are mutually exclusive
    b) Bishops arguing with each other is political, not religious

    The Crusades were mostly about religion and equivocatory, present-minded areligious revisionism is shitty history.

    Nationalistic (or in this case religious) jingoism/machismo is not a cause for much anything nor should it be saddled with the responsibility for the horrific actions and decisions leaders take then later come to regret and try to shirk on the jingoistic populace. While the leaders of mobs can be easily replaced, the mobs themselves tend not to manifest themselves out of thin air.

    When you mix religion with politics you get politics. Using religious justifications for purely political moves doesn't make them any more religious or any less political, it just makes you a pious and cowardly dick.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Spacehog85Spacehog85 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    exorcism squads?
    so is this going to be a first person shooter, or more like an action rpg?

    Spacehog85 on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Mantic wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Well if you want a more recent example of the Church acting like a bunch of jerks go do some reading about the Spanish Civil War

    This right here is what really needs more attention. As far as I know, they never apologized for supporting Francisco Franco and his regime.

    Didn't they just apologize for Galileo this last decade? I wouldn't be holding my breath for another century or so. Which sucks, the Generalissimo was one really fucked up individual.

    moniker on
  • Options
    ManticMantic Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Mantic wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Well if you want a more recent example of the Church acting like a bunch of jerks go do some reading about the Spanish Civil War

    This right here is what really needs more attention. As far as I know, they never apologized for supporting Francisco Franco and his regime.

    Didn't they just apologize for Galileo this last decade? I wouldn't be holding my breath for another century or so. Which sucks, the Generalissimo was one really fucked up individual.

    And really I am surprised that it isn't brought up more whenever talking about what's wrong with the Catholic Church.

    Mantic on
  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Mantic wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Well if you want a more recent example of the Church acting like a bunch of jerks go do some reading about the Spanish Civil War

    This right here is what really needs more attention. As far as I know, they never apologized for supporting Francisco Franco and his regime.

    Didn't they just apologize for Galileo this last decade? I wouldn't be holding my breath for another century or so. Which sucks, the Generalissimo was one really fucked up individual.

    Galileo was a tactless fuckwit and what happened to him was because he (essentially) publically called the Pope an idiot.

    Issues of theology aside calling any absolute ruler is a pretty fucking stupid move.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Mantic wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Well if you want a more recent example of the Church acting like a bunch of jerks go do some reading about the Spanish Civil War

    This right here is what really needs more attention. As far as I know, they never apologized for supporting Francisco Franco and his regime.

    Didn't they just apologize for Galileo this last decade? I wouldn't be holding my breath for another century or so. Which sucks, the Generalissimo was one really fucked up individual.

    Galileo was a tactless fuckwit and what happened to him was because he (essentially) publically called the Pope an idiot.

    Issues of theology aside calling any absolute ruler is a pretty fucking stupid move.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    OtakuD00DOtakuD00D Can I hit the exploding rocks? San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Oh SNAP! Quick, Pope Benedict, call out thine robots!
    menoth_bg.jpg

    OtakuD00D on
    makosig.jpg
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Issues of theology aside calling any powerful, intolerant, close-minded religious fanatic is a pretty fucking brave move.

    That's what you meant to write, right?

    Even if that is what actually happened, as that wasn't the way I learned it, nor can I find sources to support that interpretation.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    OtakuD00D wrote: »
    Oh SNAP! Quick, Pope Benedict, call out thine robots!

    OH SNAP! What is that from?

    Really I think if the Church wants to get more young men into the fold they should concentrate more on the bad ass saints with superpowers and the archangels. Much cooler than "Let's hate on some gays" etc.

    Meh. Besides I don't buy that "one true faith" horseshit either. Jesus didn't start the Catholic Church, and Paul has had a fuckton more influence than Peter ever did. Possibly more than Jesus himself.

    [edit] As I understand it Galileo held firm to his ideas until under pressure of losing his life, he was made to renounce his theory in a court. And even as he did, he whispered something to the effect of "but the earth still orbits..." under his breath. I think he was a cool cat.

    Derrick on
    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • Options
    Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Derrick wrote: »
    OtakuD00D wrote: »
    Oh SNAP! Quick, Pope Benedict, call out thine robots!

    OH SNAP! What is that from?

    Really I think if the Church wants to get more young men into the fold they should concentrate more on the bad ass saints with superpowers and the archangels. Much cooler than "Let's hate on some gays" etc.

    Meh. Besides I don't buy that "one true faith" horseshit either. Jesus didn't start the Catholic Church, and Paul has had a fuckton more influence than Peter ever did. Possibly more than Jesus himself.

    [edit] As I understand it Galileo held firm to his ideas until under pressure of losing his life, he was made to renounce his theory in a court. And even as he did, he whispered something to the effect of "but the earth still orbits..." under his breath. I think he was a cool cat.

    Galileo had some balls to go against the Church as long as he did, considering this was still the time when the fucking Inquisition was throwing its weight around, and people were being burned on stakes.

    Rhan9 on
  • Options
    GoatmonGoatmon Companion of Kess Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    But aren't those the times when it's most important to have people speaking out and helping keeping the people alert that it's not just them, that everything is not right in their neighborhood?

    Call him a tactless fuckwit if you want, I call him noble and brave for not bowling over and giving in. He may not have had the best approach about his ideals, but he also didn't back down when they cornered him. He put up with the church's shit for a long time, and gave only as much as he absolutely had to, in order to get away with publishing his work.

    Goatmon on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • Options
    KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Mantic wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Mantic wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Well if you want a more recent example of the Church acting like a bunch of jerks go do some reading about the Spanish Civil War

    This right here is what really needs more attention. As far as I know, they never apologized for supporting Francisco Franco and his regime.

    Didn't they just apologize for Galileo this last decade? I wouldn't be holding my breath for another century or so. Which sucks, the Generalissimo was one really fucked up individual.

    And really I am surprised that it isn't brought up more whenever talking about what's wrong with the Catholic Church.

    I agree. I think it is because in many ways the arguments over the merits or actions of the Church as compared to whatever other faith or doctrine you care to state are usually based on popular understanding of history.

    In this popular understanding the Crusades get big play for a couple of reasons - one being that it has long played an important role in European history studies for all sorts of reasons and secondly apparently it is a frequent topic for discussion in Islamic histories (at least so far as I've been told). Whereas something like the Spanish Civil War does not get much attention, because it was crowded out of public consciousness due to WW2. Which isn't surprising given that the latter started only a few months after the former finished. Franco also did a good job of detaching himself from the fascist powers, in the public imagination at least, so few people would tie in the Spanish Civil War to WW2, even though it should be.

    Then on a wider point it could be said that the sheer horror and infamy of the German Nazis + Japan + Stalin's activities also helped the Church fall under the radar, in the same way that the Spanish Fascists did due to WW2. It is all about distraction really

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Options
    DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Beware witches!

    225px-Battlepope.jpeg

    ...is gonna get ya!

    Dracomicron on
  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Issues of theology aside calling any powerful, intolerant, close-minded religious fanatic is a pretty fucking brave move.

    That's what you meant to write, right?

    No. Starting a century long meaningless opposition because you're a tactless jerk (probably with something like Asberger's) isn't brave. So much of his troubles were caused by having absolutely no social skills and being an absolute douche about defending his hypothesis (which given the instruments of the day was unprovable. To defend it as unimpeachable truth would be considered bad science today.)
    Even if that is what actually happened, as that wasn't the way I learned it, nor can I find sources to support that interpretation.

    Sure, and Columbus was a visionary who was the only person in the whole world who knew the world was round. We are taught things in a manner that serves the purpose of our teachers.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    The Muslim fiasco was a indefensibly boneheaded. Ratzinger was one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century. As a pope, his performance has not been nearly as impressive.

    What? It wasn't even remotely indefensible. He quoted that line from a Byzantine Emperor circa 14th century, then dissected it & argued against the line. It might not be 100% politically savvy, but calling it boneheaded & indefensible is basically saying that I can't quote historical figures in public without being accused of agreeing with them.

    Which is pretty fucking boneheaded. If anything there was indefensible, it was the mob reaction. I'm not Catholic & hardly a fan of religion, so shouldn't you know better than that if you are?

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The Pope at the time supported Galileo, and asked him to write a book presenting his theory. Instead, Galileo wrote a book calling the Pope an idiot and ridiculing him. Not exactly the smartest move possible, and very far from brave.

    And the whole "science vs. religion" spin people put on it ignores the fact that Galileo's theory was not proven scientific fact at the time, and today is known to have been wrong on several counts. He got to the right conclusion (the Earth moves) but through a mistaken path.

    So at best you could call it a "bad science vs. publicly humiliating the most powerful authorities of the time" debate.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.