The Pope is dope

If you want me to stop with that I will. Just wanted to mention parallels. Power, subjects, politics. Slow to nada change. And another relation is that these are also controversial things in our big bad world that needs endless patience. But as it distracts I'll stop.
 
The problem is that you're not making good, appropriate parallels. The president of the United States has tried to convince congress to change gun culture. The president of Russia is stealing freedom from his people as a matter of (applauded) policy. The Pope can force change on the Catholic Church. I'm not saying he should wave his magic wand and make it so everything in the Catholic Church is gay friendly, but there are little, small things he could do that would show he is more than just a smiling face.

Say, altering the catechism so that gay sex isn't a mortal fucking sin.
 
It is Immortal Sin!

Kidding. I hope the same Mosh. I find it difficult to look into that machine called the Papacy, but given their history I am not counting on quick changes.
 
Forostar said:
It is Immortal Sin!

Kidding. I hope the same Mosh. I find it difficult to look into that machine called the Papacy, but given their history I am not counting on quick changes.
Click to expand...

:huh:
 
Damn, WTF.

I knew I was talking to you LC. I swear that. Why I typed Mosh without realizing it, I honestly don't know.
 
I guess this is how I feel about it. It's entirely possible for a powerful entity to force on its members a change - see desegregation in the USA, a situation where the highest authority (The US Supreme Court) decided that things had to change, and then this decisions was pretty much forced down the throats of Southerners. Now, they accept it, even if some still have a lot of resentment. The Pope has that power and doesn't use it for awesome.

All I can say is that I'll fight the Catholic Church until it stops fighting the love of my friends.
 
Natalie said:
If the church isn't about patriarchy then it's really odd that all the positions of power in the church are occupied by men. It's also lovely that women get to participate and 'run' churches...yet it is the priest who wields spiritual power and holds the homily. I'm being sarcastic here. It sounds like women are being used as slaves, grateful for the 'reward' of getting to work for a master that is 'kind' enough not to whip them.
Click to expand...

That's a gross exaggeration to put it mildly. The Church is not stupid, they see the winds of change, some are bucking at it, others are embracing it fully. I doubt that there is a church with as much diversity as the catholic church. Compared to other denominations we are incredibly lenient and understanding.

LooseCannon said:
Dude, you contradict yourself...
Click to expand...

I did, I'm glad you caught me, I noticed it after posting it, but I had to run to work, didn't have time to expand on it.

You are absolutely right. Let me explain. The church has been constantly debating issues and defining itself and it's believes. There was a time when celibacy wasn't mandatory for priests (it's always been for Bishops and up), but one day, after a nice council, BAM... it is and since the 800's and to this day it has been so. It is something that gets debated CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY gets upheld. Why do I bring the issue of celibacy? Because I don't see it as a core issue. If priest were allowed to marry tomorrow, nobody would care, except maybe a handful of priests.

I brought up the example of Civil Rights and desegregation. The church is not institutionally racist. It is not in its core believes to HATE or think less of a group due to the color of their skin. On the other hand it was a HUGE deal for the Mormon church, it took a federal order to desegregate Utah well AFTER the civil rights movement in the 1970s.

Things like condoms, ordaining women, etc. That is going to take a little longer. You're right, the pope COULD just say, "do it." But he can't act on a whim, he is responsible for a BILLION Catholics, he can't just say things out of his ass, to use another american president as an example, he is not George W. Bush.

The Church has ALWAYS been a bit behind the curb, but when they get it they go all out. The church once held Galileo under house arrest, now the Vatican RUNS numerous telescopes around the world, one of them in my back yard not even 20 miles from Tucson.

A quick look at the number of ecumenical councils the church has held, some are 20-30 years apart, and sometimes 200. Look at the last THREE. The council of Trent was in 1545 and lasted TWENTY years. after that the first Vatican council was in 1870 and the second Vatican council 90 years later. In these councils earth shattering changes take place, and it takes ALL the bishops and cardinals to come together and talk it out, usually by order of the Pope. It was John XXIII that brought on Vatican II. A Pope that was supposed to keep St. Pete's chair warm for the next guy (like Benedict XVI), was the catalyst for some of the most radical changes in the Catholic church.

Will Pope Francis be another Gregory The Great? Gregory VII? Innocent III? John XXIII? We'll we be happy if he's merely another John Paul II? Or what if he carves his own niche and surprises everyone as he ALREADY HAS? Picking an original Pope name, kissing grotesquely deformed individuals, washing the feet of not just women, but MUSLIM women in PRISON, escaping the vatican at night to feed and clothe the homeless, etc....

It is easy to say he hasn't done shit, hell he hasn't been at it for that long, he's got until he dies, which hopefully is another 20 years to keep this up and then some.
 
I didn't read that at all... How is lauding their supposed intuition and sensitivity telling them to get back in the kitchen?
 
"The presence of women in a domestic setting turns out to be so necessary" for the "transmission to future generations of solid moral principles and the very transmission of the faith," Francis said.
Click to expand...
 
"A domestic setting" is so VAGUE, and to me merely means the HOME. And I agree. He's not saying they should stay there, be chained there, should be pregnant, barefoot and "in the kitchen."

You don't have to be religious to know that in most households the woman is the backbone of the home and often the disciplinarian. My mother had a career and cared for my brother and I, my dad was rarely home, because of his job. She was the ever-present pillar of stability.

In MOST ocassions, regardless of parental abilities, in a divorce kids end up with mom. That was the case with my ex and current GF. I can tell you right now that if my exes kids it wasn't the best of situations, but with my current GF, her ex is an idiot. Her youngest is a mess, because of the cutody battle that they're undergoing, but they don't exactly like going to dad's.

Point is, what the Pope is driving at is women as a source of stability and strength in the home, NOT necessarily whipping up meals, but emotional as well.

I know all moms are not mother's of the year and all dad's idiots, but i'm saying whether the church AND the state usually side with mom. When my parents split my brother and I stayed with my mom only seeing my dad on weekends. To this day my dad is more of friend than a father.
 
No dice. Women aren't the backbone of the family by choice, but because society tells them that's where they need to be. My dad was away too, and I saw more of my mom, but that doesn't mean she should have to be the "ever-present pillar of stability". Just because she was with you doesn't mean that's the role she needs to have.

Kids end up with mom more due to ingrained sexism in the divorce courts rather than any actual fitness by the woman to take the kids. The problem with what the Pope is saying is that the person who ends up being the stablility anchor is the person who is home more. He would prefer that to be the woman, because that's how he thinks it should be.

What always has been isn't always right.
 
My father studied theology and was in seminary and monasteries for years. First he wanted to be a priest but at some point he didn't feel well there and was advised to get out. He went out, finished the study and eventually he stayed home with the kids at least as often as the feminist he married with (my parents were both part-time workers). :) I guess they were influenced during the time of Second-wave feminism we had in the Netherlands.
 
Last edited:
Ah, but it's true. There's a very sexist consideration that kids belong with the female, and not with the male, even in cases where the father is easily the better caregiver and the preferred guardian by the children. Often time judges will site their beliefs that the mother is the pillar of the home, despite any evidence to the contrary. And I am talking about cases of drug abuse, mental instability, and child abuse.

I'm not denying that in many situations, probably even most, the mother is likely more suited than the father, and that's for a hell of a lot of reasons. What I am saying is that these things, at least in Canadian and American courts, are essentially predetermined regardless of the facts of the divorce and the individual ability to provide for the welfare of the children due to the misguided belief that women are homemakers and men are breadwinners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top