New Pope, Benedict XVI....

[xortam]

Ugh and yet again we have have Jews thinking they have the corner on pain and suffering when it comes to the human race.

Gurm is neither Jewish nor does he speak for the Jews ... he's just Gurm.

[Jessterw]

Sigh. You don't get it and that's okay. I am not attacking him. I simply stated simple facts about him. I never said he was a Nazi-sympathizer. By the way, death camps are just a small part of the whole picture when it comes to Nazi Germany.

I didn't realize the media brainwashed us into hating Germans... wow, guess they're not doing such a great job. Am I supposed to hate the Japanese too? Stop pulling arguments out of thin air, it's ignorant.

[Jessterw]

How am I being unfair? Are you disputing the fact that he sent out a letter to the bishops concerning the enforcement of the Crimine solicitationies law? That alone is enough reason for me to see him unfit.

I'm sure he believes he is doing the right thing and I'm sure he has redeeming qualities, but that doesn't mean he is above question. I do admit that I went too far with the whole Nazi thing, my intention was to show that he is just a man, and therefore is not above question. Remember, a man of god is just that, a man.

But hey, I think it's unfair how you condemn members of this board who don't follow your narrow-minded brand of Christianity.

[Umfriend]

...not the latest strident social liberal whims of a corrupt and secular society.

Is there a reason why "social", "liberal" and "secular" occur in the same sentence as "whims" and "corrupt"? I get the idea you think they have some sort of special relationship, but I'm not sure.

Their guidance in secular matters is often not terribly useful

Then they should not stick their nose in it. Face it, the RCC is an influential institute and the position it takes has a bearing on many societies and the laws they impose.

They deny themselves a lot of worldly goods and pleasures in the course of their pastoral mission, and deserve a bit more respect.

Given the power they have they deserve scrutiny. Given the fact that they would (and have) covered up crimes of their representatives they deserve scrutiny. Moreover, apparently, you can not have sex for fun according to these guys, so who is giving up what? They have, for centuries, argued a doctrine that has caused sex to be a taboo, science to be useless (all knowledge comes through revelation), serfdom to be accepted etc. In its core, the RCC still pursues all this. I respect each RC individual, but the institute and its leaders deserve scrutiny.

And I'm referring to all the mudslingers. You really do not understand the role and mission of priests and other clergy

I’ll be the last to say that no good deeds are ever done by the RCC. Now for secular social liberals it is your turn to accept the same. I’m kind of tired of hearing that no people are perfect as an excuse for RCC and whatnot, but when it is on secularism, liberalism, feminism the people are just evil. Your idealized follower of christ does not exist. My idealized follower of whatever does not exist. I scrutinize both, you excuse one. How’s that for an agenda?

I would not put it beyond people with an agenda to fabricate many of the sex abuse charges just to further their desire to bring down the church.

I would not put it beyond people with an agenda to fabricate that the use of condoms spread HIV.

I guess they don't want those orphanages in Africa to be able to operate anymore.

I would want less orphanages to be needed. Condoms anyone? Birth control at all?

On the hitlerjugend stuff: I believe KVH has a point here. From the little I know, it most likely was a choice between joining or being shot and he was not a symphatiser or knowing accomplice. No one needs to have been perfect all their lives and moreover, people can change, for the better as well.

Apparently, choosing the name of Benedictus is with reference to Benedictus XV who was pope during WWI. A devout pacifist who has spoken out against that war quite strongly.

[dZeus]

of course there were 14 other Benedicts as well, so who knows which of them he admired the most and on basis of which grounds

[Brian Ellis]

I did 2½ years serving a King and a Queen in the army, because it was mandatory. I did not wish to do so but I had no particular convictions when I was 18 that I could plead conscientious objector, so I did it.

Today, more than 50 years later, I am a pacifist by conviction and have a horror of the unnecessary and stupid murder that war entails, as well as all other forms of violence. I also have a horror of the actions of some organised groups of pacifists which incite others into retaliatory violent action against them.

I am not a member of any political, pacifist, environmental, religious or other faction.

I have my views on religion, and I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, but I'm sufficiently broad minded that I try to live and live, as I consider that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and those of every other faith are entitled equally to practice it, as each individual sees fit.

In the eyes of the narrow-minded (and there are some examples on these forums), this probably makes me into a secular, communist, liberal, undesirable, free-thinking hypocrite (you may add any other adjective to get the gist of what I'm saying).

I deny all these charges. I'm not a hypocrite because I'm an ex-military pacifist. My views have changed in the 50-odd years between then and now. From what I've read, the same applies to Ratzinger: his views have changed several times. At one time, he was a liberal priest, now he has changed from dove to hawk.

I cannot say that I'm happy with the choice of Benny the whatsit, mainly because he apparently has views in conflict with those that the world needs today to try and maintain peace and harmony. But, as a non-Roman, I obviously have no say in the rather extreme autocracy of the RC Church which is so out of step with the world (as are most other organised religious bodies of whatever faith). However, I deny some of the charges made on this thread and elsewhere, born out of intolerance.

I am intolerant of intolerance.

[Brian Ellis]

of course there were 14 other Benedicts as well, so who knows which of them he admired the most and on basis of which grounds

8 of them lived >1000 years ago and included some quite roguish ones.

XIII and XIV were apparently quite liberal guys by the standards of their day while XV was an unheard pacifist.

Actually, he is the 19th Benedict, the three others having been declared antipopes because of schism.

[Gurm]

There's no mudslinging involved in stating FACTS.

FACT: The archdioceses (is that the correct plural form) in Africa instructed their priests to tell parishioners that condoms CAUSE AIDS. This is not in dispute. It has been widely verified. This alone is a horrible act, which has - I GUARANTEE YOU - killed hundreds if not thousands of people already, and infected many more.

FACT: Ratzinger instructed subordinates to cover up the sexual abuse of children by clergy, and to shield those clergymen. That ALONE constitutes a felony in EVERY COUNTRY of the first world. He should be defrocked, not pontified.

I'm sure that this will be disputed by our resident hatemonger. Go on, KvH - you know you wanna!