Black smoke came from Vatican this afternoon, means no Pope chosen so far, have to wait till Tuesday now.

That only means the fire has just been stoked up :D

Originally posted by poppins
Black smoke came from Vatican this afternoon, means no Pope chosen so far, have to wait till Tuesday now.
I hope they aint burning the old one :o

nah its just from starting it up, its not been used for a fair few years...... like an old diesel car!

You are a funny lot, i tried to draw a smilley face on my screen for you but it just made a mess.

must find out how to do that ! just lazy.

Who cares? Will just be another homophobic, sexist, condom hating, protector of child abusers. The whole Vatican could go up in smoke for all I care.

Originally posted by tallyho
Who cares? Will just be another homophobic, sexist, condom hating, protector of child abusers. The whole Vatican could go up in smoke for all I care.

Well some of you are funny, others not !

Originally posted by tallyho
Who cares? Will just be another homophobic, sexist, condom hating, protector of child abusers. The whole Vatican could go up in smoke for all I care.

I agree - the pope is the most highly paid drag act in the world! They are laughing at us man and the Vatican is one giant bong - why do you think they do it behind closed doors??

Cardinal !: Dude! Blow some more of that smoke up that chimney - just look at those morons out there!

Cardinal 2: They're cracking me up with their praying and ****! But hurry up and blow some of that white **** up there - I want to get to the petrol station before it shuts - I need a snickers real bad!:gag:

Smoke you say? Call the fire brigade :P

Not trying to be funny - just holding a mirror up to it all.
Would you not agree that:
The Catholic Church is fundamentally against homosexuality,
That women may not be ordained,
That condoms are opposed,
That the church in the US has been rife with child abusers?


Consider this from Peter Tatchell: "History will judge the Pope harshly. His opposition to the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV has contributed to millions of people dying an agonising, needless death. Millions of children in developing countries are orphans; having lost their parents to Aids because of the Pope’s anti-condom dogma. Pope John Paul II waged a ceaseless war against the human rights of women and gay people; opposing the right of women to control their own fertility; blocking women’s equality in the church; and endorsing state-sponsored discrimination against lesbians and gay men."

and this from Christopher Hitchens: "A few years ago, it seemed quite probable that Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston would have to face trial for his appalling collusion in the child-rape racket that his diocese had been running. The man had knowingly reassigned dangerous and sadistic criminals to positions where they would be able to exploit the defenceless. He had withheld evidence and made himself an accomplice, before and after the fact, in the one offence that people of all faiths and of none have most united in condemning. (Since I have more than once criticized Maureen Dowd in this space, I should say now that I think she put it best of all. A church that has allowed no latitude in its teachings on masturbation, premarital sex, birth control, and divorce suddenly asks for understanding and "wiggle room" for the most revolting crime on the books.) Anyway, Cardinal Law isn’t going to face a court, now. He has fled the jurisdiction and lives in Rome, where a sinecure at the Vatican has been found for him. (Actually not that much of a sinecure: As archpriest of the Rome Basilica of St. Mary Major, he also sits on two boards supervising priestly discipline—yes!—and the appointment of diocesan bishops.) [Update, April 4, 2005:And to add injury to insult as well as insult to injury, this wicked old fugitive will, in the coming days, be a part of the holy conclave that assembles to decide on the next Pope. Could anything be more disgusting?


I don't find any of that remotely funny.


sorry to P*** on the bonfire.....

Black smoke? has someone burnt the toast?

Originally posted by tallyho
Not trying to be funny - just holding a mirror up to it all.
Would you not agree that:
The Catholic Church is fundamentally against homosexuality,
That women may not be ordained,
That condoms are opposed,
That the church in the US has been rife with child abusers?


Consider this from Peter Tatchell: "History will judge the Pope harshly. His opposition to the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV has contributed to millions of people dying an agonising, needless death. Millions of children in developing countries are orphans; having lost their parents to Aids because of the Pope’s anti-condom dogma. Pope John Paul II waged a ceaseless war against the human rights of women and gay people; opposing the right of women to control their own fertility; blocking women’s equality in the church; and endorsing state-sponsored discrimination against lesbians and gay men."


It's not really true that the Pope condemed the used of condoms to prevent spread of HIV. Nowhere in the Catecism of the Catholic Church is HIV mentioned nor is the use of condoms stated to be forbidden, although it talks at length of one of the purposes of marriage being for procreation. No where does it forbid women to control their own fertility, in fact it encourages men and women to use contraceptive methods that respect the bodies of both partners.

Why is there all this secrecy surrounding the selection of the new pope?

Hundreds of people standing outside the Vatican waiting for white smoke to emerge from that piddly little chimney. Haven't they got anything better to do for goodness sake?

*** Mo waits for bolt of lightening***

Extra special floors fitted in the Sistine Chapel so that bugging devices cannot pick up what is being said. Who are these people that are prepared to bug the Vatican and why?

What are they doing in there all this time? Surely an exhaustive ballot can't take this long?

Any Catholics or others who can enlighten this old atheist?

What I dont understand is, if the Pope is called by God, why do they have to have a ballot at all?

Originally posted by BoppinBruce
What I dont understand is, if the Pope is called by God, why do they have to have a ballot at all?

They will make it spin out (like council workers digging the road up)
They will be on double time, and trying to boost their pensions up. (like council workers)

Why have a Pope?

Originally posted by tallyho
Why have a Pope?

Thats like saying- "why have a prime minister" - virtually every organisation needs a leader and since the days of st peter the catholic church has had a leader- known as the pope- this will be the 239th (i THINK) decendant of st peter to assume the role of pope (and leader) of all the worlds catholics.

Originally posted by tallyho
Why have a Pope?

Whats wrong with the Queen doing it.
It's not like she's run off her feet is it.

My point would be, why have the catholic church? why have religion?

Originally posted by tallyho
My point would be, why have the catholic church? why have religion?
Good point, get rid of religion, no wars, then we can turn York minster into a hotel for asylum seekers :thumbsup:

And then there's the celebacy thing creating paedophiles/perverts in churches across the world...

Mod. Note

This started as a thread about the election of the Pope.

It's not a thread for bashing the Catholic Church.

Please stay on topic.

Joe

There are approx one billion catholics around the world.

I'm thankful that choosing someone to lead them is done carefully and properly - that man is going to have some awesome power and money behind him

Is the pope a catholic? :D

A new Pope has been elected! Not sure yet who it is....

Telegraph article here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/19/upope.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/19/ixportaltop.html)

It's not me by the way. I did send in my cv, and had what I thought was a great interview in Rome but they said I was 'Over-Qualified', which I think is BS.

I didn't want the job anyway..............just that cool pope_mobile.

Well, Apparently the new Pope is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

(Pope Benedict XVI)

Originally posted by Snook
Well, Apparently the new Pope is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

(Pope Benedict XVI)

Yes, a 78 year old man, the oldest pope in 100 years, and he's all for denying communion to US politcians who support abortion, he thinks that Turkey shouldn't be allowed in the EU, and according to one source he wrote a paper denouncing all other faiths.

Sounds like just the man the Church need to bring themselves into the 21st Century and to help unite religion AND people around the world.

I know I can't believe it 78! saw the news bulitin after the snooker on BBC2, i was so relieved.. i always think its going to be a big nuclear threat whenever those 'we interrupt normal programming' bulitins come on!!

I suppose he doesn't see any point in any other faith when he has such a stong belief in his.. thinks its going to be a big contrast to JP2 in many other respects!

It's probably just as well that he's 78 if he's so closed minded about other faiths etc - he shouldn't be around too long ...

We'll probably not hear much of him for a few weeks anyway; he'll be undergoing an intensive course in 'Waving and Smiling from windows' for a while...

Originally posted by Hels
It's probably just as well that he's 78 if he's so closed minded about other faiths etc - he shouldn't be around too long ...

That was my thought as well - ashamedly! I'm not big on religion, but I really think that somebody needs to bring the church forward, and modernize it! Not keep it stuck in the stone age!

I agree Hook!, id love to go back to the church but im so riddled with guilt when walking through the door that i turn straight back around! lets just say my rosary beads are more than a little rusty and dusty!!

Enjoyed this recent article from The Onion in case no one has read it
--------------------------

Heaven Less Opulent Than Vatican, Reports Disappointed Pope

HEAVEN—The soul of Pope John Paul, which entered heaven last week following a long illness, expressed confusion and disappointment Saturday, upon learning that the Celestial Kingdom of God to which the departed faithful ascend in the afterlife is significantly less luxurious than the Vatican's Papal Palace, in which the pope spent the past 26 years of his earthly life.

"Where are all the marble statues, sterling-silver chalices, and gem-encrusted scepters?" the visibly disappointed pope asked. "Where are the 60-foot-tall stained-glass windows and hand-painted cupolas? Where are the elaborately outfitted ranks of Swiss Guards? Why isn't every single surface gilded? This is my eternal reward?"

Heaven, according to the New Testament, has "brilliance like a very costly stone... of pure gold, like clear glass..." with "twelve gates... each gate a single pearl." Yet the pope, who spoke from the afterlife, said heaven is nothing like the "solid-gold city" detailed at length by John of Patmos in the Book of Revelations.

"Evidently, the Bible was not intended to be taken literally, after all," John Paul II said. "Don't get me wrong: It's very nice up here—quite beautiful and serene. It's just not as fancy as what I'm accustomed to. If I'd known heaven was going to be like this, I would've taken one last tour through my 50 rooms of velvet-draped thrones and priceless oil paintings before saying 'Amen' and breathing my last."

According to the pope, heaven is merely a place of unending peace and happiness, wherein all the spirits of the Elect live together forever in perfect harmony and goodness, basking in the rays of God's divine love.

"Up here, everyone is equal," John Paul II said. "No one has to go through an elaborate bowing ritual when they greet me. And do you know how many times my ring has been kissed since I arrived? None. Up here, I'm mingling with tax collectors, fishermen, and whores. It's just going to take a little getting used to, is all."

The pope said it is amusing to think that he has been waiting for this "so-called Paradise" his entire life.

"I spent almost 84 years reciting novenas and Hail Marys to get to this restful place," John Paul II said. "If I'd wanted peace, quiet, and pretty clouds, I could've moved to the Italian Riviera. Frankly, this afterlife represents a significant drop in my standard of living."

"Well, they always said you can't take it with you," he added

-------------------

He's ex-hitler youth too.... nice to see you cvan repent your sins and get to the top job despite your past...such is forgiveness

Originally posted by Internetowl
He's ex-hitler youth too.... nice to see you cvan repent your sins and get to the top job despite your past...such is forgiveness

I bet the sly sods a Catholic as well :confused:

Originally posted by Internetowl
He's ex-hitler youth too.... nice to see you cvan repent your sins and get to the top job despite your past...such is forgiveness

I didn't believe that but it's true! (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/477bab6e-b0e7-11d9-9bfc-00000e2511c8.html) :o

Let's not be too misleading here (for those who don't read the full article), the new pope was briefly a member of Hitlers Youth at age 14 when membership became compulsory and he left shortly afterwards.

What I find more puzzling is the fact that he's apparantly suffering from ill-health and was looking forward to retiring so that he could write more books???

Me thinks they couldn't find anyone really suitable so this guy is a 'put me on' until they groom someone else for the post in a couple of years time.

Originally posted by Hook
Yes, a 78 year old man, the oldest pope in 100 years...
Well, wasn't JP2 one of the longest serving ever, maybe they just want to make sure that doesn't happen again any time soon. ;)

Originally posted by Hels
It's probably just as well that he's 78 if he's so closed minded about other faiths etc - he shouldn't be around too long ...

As I understand it, that's part of the reason he was picked. He's deemed to be a 'safe' pope who won't try and change much put in place by JP, but won't be around too long either so they can find a visionary for the job in a few years.

Clever lot these cardinals you know.

it's ok, he's going to surprise them all and live to be 110 :D if I was him I'd be a stubburn git and refuse to die just to **** them off! ... but then again, I always was a pain in the ass :D

Originally posted by Hook
Yes, a 78 year old man, the oldest pope in 100 years, and he's all for denying communion to US politcians who support abortion, he thinks that Turkey shouldn't be allowed in the EU, and according to one source he wrote a paper denouncing all other faiths.

Sounds like just the man the Church need to bring themselves into the 21st Century and to help unite religion AND people around the world.

If there has to be a pope, I think it would be better to have one like this who stands for what he believes in than to have one who tries to please everyone just to make the Catholic Church more popular. I mean, surely if people don't believe the same things as the Catholic Church then why not join another church? :confused:

P.S. I'm not Catholic by the way!

Pope Idol has finished, Benedict XVI. They must've been smokin some good stuff in the Cistine - fancy having to have a chimney fitted specially!!

Originally posted by Hook
That was my thought as well - ashamedly! I'm not big on religion, but I really think that somebody needs to bring the church forward, and modernize it! Not keep it stuck in the stone age! how would you alter the church to bring it up to the 21st century,?

Originally posted by depoix
how would you alter the church to bring it up to the 21st century,?

Turn them into mini-malls? I bet more people would go...

Originally posted by depoix
how would you alter the church to bring it up to the 21st century,?

I'm guessing if the Catholic Church could just

A) Admit it has a big problem with child abuse
B) Do something about it

Would be a good start....

It's worth noting that I am a very hard line atheist, who believes that this world will never evolve while we keep holding onto these stupid ‘dark age’ beliefs.

A hard line atheist by the way, is someone who not only doesn’t believe in God, but if they were proved wrong and saw god, they would attempt to kill it/him/her. That is me.

The new pope is Joseph Ratzinger and will take the name Benedict XVI. He is 78 years old so we'll be going through this whole thing again in a few years.

I heard that he was against prosecution of priests who commit child molestation. That he would rather cover up the matter and move the priest around to somewhere else. Maybe he feels that if they confess their sins and repent that god will forgive them. So there would be no need for it to go any further if they promise not to do it again. Keep it in house. Maybe the new pope doesn't trust the justice system?

Originally posted by Funke88
I heard that he was against prosecution of priests who commit child molestation. That he would rather cover up the matter and move the priest around to somewhere else. Maybe he feels that if they confess their sins and repent that god will forgive them. So there would be no need for it to go any further if they promise not to do it again. Keep it in house. Maybe the new pope doesn't trust the justice system?

Do you have a source for this?

Great, a right wing intolerant pope. What the world needed:loopy:

nice to see they got a young one this time:loopy:

oh and I love "I trust the Holy Spirit argument:loopy: are you dense? Nothing to do with the Holy Spirit all to do with politics within the Vatician

Must be the oldest winner of the pope idol...when is the show comming to the arena?:heyhey::partyhat:

He should get on really well with the muslim fundamentalists, they have a lot in common. tolerance, love, understanding and homophobia to name a few.

So, not much change at the top of the Catholic church then? Looking at his cv, I think we must expect more traditional teaching on sexuality, otherwise known as gay-bashing.

(and yes, I am both gay and an atheist).

Originally posted by redrobbo
So, not much change at the top of the Catholic church then? Looking at his cv, I think we must expect more traditional teaching on sexuality, otherwise known as gay-bashing.

(and yes, I am both gay and an atheist).

Well, I'm gay and a Christian, but I'm not impressed with the choice of someone that used to be in the Hitler Youth! :wow: Mind you, never been impressed with the Catholic church anyway...

Originally posted by Kristian
Well, I'm gay and a Christian.

Thats like supporting Man Utd and hating football, isn't it? :)

Originally posted by Snook
Thats like supporting Man Utd and hating football, isn't it? :)

Hmmm, I don't think so. Christ only taught us about love and acceptance, not about persecution. The bible was written by men when push comes to shove; see what I mean here. (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30211&highlight=gods+unchanging+laws)

K x

Originally posted by Kristian
Hmmm, I don't think so. Christ only taught us about love and acceptance, not about persecution. The bible was written by men when push comes to shove; see what I mean here. (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30211&highlight=gods+unchanging+laws)

K x

Yeah, I agree that it's all daft, and I think you probably know that I don't have a problem with anyones sexuality... but the Christian church is (as a whole) against homosexuality, and so it seems strange to be both gay and Christian... Personally, I have no time for organised religion, and think that we should all worship God in our own way. That's the way I think he'd want it, and I don't think he cares who we are attracted to.

Sorry Snook, let me clarify; I identify as Christian because I believe in his teachings, but I don't go to church, or affilliate myself with any organsied religion. That said, I don't judge others that do. There are religions I don't respect or have time for, but each to their own!

Best get back to topic.... :blush: ;)

Am I mistaken, or has super_pie got a religious icon for his avatar? (Or is my sight not what it used to be?)

super_pie - are you god, or the next pope-in-waiting? I think we should be told.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Am I mistaken, or has super_pie got a religious icon for his avatar? (Or is my sight not what it used to be?)

I think, although could be mistaken, that it is a 'Buddy Christ', which is from the Kevin Smith film 'Dogma'... A film which is often mistakenly embraced by atheists, despite being a pro-faith film.

How many Catholics got to vote in this "election"?

Weren't most of the Cardinals (the only ones who got a vote) appointed by that bloke who took up being a priest when he realised he was a useless goalie?

Think of the Catholic Church as a global organisation similar to other multinational corporations: (McDonalds/Starbucks/Shell etc). They have just appointed a new CEO.

They will be like any other multinational... How can we exert more influence, how can we sell to more people? How can we grow the business, how many subscribers do we have?

Originally posted by sicubitt
Think of the Catholic Church as a global organisation similar to other multinational corporations: (McDonalds/Starbucks/Shell etc). They have just appointed a new CEO.

They will be like any other multinational... How can we exert more influence, how can we sell to more people? How can we grow the business, how many subscribers do we have?

Except, as far as we know, the CEO of McDonald's has not engaged in a huge cover-up of long-term and institutionalised paedophile activities by a great many of his employees - from senior management right down to those on the shop floor

Originally posted by t020
The new pope is Joseph Ratzinger and will take the name Benedict XVI. He is 78 years old so we'll be going through this whole thing again in a few years.

Ratzinger, oh dear, I'm glad burning people at the stake is illegal now.

Originally posted by scottf
Originally posted by tallyho
Why have a Pope?
Thats like saying- "why have a prime minister" - virtually every organisation needs a leader...

...to assume the role of pope (and leader) of all the worlds catholics.
But I thought they already had a leader...

...s/he's called "God" or sumfink...

:confused:

appears that Tallyho was correct in that they've elected a hardline anti abortion, anti condom, sexist homophobe.

Once again, the tired old excuse of religion and wars comes up. Religion per se does not start wars; people, that is MAN starts wars. He hides behind his religion or uses it as the excuse for creating war. A bit like the idiots at football grounds who cause agro supposedly because they support a particular team.

Don't the billions of everyday folk who go about their lives, under Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or whatever faith, peacefully and without incident deserve better than to be tarred with the same brush? 'You're religious and because of you, look at all the wars in the world'.

And Cyclone, it's naturally par for the course for you to deem the new Pope a sexist homophobe. I thought with your supposed dislike of religion you wouldn't give a fig if the new Pope was Kylie Minogue.

On the other hand....,

no not really. I'm just repeating what the major media outlets are saying.

The guy is a hard line conservative with well established views on homophobia, women in the church, use of contraceptives and abortion.

Please prove me wrong, find a quote of him post 1960's when he expouses anything that contradicts the positions I attribute to him above.

He was also in the Hitler youth.......

The election of Ratzinger reminds me of similar situation in the Soviet Union in the early 1980s. The Soviet system was moribund and ripe for radical reform. But for a new leader the Soviet elite chose Chernenko, a very old man who was apparantly half-dead when he was appointed. The next time round tohugh they chiose Gorbachev, and the rest is history.

The interesting thing is that although Gorbachev was relatively young and dynamic, he wasn't regarded as a bold reformer at the time of his appointment. Perhaps the next Pope might be a Gorbachev type figure who will address many of the issues which Ratzinger is refusing to countenace

Originally posted by Cyclone
no not really. I'm just repeating what the major media outlets are saying.

The guy is a hard line conservative with well established views on homophobia, women in the church, use of contraceptives and abortion.

Please prove me wrong, find a quote of him post 1960's when he expouses anything that contradicts the positions I attribute to him above.

I think your use of the term "homophobia" is being incorrectly applied in this situation. If one objects on the grounds of their beliefs then it isn't really a fear of something or a discriminatory practice. The Catholic Church and the newly elected Holy Father are not homophobic as such they are merely following the moral code that the Bible explicitly sets out.

Originally posted by tallyho
He was also in the Hitler youth.......

Come on tell the whole story! He refused to join the Nazi party and deserted the German army. He was also held as a POW by the Allies.

Did you all miss the bit about him being a deserter from the German Army? I bet that went down well in the boozers in Bavaria. He must have had his lederhosen in a twist.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I think your use of the term "homophobia" is being incorrectly applied in this situation. If one objects on the grounds of their beliefs then it isn't really a fear of something or a discriminatory practice. The Catholic Church and the newly elected Holy Father are not homophobic as such they are merely following the moral code that the Bible explicitly sets out.

Of course it is a discrimunatory practice. Whether you call it homophobia or something else, it amounts to the same thing in practice, whatever semantic disnctinctions, verbal rationalisations or sophistries are used.

writing it down and calling it a moral code doesn't alter what it is.

Or would you argue that women not having the vote wasn't discriminatory because it was part of the constitution and moral code of early England?

Originally posted by JonJParr
I think your use of the term "homophobia" is being incorrectly applied in this situation. If one objects on the grounds of their beliefs then it isn't really a fear of something or a discriminatory practice. The Catholic Church and the newly elected Holy Father are not homophobic as such they are merely following the moral code that the Bible explicitly sets out.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I think your use of the term "homophobia" is being incorrectly applied in this situation. If one objects on the grounds of their beliefs then it isn't really a fear of something or a discriminatory practice. The Catholic Church and the newly elected Holy Father are not homophobic as such they are merely following the moral code that the Bible explicitly sets out.

The bible does not as far as I'm aware explicitly set out the homophobic beliefs that the catholic church follow. As a book translated and rewritten many times, it is very much open to interpretation. It is the people at the top who do this interpreting, and to that end they are indeed homophobic women haters as previously stated.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Of course it is a discrimunatory practice. Whether you call it homophobia or something else, it amounts to the same thing in practice, whatever semantic disnctinctions, verbal rationalisations or sophistries are used.

I have to disagree. What defines a religion is its set of beliefs - the faith as it were. The Catholic church denounces homosexuality as something that is "evil" and that stance is based on the teachings taken from the Bible. I don't want to get involved in an argument about people being gay - after all, it's not my place to judge. But how can the Catholic Church maintain any form of credibility if when faced with a change in society they mutilate one of their oldest beliefs?

Originally posted by Cyclone
writing it down and calling it a moral code doesn't alter what it is.

Or would you argue that women not having the vote wasn't discriminatory because it was part of the constitution and moral code of early England?

Politics and Scripture really can't be compared in this way.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I have to disagree. What defines a religion is its set of beliefs - the faith as it were. The Catholic church denounces homosexuality as something that is "evil" and that stance is based on the teachings taken from the Bible. I don't want to get involved in an argument about people being gay - after all, it's not my place to judge. But how can the Catholic Church maintain any form of credibility if when faced with a change in society they mutilate one of their oldest beliefs?

Again, we are in the realm of semantics here. If a religion describes something as evil, it is hardly surprising that its adherents are phobic about it. Of ocurse, you might argue that there is a difference between condemning the sin and condemning the sinner - but in practice they are inextricable

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Again, we are in the realm of semantics here. If a religion describes something as evil, it is hardly surprising that its adherents are phobic about it. Of ocurse, you might argue that there is a difference between condemning the sin and condemning the sinner - but in practice they are inextricable

To condemn something is not to fear it. After all, you can believe cats (or indeed dogs) are evil and not fear them. We don't always fear the things we hate.

ps: If you're not Catholic why care? The churches stance on such issues doesn't directly affect you does it?

JJP - I don't see why it can't be compared. And I don't see what difference your word games make. It is homophobia dressed up in religous clothes.

The church has mutilated it's believes throughout it's history in order to fit in with changes in society. The difference now is that the changes are happening too fast for a pointless monolythic organsation like the church to keep up with, and the free flow of information in this day and age would expose their hypocrisy for all to see.

Originally posted by JonJParr
To condemn something is not to fear it. After all, you can believe cats (or indeed dogs) are evil and not fear them. We don't always fear the things we hate.

ps: If you're not Catholic why care? The churches stance on such issues doesn't directly affect you does it?

that's as short sighted as saying that since I'm not American GWB's policies don't affect me. We live in a global world.

I think the main problem here is not the choice of Pope but the Catholic religion itself. The new pope is against contraception, homosexuality etc but he is merely upholding the policies of the religion. I don't doubt he believes in them himself but any cardinal who expressed changed to such things would surely not have been elected ?

Originally posted by Cyclone
JJP - I don't see why it can't be compared. And I don't see what difference your word games make. It is homophobia dressed up in religous clothes.

The church has mutilated it's believes throughout it's history in order to fit in with changes in society. The difference now is that the changes are happening too fast for a pointless monolythic organsation like the church to keep up with, and the free flow of information in this day and age would expose their hypocrisy for all to see.

Firstly, it isn't words that are important it is the interpretation of those words that really makes a difference. My own personal view is that the Catholic Church is not homophobic - it simply doesn't agree with homosexuality and as such condemns it.

To my knowledge the Catholic Church has not altered its fundamental beliefs in order to adapt to today's society. The Anglican church may adopt more "popular" beliefs and bow to public opinion but the Catholic Church does not. It's why the Catholic Church is so independent - a standalone state.

Furthermore, I have to wonder why if you believe the Catholic church to be so structured, uniform and in your own words "pointless" you follow it's development so closely?

The Pope can only ever be a man, and he will reside in what is officially a nation state, The Vatican, which has a population of approximately 1,000 - all of whom are confirmed bachelors. The Pope is described as being married - but to an invisible entity.

Is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking?

Originally posted by Cyclone
a pointless monolythic organsation like the church

Originally posted by Cyclone
that's as short sighted as saying that since I'm not American GWB's policies don't affect me. We live in a global world.

How can you call the Catholic church "pointless" in one post and then emphatically state it is of "global" importance in the next. Surely you're now contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking?

Your going to vote conservative ?

Originally posted by JonJParr
How can you call the Catholic church "pointless" in one post and then emphatically state it is of "global" importance in the next. Surely you're now contradicting yourself.

the two are not mutually exclusive.

In my opinion the church exists now simply to perpetuate it's own existance and power base, there is no external point to it.

It's vast size and the number of deluded people who listen to what it has to say mean however that it has an affect on global politics.

I'd hardly say that I follow it's development closely. I can't really help but notice all this fuss about it's old boss dying a new one being selected.

You are misrepresenting what I said, I specifically said that the man was homophobic, I didn't say that the church was, although it's likely that as an organisation it's policies will follow those of it's leader.

Homphobia
1) Fear of or contempt for gay men or women.

So are you trying to say that condemnation of a way of life does not demonstrate contempt for it?

Originally posted by redrobbo
The Pope can only ever be a man, and he will reside in what is officially a nation state, The Vatican, which has a population of approximately 1,000 - all of whom are confirmed bachelors. The Pope is described as being married - but to an invisible entity.

Is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking?

There is a legend (first appearing in the 13th century) about a female Pope - Pope Joan - who apparently masqueraded as a man but who was dsicovered when she became obviously pregnant.

A related story is that since the time of 'Pope Joan', papal nominees have to be subjected to a phyiscal examination to confirm their gender. There was supposedly a special seat with a hole in it for this purpose. A Vatican official would supposedly check the nomine's credentials and declare that the nominee had testicles. Apparently, the practice was discontinued in the 18th century, but the special chair still exists.

As anecdotes, these have great merit, except that they appear to be untrue. Most scholars agree that there never was a Pope Joan and the famous chair with a hole in it was used for a more mundane purpose.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Most scholars agree that there never was a Pope Joan and the famous chair with a hole in it was used for a more mundane purpose.

like training choir boys probably.

I seem to remember reading something about Nostradamus which said that one of his predictions was the next Pope (ie this one), will be the last Pontif before the end of the World. Let's hope he's of robust health, eh?

Originally posted by JonJParr
I don't want to get involved in an argument about people being gay - after all, it's not my place to judge.

As a gay man myself, I do not need to be judged on my sexuality, whether it be by the Pope, the catholic church or anyone else.

I would like to echo other's disppointment that such a conservative Pope has been chosen. I would like to have seen the Catholic Church make a brave statement and elect one with more compassion and modern views, especially with respect of contraception, womens' rights and homosexuals. Still, he is 78, so they aren't exactly taking a risk on him being around as long as the last one are they?

Originally posted by Cyclone
[B]the two are not mutually exclusive.

In my opinion the church exists now simply to perpetuate it's own existance and power base, there is no external point to it.

It's vast size and the number of deluded people who listen to what it has to say mean however that it has an affect on global politics.

I'd hardly say that I follow it's development closely. I can't really help but notice all this fuss about it's old boss dying a new one being selected.

You are misrepresenting what I said, I specifically said that the man was homophobic, I didn't say that the church was, although it's likely that as an organisation it's policies will follow those of it's leader.

[B]

Sorry not replying sooner - nipped out for a sandwich. I can see that you're not a great fan of religion. That's fine! But please don't label followers as "deluded". Those who follow a religion (which you have stated you do not) know that being a follower of religion is so much more than just rules and regulations. It's enlightening and fulfilling too! Just bear that in mind when you label it as "pointless" that it actually means a lot to some people. In wouldn't hurt to show a little more respect - after all, we're all expected to do this for those who are gay!

The Holy Father is the head of the Catholic faith and he speaks for the Church and guides the church. When you label Him a "homophobe" you effectively label the entire church as Catholics believe the choice of a Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit.

"The Holy Father is the head of the Catholic faith and he speaks for the Church and guides the church. When you label Him a "homophobe" you effectively label the entire church"


That is not true - my family are catholic, and so are many of my friends. I have discussed the issue of the pope's views on homosexuality and contraception with them many times - all agree that he is wrong. They don't agree with him, he doesn't speak for them.

Originally posted by clogginchris
"The Holy Father is the head of the Catholic faith and he speaks for the Church and guides the church. When you label Him a "homophobe" you effectively label the entire church"


That is not true - my family are catholic, and so are many of my friends. I have discussed the issue of the pope's views on homosexuality and contraception with them many times - all agree that he is wrong. They don't agree with him, he doesn't speak for them.

Would your friends and family go as far as to call their Pope a homophobe though?

Jon,
I have no respect for the church, respect is earn. And thus I won't go out of my way to show any.

I believe that people who believe in God are practising a self delusion, if it were any other fairy tale being that they professed belief in then they would be carted away for treatment.

I don't expect you or the church to show anything particularly towards gay people, just don't expect to avoid being labelled accurately for whatever view it is that you do espouse.

So, any actual evidence yet that he isn't a homophobe since all the media organisations are saying that he is? Or are they all against the church as well.

I guess that's where we differ - I believe respect goes hand in hand with manners and tolerance. I may not agree with someone but I won't disparage them for their belief. I've always found that respecting a differing opinion and trying to understand it is a much more intelligent way to approach it.

so you offer respect immediately to anyone and any organisation.

I prefer to believe that respect is something that is earnt. Which doesn't stop me listening to the ideas of a person or organisation.

I've done plenty of listening to the church and so far I all i've found is an organisation using FUD to generate revenue and power for itself and a whole lot of self delusional people following blindly along.

Now, given that i'll follow your advice and give him the benefit of the doubt, please provide any evidence you have for the new pope not being a homophobe.

in the Times this morning he's quoted as saying that rock and roll is a vehicle of anti-religion.

As Chuck Berry said

Hail, hail rock and roll

A good riff has more chance of reaching most people's 'souls' than the incantation of quasi mystical metaphors in a language most people can't understand.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Now, given that i'll follow your advice and give him the benefit of the doubt, please provide any evidence you have for the new pope not being a homophobe.

He let me kiss his ring.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Would your friends and family go as far as to call their Pope a homophobe though?

Originally posted by Cyclone
Homphobia
1) Fear of or contempt for gay men or women.


Yes! How can people not think that? :huh:

Originally posted by Kristian
Yes! How can people not think that? :huh:

If they are devout Catholics I doubt they would label the Holy Father so disrespectfully.

Originally posted by JonJParr
If they are devout Catholics I doubt they would label the Holy Father so disrespectfully.

what's your point?

I would have thought that were obvious. Whilst they clearly don't share the conservative views of the Holy Father on the subject of homosexuality they probably wouldn't go as far as to label him a "homophobe" - it's highly disrespectful.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I would have thought that were obvious. Whilst they clearly don't share the conservative views of the Holy Father on the subject of homosexuality they probably wouldn't go as far as to label him a "homophobe" - it's highly disrespectful.

so you're saying that because they have respect for him, they'll stay clear of actually saying it, whilst thinking it in their heads. Well I can see that that makes it all okay then.

Originally posted by Cyclone
so you're saying that because they have respect for him, they'll stay clear of actually saying it, whilst thinking it in their heads. Well I can see that that makes it all okay then.

I stay clear of saying what I realy think about a lot of people.

I think your great BTW.

Originally posted by JonJParr
If they are devout Catholics I doubt they would label the Holy Father so disrespectfully.

So faith and belief in religion blinds people to facts then? :huh:

Reading a few of these well reasoned arguments, I am gradually gaining more faith in the fact that religion makes little sense. I have no problem whatsoever with other people gaining whatever they may gain from religion, the trouble is when those peoples' beliefs start to affect others. The views of the catholic church promote homophobia and misogyny, which are wholly inappropriate in todays society.

I can't help but disagree with those who seem to be suggesting that it's all right for the Pope to hold the beliefs that he does because it is his religion, so his choice, and the choice of all those who follow that religion. And that what that religion teaches must be followed to the letter forsaking all else.

Unfortunately, the Pope does not only speak for himself... he has a social responsibility towards his flock of what - 2 billion? Many of them not benefitting from the same standards of life, education, and advantages that the better off part of his flock benefit from. You simply cannot close your eyes to the fact that an edict to NOT use condoms, for example, WILL mean the POINTLESS DEATH of millions. Exactly how can you weigh those lives against religion? If you have any respect for humanity, if you have any compassion for life at all, you CANNOT.

The world changes, situations change, and unless people and the institutions they belong to change accordingly, tragedies will occur.
The biggest tragedy of all is that so many people will follow this deluded homicidal Pope and his edicts just as they did the last one. Straight into their miserable graves.

Oh dear lord, where did my sense of humour go...

Is it just me or does this new Pope actually look like an old Baverian Nazi?

It's hard to put into words what exactly that look is but there is something about him.

Originally posted by Snook
I think, although could be mistaken, that it is a 'Buddy Christ', which is from the Kevin Smith film 'Dogma'... A film which is often mistakenly embraced by atheists, despite being a pro-faith film.

Don't judge me untill you realise what a massive film now-it-all I am.



Well, although Kevin Smith is a Catholic, and this is a film about his faith. It can be viewed either way. It contains enough ideas for both sides to feel equally at home. Some of the best ideas can be seen simply as saying you don't always need religon to be a good person.

One of the best quotes (and I'm paraphrasing)

"God gave you an idea, and you turned it into a religon"

It's also important to see that most Catholic's like Smith arn't tied down to their Church's Dogma, and can think for themselves (even though the film was attacked by a lot of Catholics). So it makes the things the Pope says even more less representative.

The film also features Salma Hayek stripping :clap: so neeehh

Originally posted by super_pie
Don't judge me untill you realise what a massive film now-it-all I am.

I'm not judging, just stating fact. The film was a commentary on organised religion and the people who get too carried away with the dogma attached. It is still a pro-faith film by someone who is very much a Christian and pro-faith.

It is no way a film that promotes the idea that there is no god, and so I find it strange that atheists would latch on to it. It certainly doesn't put across any kind of anti-God argument.

Originally posted by super_pie
(even though the film was attacked by a lot of Catholics)

The film was even protested against by Smith and his friend Brian Johnson... although I'm sure you know that already.

Anyway, back to topic....

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Is it just me or does this new Pope actually look like an old Baverian Nazi?

It's hard to put into words what exactly that look is but there is something about him.

Hardly suprising as he was in the Hitler Youth.

To be fair - and it really pains me to be fair to this particular creature (the Pope) - it was compulsory at the time. None of us can say with any certainty exactly how we would have behaved under the same circumstances. We can yell very bravely indeed right now that we would have stood up and yelled for all to hear that Hitler was evil, etc. etc... but had we actually been there...we simply can't know.

It certainly doesn't sound from the reports like he was a committed Nazi. In fact, he was a deserter, was he not?

So much as I'd like to be able to call him out on that kind of evil, too, I don't think it's fair to.

Unless someone has differing information? I'm always happy to be even more embittered with paedophile-protecting, AIDS-spreading, women-hating people :D

well I like his stance on rock music. didn't he say rock music is the Papal of Satan.

I like it. Don't like religous and political leaders listening to rock.


I'd have though he'd have loved Deicide as well ;)

Originally posted by cosywolf
To be fair - and it really pains me to be fair to this particular creature (the Pope) - it was compulsory at the time. None of us can say with any certainty exactly how we would have behaved under the same circumstances. We can yell very bravely indeed right now that we would have stood up and yelled for all to hear that Hitler was evil, etc. etc... but had we actually been there...we simply can't know.

It certainly doesn't sound from the reports like he was a committed Nazi. In fact, he was a deserter, was he not?

So much as I'd like to be able to call him out on that kind of evil, too, I don't think it's fair to.

Unless someone has differing information? I'm always happy to be even more embittered with paedophile-protecting, AIDS-spreading, women-hating people :D

I stand chastised in the full force of your fairness.

Mod. Note

The thread was about the election of the new pope and that's now done and reported.

If we want to set up a new thread about the right / wrongs of the Catholic Church then please do so.

Also, whilst not a Catholic myself, there are some on this forum who practice this religion, so perhaps a little respect for their beliefs might be nice?

Cheers

Joe

LOL, Max...now I feel even worse. :P

Not sure I like being fair, but it was worth a try, I guess...

Originally posted by JoePritchard

Mod. Note

The thread was about the election of the new pope and that's now done and reported.

If we want to set up a new thread about the right / wrongs of the Catholic Church then please do so.

Also, whilst not a Catholic myself, there are some on this forum who practice this religion, so perhaps a little respect for their beliefs might be nice?

Cheers

Joe


Ummm...the title of the thread is 'A New Pope is Elected'. Seems pretty open, as a topic of conversation about said new pope, to me?

Mod. Note,

Hi cosywolf,

Yes, the Pope is elected, and yes, it's a wide subject, but what I am concerned about is things degenerating in to a general debate about the Catholic Church.

Enough said. I'll just rely on the good taste and decorum of forum members to keep it on subject. :)

Joe

Originally posted by JonJParr
In wouldn't hurt to show a little more respect - after all, we're all expected to do this for those who are gay!


We are born with a gender, colour and sexual orientation (unless you believe that gays choose to be gay - but then do heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals?). These are attributes over which we have no volition (with the exception of gender disorders leading to a change in sex).

Religion, on the other hand, is something we choose (or not) to follow. It is in other words an explicit and free choice (hopefully) taken by individuals. This is demonstrated in becoming ‘confirmed’ by the church.

Whereas not respecting a person’s gender, colour or sexual orientation is irrational (it is non-sense, they have no control over these attributes so how can they be criticism or discriminated against?), this is clearly not the case with religion (or any other belief system) for the reasons outlined above (individuals can exercise volition).

Why should religion demand respect? It is simply a belief system. Should we automatically extend respect to all belief systems? What about scientologists? Or Maoists? No, religion does not deserve automatic respect.

Originally posted by Nimrod
He should get on really well with the muslim fundamentalists, they have a lot in common. tolerance, love, understanding and homophobia to name a few.

This is exactly what is happening.
This is why Christian groups supported the Sikh mob on Behtzi and Islamists suppoted the crackpot crack pot Christian Voice and their assault on the BBC over Jerry springer.

A general mobalisation of hard core fundamentalism and while we slumber on, we stand no chance in facing it down.

WAKE UP PEOPLE - the end is nigh!
Repent ye of ye sins and take thyself to your nearest secular organisation!

Originally posted by JonJParr
Come on tell the whole story! He refused to join the Nazi party and deserted the German army. He was also held as a POW by the Allies.
Fair cop.
But leopards and spots?

Originally posted by tallyho
We are born with a gender, colour and sexual orientation (unless you believe that gays choose to be gay - but then do heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals?). These are attributes over which we have no volition (with the exception of gender disorders leading to a change in sex).

Religion, on the other hand, is something we choose (or not) to follow. It is in other words an explicit and free choice (hopefully) taken by individuals. This is demonstrated in becoming ‘confirmed’ by the church.

Whereas not respecting a person’s gender, colour or sexual orientation is irrational (it is non-sense, they have no control over these attributes so how can they be criticism or discriminated against?), this is clearly not the case with religion (or any other belief system) for the reasons outlined above (individuals can exercise volition).

Why should religion demand respect? It is simply a belief system. Should we automatically extend respect to all belief systems? What about scientologists? Or Maoists? No, religion does not deserve automatic respect.

I do agree with this to an extent...I do feel that we have a right to discuss this Pope and all his inherent faults and otherwise. He is, like it or not, a loud voice in the world, and if some of us feel that his is a harmful voice, we have the right to stand up and say so.
No, we shouldn't get into name calling and pointless denigration, but what annoyed me slightly last night about being slapped on the wrist, is that I feel very strongly about the harm I feel the Pope can do, and I feel I have the right to say so. Just as JonJParr has the right to stand up for him. It isn't a matter of disrespect...these are my strong beliefs, and I would appreciate being given as much respect to voice them as someone who is voicing a religious belief.

There, I feel better now.:)

I have to admit I'm a little worried that this pope has the power to tell millions of africans that its ok for them to wear condoms, yet he won't. Did anyone see paxman vs blair last night:

Paxman: Do you believe that condoms help stop the spread of aids?

Blair: Well yes, of course.

Paxman: Are you going to tell the pope that?

It was really funny!

Oh no, I missed it! What did Blair say????

As I am not a Roman Catholic myself it doesn't really matter to me who the Pope is or what he believes.

Surley if you don't like what he says then you should just ignore it. All you need to remember is that he can't control you if you don't let him. The truth is that you can do whatever you want and the Catholic church can't do anything about it. Afterall, you are hardly likely to go to hell if you disobey the Pope. Just remember, he is not God he is a man who was elected by other men in a man made institution. He no more represents the true word of God than anyone else does.

Just a final point; maybe the Catholic church should get its own house in order before interfering in what other people do in their own bedroom. :rant:

Originally posted by slimsid2000
As I am not a Roman Catholic myself it doesn't really matter to me who the Pope is or what he believes.

Surley if you don't like what he says then you should just ignore it. All you need to remember is that he can't control you if you don't let him. The truth is that you can do whatever you want and the Catholic church can't do anything about it. Afterall, you are hardly likely to go to hell if you disobey the Pope. Just remember, he is not God he is a man who was elected by other men in a man made institution. He no more represents the true word of God than anyone else does.

Just a final point; maybe the Catholic church should get its own house in order before interfering in what other people do in their own bedroom. :rant:

Good points. Can someone please pass it onto the 1 billion catholic Africans?

Originally posted by Cyclone
Good points. Can someone please pass it onto the 1 billion catholic Africans?

..err .....

1 billion Catholics worldwide.
200 million black Catholics worldwide.
100 million Catholics in Africa.
1 billion approximate total population of Africa.

Whilst not believing in Father Christmas myself there are some on this forum who might, so perhaps a little respect for the belief in Father Christmas might be nice?

Originally posted by JoePritchard

Mod. Note

The thread was about the election of the new pope and that's now done and reported.

If we want to set up a new thread about the right / wrongs of the Catholic Church then please do so.

Also, whilst not a Catholic myself, there are some on this forum who practice this religion, so perhaps a little respect for their beliefs might be nice?

Cheers

Joe

Originally posted by cgksheff
..err .....

1 billion Catholics worldwide.
200 million black Catholics worldwide.
100 million Catholics in Africa.
1 billion approximate total population of Africa.

whoever lets facts get in the way of a witty reply?

Anyway, the point stands, someone let them know that they are free to ignore the pope and use condoms.

Out of interest, what religion(s) do the other .9 billion follow?

Mod. Note

Cyclone,

I try and ensure a respectful hearing for anyone on this forum, including you.

If you object to how I moderate the thread then please use the 'Contact Us' option and formally complain to Geoff. This isn't the place for that discussion.

Cheers,

Joe

Originally posted by Cyclone

Out of interest, what religion(s) do the other .9 billion follow?

I'm not certain that the 1 billion African population has actually been reached yet.
The 100 million 'Catholics in Africa' figure is from a US Catholic Church site.
I have seen other figures giving a total African 'Christian' population of 300 million.
I have seen general estimates of 40% Christian, 40% Muslim and 20% Africa based religions (animist and others).

Cyclone,
You confidently assert that Catholics are , 'free to ignore the Pope'. What are your views on the duties of muslims? Do they too have the right to ignore their spiritual leaders, or perhaps the Koran?

Originally posted by JoePritchard

Mod. Note

Cyclone,

I try and ensure a respectful hearing for anyone on this forum, including you.

If you object to how I moderate the thread then please use the 'Contact Us' option and formally complain to Geoff. This isn't the place for that discussion.

Cheers,

Joe


Just making a joke Joe. Maybe a smiley would have helped :D Not objecting, so need to contact Geoff.
Respect is still something that IMHO has to be earnt, whilst I may respect specific catholic people I do not respect the church and don't feel any obligation to shy away from questioning it's policies or those of it's newly elected head.

Originally posted by timo
Cyclone,
You confidently assert that Catholics are , 'free to ignore the Pope'. What are your views on the duties of muslims? Do they too have the right to ignore their spiritual leaders, or perhaps the Koran?

If you read up a little bit I was poking fun at this post by slimsid2000
Surley if you don't like what he says then you should just ignore it. All you need to remember is that he can't control you if you don't let him. The truth is that you can do whatever you want and the Catholic church can't do anything about it. Afterall, you are hardly likely to go to hell if you disobey the Pope. Just remember, he is not God he is a man who was elected by other men in a man made institution. He no more represents the true word of God than anyone else does.


So your question should be directed to him.

Cyclone,
Firstly, I did not realise that you had a sense of humour. Secondly, my question is directed to you...

Originally posted by timo
Cyclone,
Firstly, I did not realise that you had a sense of humour. Secondly, my question is directed to you...

likewise.

I don't believe that, hence poking fun at slimsid2000's assertion that they are free to ignore the pope.

Whilst they are obviously literally not forced to obey, it's an article of their faith, and thus they choose to obey even when it's not in their best interest.
Clear?

Originally posted by Cyclone
Respect is still something that IMHO has to be earnt...

Cyclone, I don't see how yours can be a "humble" opinion when, without giving much thought, you disparage and disrespect what another person believes. Humility is not usually marked by arrogance. I may not agree with people practising homosexuality or being a Muslim but as a mark of respect for my fellow human beings I don't verbally bash their religious leader or make crass remarks about their sexuality.

Originally posted by JonJParr
It wouldn't hurt to show a little more respect...

My original post said it wouldn't "hurt" you to show a little more respect.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Cyclone, I don't see how yours can be a "humble" opinion when, without giving much thought, you disparage and disrespect what another person believes. Humility is not usually marked by arrogance. I may not agree with people practising homosexuality or being a Muslim but as a mark of respect for my fellow human beings I don't verbally bash their religious leader or make crass remarks about their sexuality.



My original post said it wouldn't "hurt" you to show a little more respect.

I've given it plenty of thought thanks.

re·spect ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-spkt)
tr.v. re·spect·ed, re·spect·ing, re·spects
1) To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2) To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.

I refuse to pretend to respect something that I don't, simply to make you feel better. I suggest that you get used to my lack of respect for religion in general. I hold it in contempt and believe that it is the source of many problems for our society and humankind in general. That's my opinion, you may not respect it, but that's the way it is.

Mod. Note

Just chill, please.

If we want to debate the meaning of respect in all it's forms, as well as tolerance, perhaps another thread might be started.

Please keep to the topic.

Joe

Then perhaps you should refrain from posting on a thread where the subject is something you hold in "contempt" and believe to be the "source of many problems for our society and humankind".
I happen to believe that intolerance and arrogance is a far greater danger than any religion. If you refuse to show any form of respect for another's belief then perhaps you should just show some manners!

Edit: Joe, I only saw your posting after I hit submit- apologies.

Of course people are free to ignore the Pope if they can think for themselves. I appreachiate this is easier though in more adavnced countries than in the third world.

What would happen to them though if they did ignore the Pope? Would he send a couple of priests around to beat them up?

Originally posted by JonJParr
Then perhaps you should refrain from posting on a thread where the subject is something you hold in "contempt" and believe to be the "source of many problems for our society and humankind".
I happen to believe that intolerance and arrogance is a far greater danger than any religion. If you refuse to show any form of respect for another's belief then perhaps you should just show some manners!

Edit: Joe, I only saw your posting after I hit submit- apologies.

This would be a rather dull thread if it were restricted to Catholics and/or people who approve of the election of the new pope.
I was under the impression that we were discussing the election. Will you be writing to most of the news organisations in the UK to ask that they refrain from calling the pope a homophobe or discussing his attitude towards contraception? Maybe Parkinson offended you when he asked Tony Blair if he'd be telling the pope that condoms were a major weapon in the war against aids, was he showing a lack of respect?

I was rather hoping that a progressive liberal cardinal would be elected, i'm disappointed that it's not the case because this man can and will have a negative effect on the lives of millions of people (indirectly causing them to contract and die from Aids in case thats not clear).
Tolerance is something you extend to individuals, not to organisations or memetic virii.

Cyclone,
With you on this one buddy.
However, a progressive liberal candidate was never really in the running was he?
However, I actually don’t see this as too much of a bad thing. Here’s my thinking: once a religion, in this case the Catholic Church, really makes it clear just exactly what it is for or against, people will be able to make a clearer choice on whether to support it or not. Therefore, if this Pope turns out to pursue a hard line on the issues mentioned above, which it looks like he will, then he will continue to run down the church (who would deny the falling attendances, problems with recruitment etc). This, I posit, is a good thing! Therefore, we should rejoice in the election of this Pope and look forward to a further decline in the church’s popularity. The only snag is, as you point out, that the cost of this gradual decline is the continued tragedy of HIV in africa and elsewhere.
M’laud, I rest my case.

Why is 'tolerance something you extend to individuals', and not to organisations, Cyclone? Granted, organisations are not social actors with the agency to formulate and act upon decisions. However, they may be seen as taxonomic collectivities which represent the consensus of opinion of the individual members 'within'.

Secondly, why is it 'not in the interests' of muslims to follow the instructions of Imams, and to obey the words of Allah in the Koran? I would be very interested to hear your explanations.

Originally posted by timo
Why is 'tolerance something you extend to individuals', and not to organisations, Cyclone? Granted, organisations are not social actors with the agency to formulate and act upon decisions. However, they may be seen as taxonomic collectivities which represent the consensus of opinion of the individual members 'within'.

Secondly, why is it 'not in the interests' of muslims to follow the instructions of Imams, and to obey the words of Allah in the Koran? I would be very interested to hear your explanations.


:clap: very good, I say 'when it may not be in their best interests', you translate that to mean 'it's not in their best interest'.
That's clearly not what I said, I don't know whether any specific instruction is or isn't in their best interests, but they are free to disobey whilst unlikely too do so by virtue of belonging to the religion.
Regaring tolerance, because I believe the organsation is one causing harm and suffering, as I already explained, why does that merit tolerance? Whereas most individuals within the organisation (certainly the followers rather than the policy setters) are merely suckered in and misguided.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Of course people are free to ignore the Pope if they can think for themselves. I appreachiate this is easier though in more adavnced countries than in the third world.

What would happen to them though if they did ignore the Pope? Would he send a couple of priests around to beat them up?

Questionable (for catholics anyway!) one of the tennets of the catholic faith is that the Pope is the voice of god on earth and as such it would be rather difficult to both be a catholic AND ignore what you believe to be the voice of god!

Originally posted by Cyclone
Regaring tolerance, because I believe the organsation is one causing harm and suffering, as I already explained, why does that merit tolerance? Whereas most individuals within the organisation (certainly the followers rather than the policy setters) are merely suckered in and misguided.

This could be extended to a whole raft of organisations - govenments, big businesses and science can all cause massive harm and suffering yet don't come in for the venom you level against organised religion - I can't help wondering if there is some deeper reason for it? Your viewpoint also doesn't seem to take into account the good that a large number of religious groups do around the world not to mentions allowing individuals freedom of belief. Your oft stated viewpoint of belief in god is delusional and wrong is just as close minded as any religious zealot, or to coin a phrase:

Anyone who thinks they have a monopoly on truth, and there is only one way to see the world, always gets us into trouble.

Cyclone,
Thankyou for the clapping icon which accompanied your attempt at an answer to my question. It was hilarious.

Can you name a circumstance when , 'it may not be' in the interests of muslims to obey the instructions of an Imam, and the words of the Koran?

Should we use an example: a young man of Arabic origin believes himself to be born gay. Should he practise homosexuality in his country (which is governed by Sharia Law) even though the consequences may be stoning for a married person or 100 lashes for an unmarried person?

Is it in his interest to go against the teachings of the Koran?

Originally posted by JonJParr
Should we use an example: a young man of Arabic origin believes himself to be born gay. Should he practise homosexuality in his country (which is governed by Sharia Law) even though the consequences may be stoning for a married person or 100 lashes for an unmarried person?

Is it in his interest to go against the teachings of the Koran?

Is the young man a devout muslim? If so I would have thought he would believe homosexuality to be abhorent and sinfull, in which case its arguable whether the mental torment of practicing homosexuality and considering it (and so himself) to be wrong or abstaining from sex would be worse?

Originally posted by evildrneil
Is the young man a devout muslim? If so I would have thought he would believe homosexuality to be abhorent and sinfull, in which case its arguable whether the mental torment of practicing homosexuality and considering it (and so himself) to be wrong or abstaining from sex would be worse?

That's not what is being asked - we're trying to ascertain whether it is in his interest to disobey the teachings of the Koran and an Iman.

Are you there , Cyclone? You have a opinion on everything, so please enlighten us.

Originally posted by timo
EvilDrNeil - Maybe it's just that we haven't specifically discussed any other organisations? Or maybe it's just that no one has told me that I must respect them, so I haven't had to explicitly say that I don't and won't. And, whilst undoubtedly doing harm as well as good, at least they don't trick and beguile people into doing as they say with the threat of eternal damnation and the promise of eternal life, that's just duplicous.

Which you believe to be duplicitous. There is no evidence either for or against the existance of some sort of god and the 'god caused the universe to come into existance' explains the universe as well as 'the universe was created in a giant explosion'. As with most things (including science) there isn't a definate 'this is what happened' explaination of things but a set of theories that explain the observed evidence.

You are right, religous groups do good things as well as bad. I feel that the bad probably outways the good, but there's no real way to measure it.
I'm hardly likely to have two views on the existance of God, so unless someone comes up with a good argument and convinces me then I will continue with my current believes. I'd like to think that the key difference is that my belief is based not on faith, which can't be questioned or argued with, but on logic, which is open to reevaluation when new facts arise.

Your beliefs are probably based much more on faith than you care to admit! And I was not suggesting that you hold conflicting views as to the existance of god but rather that you have enough flexibility in your belief structures to accomodate the possiblity that you are wrong.

Originally posted by timo
Are you there , Cyclone? You have a opinion on everything, so please enlighten us.

Sheesh, I do have to do some work you know. Give me a chance.

Anyway, off home now, so we'll have to continue this wonderful discussion later (or tomorrow).

Cyclone,
Jon and I are both working today, and post in between. We do not resort to 'Sheeesh', and sloping away when we are lost for an answer. You must have been on the forum for most of the day anyway. Judging by your three thousand plus postings, you practically live there. I would say that you are 'leaving the battlefield', as it is known in Psychology. In other words, you have lost the argument, and are running away. I knew that you were a 'paper Tiger', Cyclone, but not one quite as flimsy! As I once said, you are more like a gentle breeze on a poor drying day than a Hurricane! Ha Ha Ha!

Originally posted by timo
Cyclone,
Jon and I are both working today, and post in between. We do not resort to 'Sheeesh', and sloping away when we are lost for an answer.
Some of us have a proper job.

Blimey, I'm in a bitchy mood today.

Originally posted by JonJParr
That's not what is being asked - we're trying to ascertain whether it is in his interest to disobey the teachings of the Koran and an Iman.

Its not an answer you can give a yes or no answer to - if he is a devout muslim then arguably it will be in his benefit to listen to his Imam / teachings of the Koran as that would lead to less personal problems than repressing his sexual inclination...

Originally posted by timo
Cyclone,
Jon and I are both working today, and post in between. We do not resort to 'Sheeesh', and sloping away when we are lost for an answer. You must have been on the forum for most of the day anyway. Judging by your three thousand plus postings, you practically live there. I would say that you are 'leaving the battlefield', as it is known in Psychology. In other words, you have lost the argument, and are running away. I knew that you were a 'paper Tiger', Cyclone, but not one quite as flimsy! As I once said, you are more like a gentle breeze on a poor drying day than a Hurricane! Ha Ha Ha!

Maybe your a bit slow today, so I'll try and explain.

You posted, when I hadn't replied within 20 minutes you posted again to ask why I wasn't replying. I wasn't giving up and in my opinion I made all my points clearly quite some time ago. I continue to humour you because it gives my fingers some exercise.
If you care to check (if you can figure out how), I never post between 4 and 5:30 on a thursday as it's difficult to type whilst travelling down the M1. And I rarely post at this time because I have to go and teach my class in about 10 mins.
I'll happily carry on correcting your deliberate misinterpretations and plain outright misquotes of what i've said tomorrow.
I notice that you haven't actually bothered to answer any of the points in my 2nd to last point. So who's trying to change the subject as the argument has been lost?

Oh come on guys - this seems a bit silly. You obviously don't agree with each other, so why not just leave it instead of baiting each other.

I don't agree with what the Pope has to say and it upsets me deeply that it may affect the life of lots of people in a bad way. But then again I clever enough to realise that bitching about it on a forum in sheffield will

a) probably not change who the pope is and what his views are
b) probably not convince others who support him

Thanks Cyclone,
You really are the most hilarious pedant! What a splendid example of an obsessive who has to take the bait every time. I just knew you would come back, with a detailed explanation of how you never post between such and such a time, how you were travelling up the MI etc. Don't you realise how hysterically funny you are? You are like an angry, malfunctioning robot. My eyes are wet with the tears of laughter at your account of your comings and goings. As if any bugger would care! Oh, Cyclone, you are a tonic at times.

I realise that you can't help the way you are, that you can't see what I can. Poor bloody class, that is all I can say! They must feel like they are being taught by Metal Mickey! My classes, of course, are privileged to be taught by an urbane, erudite sophisticate [when I'm off]. Seriously, I don't wish you any harm,and I would defend your right to a view, but your ways really do amuse me. The bit about not posting between 4 and 5.30 'on a Thursday' really IS very, very funny. Surely, even you can see that?!

Why oh why is the new pope so old??

At 78, I would've thought that his capacity to perform both mentally and physically is hardly in its peak... Which kind of begs the question about the pope being a figure head for the catholic faith and nothing else...

Also, was anyone else slightly alarmed to find that he was part of Hitler's Youth Army? I know he deserted, but how well will this sit with the leaders of the other faiths, more notably the Jewish?

Originally posted by Miss
Why oh why is the new pope so old??

At 78, I would've thought that his capacity to perform both mentally and physically is hardly in its peak... Which kind of begs the question about the pope being a figure head for the catholic faith and nothing else...



Ooooh Miss ! ...that sounds a bit ageist to me. ;)

I believe not too long ago there was a Pope appointed at the age of 78 who lasted 20 years.

And the Pope is a little more than a mere figure-head surely ? The absolute monarch of the catholic church would be more descriptive I think.

I don't see that Ratzinger's conscription into the Hitler Youth Army need be a problem, particularly as he followed his coviction and deserted.

Wasn,t the hitler youth thing a compulsory thing dont think the youths had much choice in the matter.

Originally posted by tara
Wasn,t the hitler youth thing a compulsory thing dont think the youths had much choice in the matter.

And Hitler was born and raised as a Catholic (as were many leading Nazis). There is irony there somewhere

Originally posted by Miss
Why oh why is the new pope so old??

At 78, I would've thought that his capacity to perform both mentally and physically is hardly in its peak... Which kind of begs the question about the pope being a figure head for the catholic faith and nothing else...

Also, was anyone else slightly alarmed to find that he was part of Hitler's Youth Army? I know he deserted, but how well will this sit with the leaders of the other faiths, more notably the Jewish?

he had no option. You HAD to join.

I'll be impressed when he apologises for the Vatican's role in prolonging the Holocaust

Originally posted by Greybeard

And the Pope is a little more than a mere figure-head surely ? The absolute monarch of the catholic church would be more descriptive I think.

I think "God's mouthpiece on Earth" is more accurate.

He is divinely ordained. Surely?

If you are a catholic, then you are required to accept the divinity of the pope. Not much of that in evidence at the Vatican it seems, with the Ratzinger Fan Brigade being almost rapturous at his very earthly succession.

The sage who observed that god moves in mysterious ways didn't know the half of it. Are we to assume, as per the modern conservative consensus, that democratic election is somehow imbued with the spirit of the lord; or is it only when a group of old men gather in a city state dripping with gold and privelege, to elect a new pontiff, that God walks among them?

The Pope had no choice in the matter of being in the Hitler Youth. Nor did any other able-bodied German youths. Whether one was Protestant or Catholic, it was on with the Lederhosen. What is all the fuss about anyway? I was in the infamous, 61st Cub Scout Division of Wincobank. We commited atrocities against any unfortunate Firth Park Boys Brigade members who fell into our hands. The things we could do with a hot 'woggle' would make the senses reel. It is all in the past, and we were only following orders.

Nazi's didn't wear lederhosen.

Just getting here first before anyone complains about the incorrectly placed apostrophe in my last post.

It should have been Nazis not Nazi's.

Apologies

Originally posted by tim_rutter
Nazi's didn't wear lederhosen.

Yes they did - sometimes, particularly if they came from Bavaria or nearby. There is a famous (notorious?) picture of Hitler in lederhosen

How predicatible: The usual thing with the media jumping up and down on any little thing attached with Germany and finding tenuous Nazi links. The articles in the Independent this week are really atricious. There were Nazi atricities where the Holy Father grew up and he didn't do anything! I doubt the average English 15 year old would have anything either.
The fact is, as many have said, membership in the Hitlerjugend was compulsory. If you were a boy and German, you were a automatically a member. All girls were members of the Bund Deutscher Maedel. We all know that young German boys as young as 14 were conscripted as the war drew to a close. Even if you don't like the government of the day, many people would consider it a family duty to protect parents and loved ones and a patriotic duty to fight for your mother country. But the pope deserted, and could have been summarily shot on sight as a result.

But all this is neither here nor there. If the Catholic Church preaches forgiveness of sins and everlasting redemption upon repentence, then God willing (within the logic of the church) anyone can become pope, even the filthiest mass rapist. But we're not talking about one of those, Bendict XVI is someone who happens to come from a very rural backwater of a then dictatorship and only was a child at the time. And that will be the leacy of JPII, that he made it possible for nationality to be irrelevant in the papacy ("There is neither Jew nor Greek").

That doesn't mean I welcome Benedict's election. Far from it.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
And Hitler was born and raised as a Catholic (as were many leading Nazis). There is irony there somewhere

Among the leading Nazis there were only two Catholics: Hitler and Goebbels. Neither of them practised their faith, and Pope Pius XI condemned facsism in the encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" (With burning sorrow). The other bigwigs were Lutherans. Of course, the role of Pius XII in the war is very controversial, but as Marjorie from FatFighters says "That's not for here"

BTW: The very Catholic areas of Germany were the areas with the lowest popular vote for the NSDAP (Rhineland, Westphalia, Bavaria). The Centre party dominated massively there until it was surpressed by the Nazis.

Originally posted by fhain29
How predicatible: The usual thing with the media jumping up and down on any little thing attached with Germany and finding tenuous Nazi links. The articles in the Independent this week are really atricious. There were Nazi atricities where the Holy Father grew up and he didn't do anything! I doubt the average English 15 year old would have anything either.
The fact is, as many have said, membership in the Hitlerjugend was compulsory. If you were a boy and German, you were a automatically a member. All girls were members of the Bund Deutscher Maedel. We all know that young German boys as young as 14 were conscripted as the war drew to a close. Even if you don't like the government of the day, many people would consider it a family duty to protect parents and loved ones and a patriotic duty to fight for your mother country. But the pope deserted, and could have been summarily shot on sight as a result.

But all this is neither here nor there. If the Catholic Church preaches forgiveness of sins and everlasting redemption upon repentence, then God willing (within the logic of the church) anyone can become pope, even the filthiest mass rapist. But we're not talking about one of those, Bendict XVI is someone who happens to come from a very rural backwater of a then dictatorship and only was a child at the time. And that will be the leacy of JPII, that he made it possible for nationality to be irrelevant in the papacy ("There is neither Jew nor Greek").

That doesn't mean I welcome Benedict's election. Far from it.

The Independent is being true to form, in that it excels in moral posturing and smug, sanctimonious grandstanding, thinly disguised as 'news'. It used to be quite a good newspaper, and a readable alternative to the corporate heavies. But in my opinion it has definitely gone downhill - most of its coverage of news is very dull and badly presented. It also seems to have a penchant for full front page headlines which are really tendentious preaching rather than 'news'. It doesn't even have a good sports page. I think I'll stick to the Daily Sport.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Yes they did - sometimes, particularly if they came from Bavaria or nearby. There is a famous (notorious?) picture of Hitler in lederhosen


Now see you're wrong here. There may well have been times when Nazi's wore lederhosen but it wasn't a must in order to become one. I'm sure there are Nazi's who laughed at lederhosen. I lived in bavaria for a while and I laughed regularly at lederhosen (that doesnt mean that I'm a nazi, however).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fhain29
[B]Among the leading Nazis there were only two Catholics: Hitler and Goebbels.

Untrue.

Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich and Rodolf Hoess (commandant of Auschwitz) were also raised as Catholics, and Goering had a mixed Catholic/Protestant parentage.
In fact, on this reckoning, some of the worst if not the worst of the bunch seem to have had Catholic backgrounds.

This is not to say that Catholicism had much if anything to do with their behaviour and beliefs as adults, since they all rejected the Christian faith. As Germany was then about two thirds Protestant and one tihird Catholic, it is not surprising that there were very many Nazis with protestant backgrounds too.

I agree with many comments already made on this Forum that Ratzinger's brief compulsory membership of the Hitler Youth is a non-story - it doesn't even count as a youthful indiscretion (unlike many members of the current Labour government, who were members of extreme Marxist/Trotskyist organisations in their student days and should have known better).

Excellent posting Fhain! Why certain posters are 'alarmed' to learn of the Pope's one time membership of the Hitlerjugend surprises me.

I do not want to take the thread too far down another, metaphorical road, but there are German men alive today who fought in the ranks of the SS. They are not necessarily 'butchers', and guilty of atrocities. Some were brave men, fighting for what they believed was their nation's survival. Perhaps we may now look back, and see that they were hoodwinked by National Socialism. Nevertheless, they are not all sadistic war criminals. Many were very brave soldiers. They had the misfortune, if you like, to be born in Germany at an unfortunate time. It is merely a question of circumstances. So it is with the Pope's boyhood membership of the Hitlerjugend.

To put things into perspective. I am an English Protestant, but had I been born an Irish Catholic in Armagh [and I detest the IRA], I might, in all likelihood, now be a terrorist.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think "God's mouthpiece on Earth" is more accurate.

He is divinely ordained. Surely?


I was thinking of the way the Pope excersises his power over the priesthood. It's certainly more absolutist and intorelant of dissent than in the Anglian church for example.

His ordination may well be divine, but his selection for the office, at least in the view of the catholics I know, is seen as a more pragmatic 'political' affair.

A Pope who enjoys a long term in office can over time replace dead cardinals with like minded appointees and so perpetuate his personal interpretation of the 'scripture', knowing that one of his appointees will be the next Pope; as Pope John Paul has successfully managed to do.

OTOH Ratzinger's early demise might be seen as divine intervention :)

Greybeard,
As a lapsed Church of England type, I would welcome some decisive leadership in the church of my birth. The Pope may be 'absolutist' [and his certainty sometimes worries me], but at least he ventures views without fear or favour. The C of E has been taken over by anorak-wearing guitarists, who are 'non-judgemental' and sing 'Kumbaya My Lord' out of key. Their equivocal, relativistic twaddle turns off those such as myself, who favour a Tractarian, quiet contemplation of the sacraments, and is leading to great numbers of conversions to Catholicism.

Your witty remark about 'divine intervention' made me smile.

you castigate some of us for venturing our views without fear nor favour, particularly when you don't agree with them.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you castigate some of us for venturing our views without fear nor favour, particularly when you don't agree with them.

You sound like a moaning child Cyclone.

Originally posted by JonJParr
You sound like a moaning child Cyclone.

and you two sound like you think you are my parents. Which one of you is Mum?

Originally posted by timo
and is leading to great numbers of conversions to Catholicism.


The continuing decline in churchgoers attests to the waning popularity and relevance of the traditional type of worship that you prefer. The happy clappy brigade that you refer to though goes from strength to strength. I think one reason for this is that people cannot bring themselves to follow the same old dirge but at the same time cannot bring themselves to pack it in altogether.
You might get a few on the high church side of things jumping ship to Rome, as happened when the Church of England began ordaining women, but great numbers?
As I mentioned elsewhere, as an atheist I welcome a hard-line from Rome as I suspect that it will simply expedite that church's decline. Should the Church of England orientate itself back away from the happy clappyness, then I’d welcome that for the same reason.

Originally posted by timo
Excellent posting Fhain! Why certain posters are 'alarmed' to learn of the Pope's one time membership of the Hitlerjugend surprises me.

I do not want to take the thread too far down another, metaphorical road, but there are German men alive today who fought in the ranks of the SS. They are not necessarily 'butchers', and guilty of atrocities. Some were brave men, fighting for what they believed was their nation's survival. Perhaps we may now look back, and see that they were hoodwinked by National Socialism. Nevertheless, they are not all sadistic war criminals. Many were very brave soldiers. They had the misfortune, if you like, to be born in Germany at an unfortunate time. It is merely a question of circumstances. So it is with the Pope's boyhood membership of the Hitlerjugend.

As always, Timo, a fair point...

However, said german men did not then go on to become the leader of the catholic faith, or similar...

Perhaps, as it has been pointed out, that it was mandatory conscription, but I do wonder what the leaders of the other faiths make of it all.

And, my earlier question about the age of the pope wasn't intended in anyway to be ageist... I'm not a catholic, but I can't see the logic in appointing someone who seems so tradionally "old school" in his policies. I find the continuing prohibition of contraception, birth control and homosexuality in the catholic faith quite mind numbingly jaded... I am not suggesting either that a younger pope would be any different in his attitudes

However, at 78 it is a scientific fact that both mentally and physically you are on the decline.

I don't want to offend anyone, but I'm just having trouble making sense of it...

Big row brewing down in Dublin over the choice of the new pope.
Bob Geldof should have got the gig as he was the first Rats singer

Very good. I do hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury tells that one to the new Pope when he meets him. I am certain that it will prove a useful contribution towards ecumenical dialogue. Bless you, Carcrash, my son.

I see that the newly elected Pope has been expressing his concerns to the Archbishop of Canterbury about the C of E ordination of women, and about the Anglican communion in the USA ordinating a gay bishop. Seems the Pope feels that he has a scriptural right to express his views over sheep that he believes have gone astray.

I wonder therefore if the Archbishop expressed his concerns about the sexual abuse of children in Ireland and the USA (Boston in particular) committed by ordained catholic priests? Did he, I wonder, ask if the newly elected Pope would consider changing catholic teaching on abortion - and allow a woman to choose for herself what happens to her body? Did the Archbishop suggest to the Pope that using condoms to limit the number of children is quite a good idea really, and it can also help reduce the incident of HIV transmission.

I wonder indeed.

A very cogent and fair posting, Red. I doubt very much that the Archbishop will challenge the Pope regarding those very pertinent issues. I am no authority, but I suspect that the Cof E establishment are really rather afraid of angering him. The issues of pederasty, abortion, gay clergy etc, I would imagine, will be put on the proverbial 'back burner'. Given the Pope's background as a Cardinal very much interested in building bridges between the Catholic Church and the High Anglican wing of the Cof E, I would imagine that the Archbishop [ a Kumbaya my Lord merchant, if ever there was one], will do all he can to emphasise the commonalities between the faiths.

I would like to be a fly on the wall, to coin a cliche. One imagines the Archbishop in conversation, nodding enthusiatically at the Pope's measured, firm, carefully-chosen words.