worryingly jolly batman

The first link is just offensive. Not to me personally but if I were Catholic I'd be eating that guy alive right now.

From:

Some Darcy Clay, perhaps?
Tim Sherman

AAaaaaahahahahaha!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! aaaaHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

te he.

ahem.

From:

I dont like that first link. I hate it when they call people with morals backward.

From:

Was Catholic, not now, not offended.

From:

I begin to doubt your comprehension. Nowhere does Morford say the Pope is backward. In fact, he implores him to be forward thinking:

Is it still possible? Is there still a glimmer of hope that you might choose to buck dour church tradition and kick down the doors and throw open the stained-glass windows and remake yourself as modern, as inclusive, as the Pope That Changed Everything? Because right now, the world has this sad, sinking feeling again. All signs point to more of the same as the last bitter and bilious 2,000 years, if not even worse. All signs point to more repression, homophobia, intolerance, denial, insularity, guilt like a weapon.

Unless you're thinking that repression, homophobia, intolerance, denial, insularity and guilt are all moral qualities...

I hate it when people seek to justify everything they think, no matter how hateful, by saying "It's my moral standpoint so don't criticize me".

From:

*flatly* Do you think so? I don't. Nowhere does it imply that Catholics or Ratzinger are bad people. In fact, it says explicitly that they have the capability to be very good people indeed.

If, on the other hand, you mean that he's implying that the Pope's stance on things like women, contraception and homosexuality are bad- well, yes, he is, and I support that. I find the Pope offensive; I find his policies both to wrong me personally, and to be wrong in themselves. What I've seen especially of his personal policies, I find those "just offensive"; but I would never, ever suggest that someone linking to them was somehow wrong or bad because it might offend me.

From:

:D yeah.

From:

I find the tone offensive. It's smug and condescending.

From:

I hate it when people suggest that rampant homophobia, mysoginism, and a perpetuation of policies that have led to the infection of thousands in Africa with HIV/AIDS are moral characteristics. They are not. Those policies are, to my mind, both backwards and immoral.

So you see, we all see this from a very different perspective; and since nowhere did the original author mention that he hated the Pope, whereas you did, I think he might have the moral highground, don't you?

From:

or, not respecting the fact that some of these things are beliefs a lot of Catholics would never renounce. I don't think he thinks much of their right to disagree with him.

From:

*raises eyebrows* Would you let me kick Winston Peters out of Parliament? He's smug and condescending.

I don't think it's more smug or condescending that a conservative Catholic, or other religious, telling that "Jesus loves me" while simultaneously demonstrating against the Civil Union Bill, for example. In fact, I don't think it's smug or condescending at all. I think it's a genuine plea- made funny- to the Catholic Church to reconsider.

From:

Yeah but to me it says "hey kids! Come sneer with me at those weird Catholics!! And let's be as irreverent as possible because that's FUNNEE!!11!11!1!!!1"

From:

I think he knows they have a right to disagree with him: after all, they do. I think he's asking them to change their mind.

Also? Speaking personally, I don't respect the right of Ratzinger to say that condoms don't help prevent the spread of AIDS. I don't respect that and I won't respect that and there are some things that are not worthy of respect, and that's one of them.

Yes, the tone of the article was somewhat disrespectful. But you know what? That's what opinion articles are often about; if we spent all our time being totally respectful of others we'd never say anything at all. Of course this doesn't mean that, say, I go about telling Catholics that Catholocism is a stupid waste of time, it's fossilising Western religion, and also, it's a load of bullshit. These are all things I believe, but I don't need to seek out Catholics to tell them so and I would try to couch my opinions more respectfully even in my own personal journal, which I don't force anyone to read. On the other hand, it also doesn't mean I go around letting Conservative Catholics say that abortion is always bad, full stop, that's it, unchallenged. I do challenge that and it's not an opinion I respect: but them, I may respect. I don't always, of course, but I make an effort to be respectful of them even when I don't actually respect them.

I thought it was quite funny. You are free to disagree.

From:

*frustrated* You know what? I have friends who are Catholics who are
-pro-homosexuality
-pro-abortion
-believe condoms prevent the spread of AIDS
-etc, etc.

So you know what, he's not sneering at "those wierd Catholics", because those opinions are not ones all Catholics share. What he is sneering at- if you like; I don't actually think the tone was sneering at all, but whatever- what he is sneering at is the position of the Catholic administration.

As I said, though, I don't think he was sneering: he was looking at and saying "I don't like this. Please, won't you reconsider? Because this bothers me."

From:

I dont disagree with the principle but bits of it are reactionary and crass and the way he went about it just shows him up to be another person who thinks being progreesive makes them immune to being a bigot.

From:

PS: do you think that the message to the Pope- please modernise, change your stance on homosexuality and women and condoms- is inherently bad or wrong? It's no more bad or wrong than a message to, oh, I don't know, anyone, asking them to change their opinion or do something for you. People write to their MPS and say "Please, I agree/disagree with this thing that is happening now in Parliament and this is why- won't you act on it?"

Of course you can't force people to act on it, and shouldn't be able to. But sending that message in the first place, by whatever means, that is not a bad thing unless you insult people, which he didn't. He didn't say "Catholics are bad" or "Catholics suck" or even "Catholic religious practices suck", he said "The Pope sucks and what he says sucks and I don't like it and I want him to change and this is me asking him to."

From:

Quote it. Please.

From:

do you think that the message to the Pope- please modernise, change your stance on homosexuality and women and condoms- is inherently bad or wrong?

No. But I think he's taking it too lightly and not considering that for SOME of the things the theology runs too deep for the Vatican to be able to change their minds just like that.

And at one point he does insinuate that Christians are bland and boring people.

From:

But it doesn't, because if it did Catholics really would all be like that. That's like excusing Destiny because "what the Bible says runs too deep, they can't help it." It's blatantly not true, because there are many, many other churches who totally disagree with Destiny. Similarly the Catholic church is using their theology as an excuse for beliefs that quite frankly I find repellent. They're entitled to them, but I do not have to like them and I do not have to not even ask them to change because, oops, it might be difficult. Change is difficult. That's just the way it is.

Also, er, it wierdly enough wasn't a totally serious essay, so maybe he is taking some things a little bit lightly. In a satire? No! Shock! Horror!

Finally: QUOTE.

From:

I just read it again and the WHOLE THING is a massive rant about how Catholic doctrine is "bitter" and destructive and the priests are repressed paedophiles.

You read it right: Endorse condoms. Crazy, isn't it? But this is what millions were hoping for. Condoms and birth control and finally allow your miserable, repressed priests to get married and have sex so as to avoid mental breakdown and spiritual angst and gross pedophilic urges. Hold to the Old Ways on this topic, Benedict, and you'll simply become even more archaic and silly and disrespected to the point where no one of the independent-minded and especially female persuasion anywhere in the world will have any respect for what you stand for. I am so not kidding

That?? Is prejudice and smugness, basically.

From:

Point by point:

"You read it right: Endorse condoms. Crazy, isn't it?"

I'm not sure what's either prejudiced or smug about this- actually, I don't think any of it is smug, although I will let you have sneering. Prejudiced? Uh, the Catholic Church has an explicit policy against condoms and other forms of contraception. Saying that is not bigotry, it's just the truth.

"But this is what millions were hoping for."
I was. Liberal Catholics all over the world were- see this post (http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_04_17_dish_archive.html#111396439658162809). Probably, all those people in Africa who know that condoms do help prevent the spread of AIDS, and are watching Catholics ignore it, probably they were hoping for it too. Probably all those conservative Catholic wives with umpteen children- not that, thankfully, we have so many of those- probably, secretly, they were hoping for it too. Did you know that a child born within less than a year of another has an incredibly diminished chance of survival? That children in very large families also have a diminished rate of survival of childhood? (I can't give you statistics, unfortunately). Probably women who've been knocked up by a guy they didn't want to marry who then insisted on marrying them and refusing to let them have an abortion, probably they were sort of hoping for it too.

"Condoms and birth control and finally allow your miserable, repressed priests to get married and have sex so as to avoid mental breakdown and spiritual angst and gross pedophilic urges."
Condoms and birthcontrol: see above.
"miserable, repressed priests": Not smug. Perhaps prejudiced, except hang on a second, wait, Catholics aren't even allowed to masturbate and priests aren't allowed to marry (or, presumably, have intercourse with prostitutes.) What does this leave them?
... hang on, nothing. So of course, all these guys in the seminaries, they're not unhappy with it or repressed at all.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not belittling that choice. I just don't think it's a good one to force people to make.

"mental breakdown and spiritual angst and gross pedophilic urges."
Mental breakdown: I don't know what Freud says about the sort of sexual repression practiced by Catholic priests but I bet it's telling.
As for gross pedophilic urges: I think this is more of a jab at the Catholic church for not responding better to the claims of child abuse: I know that in America people feel really angry that the Church did not respond adequately.

"Hold to the Old Ways on this topic, Benedict, and you'll simply become even more archaic and silly and disrespected to the point where no one of the independent-minded and especially female persuasion anywhere in the world will have any respect for what you stand for."

archaic and silly? You know what- believing and preaching that condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV is not merely archaic and silly and counter to science, it's also irresponsible. Ultimately it's murder.

disrespected? How many Catholics today do you know who don't believe condoms are an effective form of contraception as well as something of an aid- not complete- against the spread of STDS?

no-one of the independent-minded and especially female persuasion will have any respect for what you stand for?
I can see how this would be offensive to devout- very devout- Catholics. But I don't think it's prejudiced or smug. As a woman I certainly don't hold with it.

"I am so not kidding"
Flippant? Yeah, but then, it's a satire. Prejudiced? Smug? Nah.

From:

okay, so you're a better arguer than me ;) you win.

But still - the stance on the condom thing is totally justified. But I still think the piece is way too hostile.

From:

:P Thank you.

See, I didn't think it was hostile at all. Satirical, which maybe has that sneering element, but not actively hostile.

From:

disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com

As someone who considers themselves christian, I thought it started off well but wandered too far by the end and just came off silly rather than serious with a sense of humour.

From:

I think fourteen things might have been too many, because I'm fairly sure the middle, say, four were just filling space. :P So I will definitely agree with that one.

From:

Well I didnt suggest that at all, so that's pretty out of the blue.

I've never said I hated the Pope. And I certainly don't think he has the moral highground at all.

From:

I wasn't talking about that paragraph.

So my morals are hateful? Well thats just great, isn't it. Wow, I never would've thought that.

From:

Another Pope-related article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1578210,00.html

From:

rysade.livejournal.com

I thought the article was great. The part about the DaVinci Code was very relevant.

As for The Church's stance on anything (like 'rampant homophobia, mysoginism, and a perpetuation of policies that have led to the infection of thousands [actually probably more like millions] in Africa with HIV/AIDS') ... they're wrong. Fantastically wrong. They can only resist for so long, though.

Remember the quote: "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church" - Ferdinand Magellan

Eventually they will have to come around change.

From:

Well... you just said that the person who wrote the article was hateful, didn't you.

Also, he said that he hated it when people justify anything, no matter how hateful, by saying it's their morals. He didn't say that all morals justified in that way were moral, and he didn't say that yours were.

From:

Yes, you did, actually.
"I hate it when they call people with morals backward."
Your implication being that the author of the article called the policies of the church, which you describe as "moral", backward. Said policies are the ones I referred to. So, actually, you did say that.

I was actually talking about the author here. But I'm glad you don't think he has the moral highground. ;)

From:

Oh I give up. You know what, I'm sick of being attacked on your journal.

I'll pray for you. I hope you see the light someday.

From:

Thanks for the link; it's a very interesting article. Ultimately, I think it's one I disagree with, not the least because it paints (I think) a far less positive picture of the Catholic church that the other article did! As well as having some serious things which I fundamentally disagree with. But it's nevertheless a great read.

From:

I liked it, although I have to admit it might have been a bit distracting (the Da Vinci Code bit. Also, it's such a terrible book that i'm sort of prejudiced against it.)

The thing is, that much of the Church in the Western world has already come around to change. It's simply the theocracy that's having trouble with it- and why wouldn't they; I suppose it pays the bills. *cynical*

From:

Okay. I'm sorry you feel you had to do that, and I'm sorry you felt as if you were attacked; that was never my intention. Sometimes I forget that not everyone is able to separate an attack on an opinion from a personal attack.

I sincerely hope the same for you.

From:

decado.livejournal.com

Interesting link, I do so enjoy reading the stuff you post somtimes!
I thought the author was "having a go" a bit, although it was entertaining. The pope is chosen to help lead catholics and further catholicism, therefore it's stupid to hope that he's going to allow woman priests, condone condom use and welcome homosexuals into the church, because all that is against catholicism! It's like urging a muslim to eat pork because hell, pigs are OK.
It's a shame that he mentioned the Da Vinci code though, he was doing OK up till then, but the book is such shit and based on rubbish that he just blew all his credibility.

From:

decado.livejournal.com

"As for The Church's stance on anything (like 'rampant homophobia, mysoginism, and a perpetuation of policies that have led to the infection of thousands [actually probably more like millions] in Africa with HIV/AIDS') ... they're wrong. Fantastically wrong. They can only resist for so long, though."

Wrong? How can an opinion/belief be wrong? You may not agree, but then don't become a catholic.
Also the population of the continent of africa is about 873 million, and about 143 mil of these are catholic. What's that, about 16%? So how did the catholic church's stance cause the AIDs problem?

From:

I think that it's not true that "the Church's stance... on anything" is wrong. But I think some opinions can be and are wrong. That is to say, there is no way and there should never ever be a way of making people think the same as you- in that sense no opinion is ever wrong, in that one doesn't have a right to have it. But wrong, as in basically false? Yeah, some opinions and beliefs are wrong!

On the "false" side- some people believe, deeply, that the world is flat. They're wrong: it's false that the world is flat.

That's just the way it is. Some people think, say, black people are inferior. That's false, and it's also wrong in terms of morally wrong. It's not morally wrong to hold the belief, but the belief itself is wrong.

Also, I ain't saying the Catholic Church caused the AIDS problem. What caused the AIDS problem is a lack of understanding of everything about the disease- originally because it was new, then because of just general ignorance- and an inability to stop it spreading in third world countries- and all sorts of other stuff. But the Catholic Church, now, today, in Africa, with the HIV statistics as they are in Africa, that Catholic church is saying that condoms don't help prevent the spread of AIDS. I wish I could link, actually, but I haven't got one handy. This may not have caused the AIDS problem- but don't suggest that it's not responsible for infecting people with AIDS, because that kind of policy does result in HIV infection not to mention pregnancy and the spread of venereal disease.

From:

:) I'm glad you enjoyed it.

But it's NOT against Catholicism. I mean, okay, yes, it is against current Church doctrine and it's not going to change overnight. But the Catholic Church has changed in the past and eventually it will change again- it's not static, it just changes more slowly. So it's bullshit to say that something is "against Catholicism", because Catholicism, like any religion, is a changing thing. It does change at a noticeably slower rate than much of the rest of the world, but it does change.

Also, the difference between Muslims (and Jews) not eating pork, or Hindi not eating beef, is that not eating pork and beef is not a form of discrimination against women and gays, and it's not going to cause unwanted and potentially dangerous pregnancies, encourage the spread of STDS, or infect people with HIV/AIDS.

I think he knew the book was shit and based on rubbish, (omghatehate I don't know why people think it's so good because it's CRAP) but the thing is that it is very, very popular, and it doesn't paint the Catholic church in the most appealing light.

Oh well.

From:

As someone who *almost* studied for the priesthood, and has read an awful lot in this area, there is no biblical teaching against condoms, none against women and some really confused stuff about homosexuality. Church teachings on the first two are based around sex being a Bad Thing (hell, enjoying yourself at anything other than prayer is seen by some as a bad thing) and women being responsible for the Fall (as Adam couldn't have been at *all* responsible -Eve held a gun to his head and *made* hime eat that apple!). The dogma around homosexuality is based on some heavily disputed translations. For what is believed, check out

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] </a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

As someone who *almost* studied for the priesthood, and has read an awful lot in this area, there is no biblical teaching against condoms, none against women and some really confused stuff about homosexuality. Church teachings on the first two are based around sex being a Bad Thing (hell, enjoying yourself at anything other than prayer is seen by some as a bad thing) and women being responsible for the Fall (as Adam couldn't have been at *all* responsible -Eve held a gun to his head and *made* hime eat that apple!). The dogma around homosexuality is based on some heavily disputed translations. For what is believed, check out <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html"</a> <i>Persona Humana</> (1975 but not rescinded)</a> .

Basically, the RCC believes the only reason for having sex is to produce more Catholics. Anything that gets in the way is B - A - D bad, including women having jobs instead of babies, (or abortions instead of babies) or men having sex with each other, as they definitely can't have babies.

From:

That should have read:
Persona Humana (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html)
but there you go (still getting used to the Mac keyboard)

From:

I've seen an interesting interpretation of the homosexuality verse, saying that what is sinful is "substitutional homosexuality" or something along those lines - having sex wioth another man when you are straight O_o Interesting thought but it seems a bit unlikely. Convenient though ;)

From:

So much antagonism in this thread.... let's all dance around and sing Jesus I Was Evil. te he.

From:

:P I really like that song. Even though sometimes it's grating.

"I used to do things, and I'd say things, and Jesus, I was evil!"

From:

Why does it seem so unlikely?

From:

It's a really convoluted way of looking at it. Did people 4000 years ago even have a concept of heterosexual vs homosexual vs gay out of desperation because there are no women around?

From: