Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debates on the New Pope
 

It was compulsary, but some kids were able to get "waivers" so to speak.

I think some perspective is required when one wades into this question.

Some positions that many progressives would like to see addressed and changed are shared to some degree worldwide: the possibility of married priests for example (which is a clearly matter of changeable discipline and not of doctrine), which has an effect on having enough priests to go around. Use of condoms might be another, because of the health concerns in Africa and elsewhere.

But I have to laugh and roll my eyes when issues such as these are lumped together by the media with issues like homosexuality, which is a doctrinal/morality issue. This is an issue that is primarily a preoccupation of some (many) Catholics (and Protestants) in Western Europe and North America, but is not an issue at all -- except in that it is opposed -- in the Global South, where the church (Catholic and Protestant) is growing much faster than in the North.

One need only look at the Anglican Communion to see what can happen when progressive views on homosexuality are pushed unilaterally from the West. Not only is it dividing the Episcopal Church in the US, but Anglicans in the Global South are breaking ties with those in Western Europe and North America, whom they often see as perpetuating cultural, theological and ecclesial imperialism. They often see it as a "we're more enlightened than you are, so you should just follow us along." They also tend to see it as Western Christians caving in to culture instead of engaging and influencing the culture.

A pope is a pope for Catholics (and in some sense, Christians) all over the world. We in North America often, I think, need reminding that much, sometimes most, of the world doesn't necessarily see things the way many of us do.

My point was not to debate the church's stance on homosexuality, it was to show that there are some people, even though they disagree with some of the church's doctrine, would rather have them stay true to their doctrine than suddenly change just to appease the masses. That's all. :)

Here's another question. I can understand the desire some Catholics have for the church to be more progressive and change with the times. But why? Is it concern for the well-being of the church or is it something else? I guess what I want to understand but don't is why people stay with the church when they don't agree with it on so many issues. Do most people stay in the religion in which they were raised no matter what? Is it more of a cultural thing than a religious thing? Are you Catholic even if you don't go to church or pray or follow the "rules" as they exist now? If so, why?

I'm just fascinated by religion in general, but I think my concept of religion is very different from that of most people. I was raised protestant (I was confirmed and all that and used to go to church somewhat regularly on occasion) but eventually I realized that I just don't believe in 90% of the stuff that goes with being Christian, so I no longer consider myself such. I want to understand what makes some people leave when they don't agree and some people stay when they don't agree.

Did you notice there are no Jews in this thread saying this? There are also no Jews attacking a Pope based on his forced Nazi past.

Some people don't even want to ask and just want to put things out there. It's like hey guys I heard he was in Hitler Youth and yada, yada, yada. Benedict and JP were pretty influential in bridging the gap with Jews, apologizing for anti-semitism, and setting up relations with Israel and the Vatican.

-Rudey

Are Opus Dei and Communion and Liberation the only conservative Catholic movements?

-Rudey

To answer your other question with this one, somewhere it was reported that the new Pope has said he wouldn't mind if the Church was smaller if it was "purer." In other words, those who don't agree with the doctrines should leave instead of just being Christmas Catholics. But for a lot of people, church is something that's part of your past and your childhood. They want to hang on to that.

I don't know, I guess I see it both ways - you can see in the one thread where ISUKappa, aurora b & I were talking about Lutheranism that we don't agree with everything.

Do you mean Liberation Theology? If so, that would be considered liberal.

"With Cardinal Ratzinger at the helm of the church, conservatives can expect even greater support for movements like Opus Dei and Communion and Liberation, which are strong in places like Chile and Peru. "

-Rudey

I'm with you now -- I wasn't reading the conjunctions correctly. Communion and Liberation is a conservative ecclesial movement founded in Italy in 1954.

To go back to your earlier question: No, there are plenty of other conservative, progressive and everyting in between movements.

According to CNN data taken from 2 years ago (the height of the scandel), when weighted against the number of churches, there have been approximately equal numbers of Catholic and Protestant reports of sexual abuse by church officials.

Both of these figures were far higher than any other faith, so maybe we should chew on that portion of the presentation.

How were the cases handled?

A lot of people took issue to Catholic priests being moved around by Cardinals who hid what they did and still exposed these molestors to new victims, and later on, to the Vatican hiding these priests so they couldn't be charged.

I don't think Protestants have the same governing body that allowed for that, did they?

-Rudey

Agreed, completely - this point is extremely important, as to my mind that's the root of the scandel. When looking at the behavior of the leadership of the RCC, the errors become endemic (and considerably more serious). Any discussion of sexual abuse within the Church should focus on exactly this behavior - which was my point by comparing the two 'halves' of Christianity.

There is nothing implicitly 'Catholic' about the actual acts; however, the Vatican and some Cardinals acted with what can certainly be construed as negligence.

Also - there is really no analogous structure to the Vatican/Papacy in Protestantism as a whole.

And this was my point when I said that the abuse scandals were a mess to deal with. Granted they shouldn't be happening at all, but as GP said, a pedophile is a pedophile. But the way it was handled after the Vatican knew it was happening can't keep happening. So I'm curious how the new Pope will prevent it from happening again.

MysticCat- My grandmother was from Berlin, and her best childhood friend and her best friend's brother decided not to do the Hitler Youth, and never did. They still live in Berlin, and never mentioned having ot get a "waiver" to not join, apparently they told their parents that they didn't want to, and weren't forced at all. My grandmother didn't join the Hitler Youth, but that was all shortly before she left for a concentration camp.

And Rudey- I am a Jew against the current pope, but as I'm not Catholic, I don't feel that my opinion matters in the slightest. If this who the Catholic Cardinals want to lead, who am I to shun their traditions? It's not like they haven't been shunning mine for centuries.... oh, whoops!