Pope John Paul the Great?

Originally posted by darvlay
That sounds like work to me. I'm not falling for that old trick. 😉

Then why ask ? 😉

Originally posted by darvlay
I have some questions but do you mind if I start a new thread?

Go ahead.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
How about the developments in Africa and Asia ? The US are not the world you know.

Ask the old Sowjet communists what role he plaid in the downfall of the communist dictatorship in the former Sowjet Union. Ask the Poles what his role was in the huge political changes in Poland and Eastern Europe.

..... of course he is hated by communists and others w ...[text shortened]... the Great, because you hate him, the Church and the members of His Church for above reasons.

Yes, the Catholic Church is expanding in the third world like a rampant virus. But look at the pattern of what is happening. Western Europe is becoming more and more secular and the US (if not becoming more secular) is becoming less doctrinaire in its observance. The Church is losing influence in the first world and gaining more in the third world. Their choice of religion reflects their level of economic development. If the third world was to become as economically advanced as Western Europe, their piety would no doubt follow a similar pattern.

As for calling me a communist, this isn't really true. I've read plenty of leftist literature and used to subscribe to the Socialist Labor Party's periodical, but I never belonged to any socialist or communist parties. I was what you would call an "armchair socialist". Even though I'm enamored with anarchism and did live for a while on an egalitarian socialist commune, I largely confine my political activities to voting every four years for whomever the Democrats have nominated.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Rwingett: "So, should the Catholic Church stick to the same course of action and see its influence continue to dwindle or should it try to revitalize itself by perhaps allowing women priests, or relaxing its ban on contraception, or by any number of other reforms that it could implement?"

The Church is not a political party. It's goal is not to please ...[text shortened]... AL ways of contraception. Contraception based on the woman's period is no problem at all.

It's not just me, Ivanhoe. There are plenty of Catholics who feel the same way. Why do you think the numbers are declining in every category? I'd like to hear your take on the Vatican II council from the early 60s. I'm no expert on Catholic history, but wasn't that an attempt to modernize the Church?

Isn't it possible that the Catholic Church has been mistaken about their interpretation of what the "truth" constitutes? Isn't it possible that a better understanding could open the door for some changes here and there?

The Church bans every effective method of contraception. This is one of the areas where the Church is experiencing a growing chasm between what it preaches and what its members do. I think a great majority of Catholics in the US use "unnatural" means of contraception.

I think the Church is going to have to bend on some issues or it will simply make itself increasingly irrelevant.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's not just me, Ivanhoe. There are plenty of Catholics who feel the same way. Why do you think the numbers are declining in every category? I'd like to hear your take on the Vatican II council from the early 60s. I'm no expert on Catholic history, but wasn't that an attempt to modernize the Church?


The Vatican II modernised the Liturgy as well as the Church approach to politics, media etc. (issues that became prominent in the 20th century). What it did not do was define new doctrine or re-define old ones.

Isn't it possible that the Catholic Church has been mistaken about their interpretation of what the "truth" constitutes? Isn't it possible that a better understanding could open the door for some changes here and there?


Quite simply - no. I know it sounds dogmatic, but that's the nature of Truth. Either it's true or it's not. If the Church were wrong about one teaching, it could be wrong about everything and would cease to exist or be useful in any way. Take a look at the Anglicans/Episcopelians - they can't seem to decide whether they're coming or going. The absence of certainty is to fail in its mission to provide a constant moral compass.


The Church bans every effective method of contraception. This is one of the areas where the Church is experiencing a growing chasm between what it preaches and what its members do. I think a great majority of Catholics in the US use "unnatural" means of contraception.


They probably do. It's their choice whether they want to be "cafeteria Catholics" or not.

Besides, the Church is not opposed to natural means of family planning.


I think the Church is going to have to bend on some issues or it will simply make itself increasingly irrelevant.

I remember reading a short story some time back (sorry, I couldn't find the link on Google. ivanhoe - do you know which one I'm talking about? I think Cardinal Ratzinger was the author.) which was essentially a letter from a Cardinal to a young priest set at the end of the 21st century. The story speaks of a great exodus of [American] Catholics from the Church at the beginning of the 21st century - but leaving behind a significant population of orthodox Catholics.

The point being - if the majority of Western world "Catholics" are going to lose their faith because the Church cannot change its dogma - so be it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by rwingett
[b]It's not just me, Ivanhoe. There are plenty of Catholics who feel the same way. Why do you think the numbers are declining in every category? I'd like to hear your take on the Vatican II council from the early 60s. I'm no expert on Catholic history, but wasn't that an attempt to modernize the Church?
...[text shortened]... Catholics" are going to lose their faith because the Church cannot change its dogma - so be it.[/b]

There are a lot of Catholics and protestants in Europe and America who still call themselves Catholics and have no objection to abortion and euthanasia for instance. These people look upon the Church (and upon God) as an institution that should meet their demands and should be serving them instead of them serving the Church (and God). They will all leave the Church during the next two or three decennia and will all turn to the New Thanatology and the corresponding New Ideology of which they hope it will serve them better.

It is revealing how for instance Rwingett has the same picture of the Church as the liberal or progressive Catholics: an institution that has been created to serve the people and meeting their demands otherwise it will perish. The contrary has been shown to be true in the past 2000 years.

You never hear a call to science to abandon the theory of gravity because gravity hinders people in their ability to fly and yet that is exactly what they are asking from the Church. "We want to fly, we want to be free, please let us". If the Church answers just as science would do: "but that is impossible, we cannot do that", they turn away being disappointed. If society turns again from the Truth as they did so massively during the thirties and fourties in Germany and as they did so many times in other countries in the past and present, they will have to face the severe consequenses.

It is also revealing how people, among them rwingett, are calling upon the Church to join the New Thanathology and the corresponding New Ideology. From their point of view very understandable as they know it would mean the destruction of the Church as the guardian of the Faith and the Truth. They would love to see this happen. They would look upon this as a great victory. However the Church will NEVER change Her position and as a result of that accept the New Thanathology, but a lot of the Church's members will and even priests and bishops will be doing so, just like they did during the thirties in America (eugenics, etc.) and Europe. In fact these developments are taking place right now in the West.

As a side note I may add that it is very remarkable to see a development in the Third world that also produces a New Thanothology, Political Islam, Islamism. I would call this form of thanatology "pseudo-religious fascism" and the Culture of Death emerging in the West as a "pseudo-scientificly based pseudo-liberal form of fascism" that has not yet reached its ultimate and definite shape. Who would ever imagine that science and liberalism could melt together and form a new Ideology that is to be charactarised as a new Culture of Death. Madness isn't it ... to even suggest such a ludicrous idea.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
On liturgical and administrative matters, yes. Not on fundamental matters of doctrine.

The catholic church has changed its rules on many occasions, particularly on the nature of god and the trinity.

His late Holiness the poop - an alternative obituary



(This is a paragraph from an email I recieved from a friend,

which pretty well sums it up for me.)



There was nothing I admired about John Paul the Second. I thought him a reactionary old fool. And with all that ground-kissing, a silly, pompous old fool. And with that medieval devotion to saints and Our
Ladies of Here and There, an embarrassingly superstitious,
un-intellectual old fool. And with his pronouncements on economics and development, an outmoded socialist old fool. And with his stance on condoms and stem-cell research, a vicious, dangerous old fool. And with his views on homosexuality, a cruel, bigoted old fool. And with his pronouncements on AIDS, a downright criminal old fool. I'm glad he's gone to Heaven.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
The catholic church has changed its rules on many occasions, particularly on the nature of god and the trinity.

Defined - yes. Changed - no. In the early General Councils (Nicene, Constantinople etc.) the Church defined these doctrines for the first time in a precise manner when it was faced with various heresies; but the Church definitions were already being taught widely in the Church - so the Church was merely formally declaring what its Bishops and Church Fathers were teaching in their own dioceses. Do you have any references to show otherwise?

The rest of your post doesn't deserve a dignified response.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
They probably do. It's their choice whether they want to be "cafeteria Catholics" or not.

Besides, the Church is not opposed to natural means of family planning.

Two brief comments (no time for more).

The term 'cafeteria Catholics' is downright derogatory. The Roman Catholic Catechism
has a section (as I have brought up before) on the role of conscience in spiritual life.
If a Roman Catholic has contemplated, prayed, talked to God, worried about, and
considered birth control from every angle and cannot justify the Church's position on it,
then that Roman Catholic is obligated to follow his/her conscience -- that the
sin that follows from acting in behavior not in accordance with their conscience is greater
than the potential sin that follows from following a teaching which the person feels is in
error.

This does not make them any less faithful or any less a Roman Catholic.

Second, the notion of 'natural family planning' in the context of Roman Catholic pre-Cana
teaching is a misnomer. There is nothing natural about it. What the Church
recommends is only having sex when the woman is not ovulating (i.e., fertile).
However, her biology is such that, when she is the most fertile, she is the most interested
in and sensitive to sexual activity. That is, the method described by the Roman
Catholic hierarchy is one which specifically denies the woman's natural, biological
needs and desires.

The teaching from which the 'doctrinal' ban on contraception stems derives from an
ancient and erroneous scientific notion that the man imparts 'the seed' (the whole of
genetic material, so to speak) into 'the vessel' of the woman. As such, the blocking
of 'the seed' was seen as the destruction of life (like abortion). Such scientific notions
are obviously false and, as such, the foundation upon which this 'doctrine' rests is made
of sand.

So much for brief.

Nemesio

Edit: perhaps another thread should be started on this topic, or not.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Two brief comments (no time for more).

The term 'cafeteria Catholics' is downright derogatory. The Roman Catholic Catechism
has a section (as I have brought up before) on the role of conscience in spiritual life.
If a Roman Catholic ...[text shortened]... t: perhaps another thread should be started on this topic, or not.

Maybe not.

1. (I asked for this before in another thread where you mentioned it) Could you give the CCC reference to 'informed conscience' as you describe it?

2. Could you provide references as to the origins of the ban on contraception supporting your view?

3. The term "cafeteria Catholic" is, perhaps, derogatory. Although the media refers to them as "Liberal Catholics", that term IMO is inaccurate.

EDIT: I'll start another thread on informed conscience.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

There are a lot of Catholics and protestants in Europe and America who still call themselves Catholics and have no objection to abortion and euthanasia for instance. These people look upon the Church (and upon God) as an institution that ...[text shortened]... th. Madness isn't it ... to even suggest such a ludicrous idea.

Who would ever imagine that science and liberalism could melt together and form a new Ideology that is to be charactarised as a new Culture of Death. Madness isn't it ... to even suggest such a ludicrous idea.

"Madness" and a "ludicrous idea" it sure is, Ivanhoe.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Who would ever imagine that science and liberalism could melt together and form a new Ideology that is to be charactarised as a new Culture of Death. Madness isn't it ... to even suggest such a ludicrous idea.

"Madness" and a "ludicrous idea" it sure is, Ivanhoe.

Not really. Would we have conversations about abortions, or cloning, or euthanasia in a previous century?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not really. Would we have conversations about abortions, or cloning, or euthanasia in a previous century?

You certainly wouldn't have had a discussion about abortions in the previous century
because the Church didn't have a strong stance on it. Remember that children were
not 'ensouled' until several months into the pregancy. The Church has always been
against it, but never as vehemently until its legalization.

This sounds logical, no? Once it was legalized, you would imagine that the Church
would try to clamp down. Well, confer with this article (which I referred to earlier,
but did not cite). Note that the Bishops in the prodominantly Roman Catholic Latin
America where abortion rates are two-to-three times higher than in America (despite
its being illegal), yet it is almost never discussed down there.

http://www.population-security.org/mum-01-01.htm

These issues, along with infallibility, are part of the last vestiges of control that the
Church is holding onto. With the loss of temporal power, the Church appealed to the
last power it had: the authority of God's voice. As the passage on contraception makes
very clear, the issue not to repeal the ban on contraception was deeply and inextriably
tied to politics.

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not really. Would we have conversations about abortions, or cloning, or euthanasia in a previous century?

It is a ludicrous idea that there is some ideology called the "Culture of Death" that "melds Science and Liberalism"; such a construct exists only in the minds of right wingers. Somebody had conversations about abortion in the 19th century in the US; it was the mid 19th century when criminal laws against abortion were adopted. I have no idea what cloning would have to do with a "Culture of Death"; cloning is the creation of genetically identical human beings. Euthanasia seems to be a generic term used by right wingers to cover things that have little in common like the Terry Schiavo case and the killing of handicapped child because they're handicapped; to Ivanhoe these cases are identical I guess, to me they are completely dissimiliar. But I guess in a previous century, people like Ivanhoe couldn't compare everyone who disagrees with him on these issues to the Nazis; so I guess it wouldn't be as effective for the religious extremists of your and Ivanhoe's ilk.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is a ludicrous idea that there is some ideology called the "Culture of Death" that "melds Science and Liberalism"; such a construct exists only in the minds of right wingers. Somebody had conversations about abortion in the 19th century in the US; it was the mid 19th century when criminal laws against abortion were adopted. I have no idea wh ...[text shortened]... so I guess it wouldn't be as effective for the religious extremists of your and Ivanhoe's ilk.

Ivanhoe did not make up the idea of the Culture of Death. If you want 'evidence,' then google "Peter Singer". This guy is the poster child for the Culture of Death. And it not like his on the fringes of society - he's a respected professor at Princeton University.