During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've
held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness.
But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest:

There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light.
There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a
large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything
to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the
AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by
the church for distributing condoms.

I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so
I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say
what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the
one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do.

Sheila

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:%mS5e.5354$0c2.999@trnddc08... During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light.

I'm catholic, but I don't see him in any light at all. The pope means as
much to me as, say, any national leader. Which means I don't give him much
thought.

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:%mS5e.5354$0c2.999@trnddc08... During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light.

I'm catholic, but I don't see him in any light at all. The pope means as
much to me as, say, any national leader. Which means I don't give him much
thought.

WhansaMi wrote:

<snip>

Well, Sheila, no, you didn't *have* to say it.

Tracey

WhansaMi wrote:

<snip>

Well, Sheila, no, you didn't *have* to say it.

Tracey

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:425811DB.6040104@aol.com... WhansaMi wrote: <snip> Well, Sheila, no, you didn't *have* to say it. Tracey

I guess "have to" is one of those amorphous terms like "need". In this
case, I use it in the sense of "feel compelled to", which is
Mirriam-Webster's 13th definition.

Sheila

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:425811DB.6040104@aol.com... WhansaMi wrote: <snip> Well, Sheila, no, you didn't *have* to say it. Tracey

I guess "have to" is one of those amorphous terms like "need". In this
case, I use it in the sense of "feel compelled to", which is
Mirriam-Webster's 13th definition.

Sheila

WhansaMi wrote:
During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms.

I am all with you there. But I see him as a multidimensional man,
leader, and politician. He did some good things in his time, and I don't
like to dismiss them because of the things that I, too, didn't like him for!

WhansaMi wrote:
During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms.

I am all with you there. But I see him as a multidimensional man,
leader, and politician. He did some good things in his time, and I don't
like to dismiss them because of the things that I, too, didn't like him for!

WhansaMi wrote: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms.

And don't forget the money the hierarchy is
sitting on top of that could have actually
been used to address some of these issues.

No one knows for certain even the *magnitude*
of money the church is sitting on... and
this doesn't even count the art work stored
away... much less the real estate owned by
the church around the world.

It reminds me a lot of the announced and
laudatory accomplishments of Ronald Reagan...
(shakes head) I don't recall him having even
influence in more than maybe 10% of what he
got credit for.

The reality is that hagiography is with us
and it's a political mechanism that ignores
reality as best it can.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Those people most incapable (or unwilling) to see themselves as being
sent to Hell are those most likely to become permanent residents. - me

WhansaMi wrote: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms.

And don't forget the money the hierarchy is
sitting on top of that could have actually
been used to address some of these issues.

No one knows for certain even the *magnitude*
of money the church is sitting on... and
this doesn't even count the art work stored
away... much less the real estate owned by
the church around the world.

It reminds me a lot of the announced and
laudatory accomplishments of Ronald Reagan...
(shakes head) I don't recall him having even
influence in more than maybe 10% of what he
got credit for.

The reality is that hagiography is with us
and it's a political mechanism that ignores
reality as best it can.

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Those people most incapable (or unwilling) to see themselves as being
sent to Hell are those most likely to become permanent residents. - me

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:%mS5e.5354$0c2.999@trnddc08... During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila

I agree, Sheila. But I go much further.

Consider this; a report appeared about two weeks before his death, in
response to the Schiavo case, that he made the statement to the effect that
life should be sustained until the end. He said that feeding tubes were not
"unnatural means" of supporting life.

He elected (or someone else did) to not be taken to the hospital during his
last few days even though he was in critical condition. He ( or someone
else) did not want to be in a hospital room with life support equipment so
he remained in the papal apartment (where there is no life support
equipment).

If this is not "do as I say and not as I do" then I don't know what is.

Another thing. It has been reported that he wanted his personal paper
burned after his death. I just wonder why. Is there something there that
could be embarrassing to the church?

He was just a man at the head of a very wealthy and powerful nation.

I think Bush made a grave mistake in having flags fly at half mast for him
in this country. Thomas Jefferson rolled over in his grave on that one.

rg

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:%mS5e.5354$0c2.999@trnddc08... During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila

I agree, Sheila. But I go much further.

Consider this; a report appeared about two weeks before his death, in
response to the Schiavo case, that he made the statement to the effect that
life should be sustained until the end. He said that feeding tubes were not
"unnatural means" of supporting life.

He elected (or someone else did) to not be taken to the hospital during his
last few days even though he was in critical condition. He ( or someone
else) did not want to be in a hospital room with life support equipment so
he remained in the papal apartment (where there is no life support
equipment).

If this is not "do as I say and not as I do" then I don't know what is.

Another thing. It has been reported that he wanted his personal paper
burned after his death. I just wonder why. Is there something there that
could be embarrassing to the church?

He was just a man at the head of a very wealthy and powerful nation.

I think Bush made a grave mistake in having flags fly at half mast for him
in this country. Thomas Jefferson rolled over in his grave on that one.

rg

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:%mS5e.5354$0c2.999@trnddc08... During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila

John 12:8

12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus
was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

12:2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of
them that sat at the table with him.

12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and
anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house
was filled with the odour of the ointment.

12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], which
should betray him,

12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to
the poor?

12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a
thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she
kept this.

12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:%mS5e.5354$0c2.999@trnddc08... During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila

John 12:8

12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus
was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

12:2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of
them that sat at the table with him.

12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and
anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house
was filled with the odour of the ointment.

12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], which
should betray him,

12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to
the poor?

12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a
thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she
kept this.

12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

I am not a Catholic and I don't profess to speak for them. I disagree with
them on some things as well. And I don't flame people for your attitude.

The issue of contraceptives is as I understand it, a moral issue for
Catholics. Certainly they would help, but so would for example, permitting
bank robberies below a certain figure. (Yes, I know that the example is
ridiculous, but the issue is the same for them.) It is not an issue that
my wife and I accept, but we respect others, Some denominations consider
blood transfusions to be immoral. A man in Swan Hill was supportive of a
Protestant school there because he could see that the best workers and
citizens were being turned out by the Catholic Parish schools and College.
And the Pope couldn't have unilaterally allowed contraceptives without
alienating a large proportion of his Church, including, most likely, many
of the cardinals forming his Council. Like any other leader, he has to
deal with political realities.

Only so much can be done for the poor. If contraception is left out. there
is the possibility of more aid. At a youth public speaking contest, one
speaker wanted to bypass the governments and deliver aid directly to their
needy. Apart from the impracticality of doing this without passports and
the country's infrastructure, transport and social statistics, massive
dumping of aid can upset their economy, and make things even worse. Even
contraceptives would have to be a form of aid for the really needy, who
can't afford them, after buying (if they can afford even that) enough to
stay alive on.

The Taliban got rid of all the opium poppy plantations in Afghanistan. Very
moral, but most of the people depended on them for their income. It
created massive unemployment. Here, we have to accept the lesser of two
evils. The contraception issue could be seen the same way, but it is one
thing to live with an inherited evil, and quite another to allow a new one
(accepting their assessment.)

Whether the Pope was really a great man, only historians can judge. He was
certainly a break with tradition. And he was there for a long time during
a periond of political change. Whether Poland would have become free
without his influence is also unknown. Other Communist states were throwing
off Communism.

Isaac Azimov said: "Don't let your sense of morality get in the way of doing
what's right."

Doug L.

WhansaMi wrote:
During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila

--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Drama is life with the dull bits cut out.
-- Alfred Hitchcock.

I am not a Catholic and I don't profess to speak for them. I disagree with
them on some things as well. And I don't flame people for your attitude.

The issue of contraceptives is as I understand it, a moral issue for
Catholics. Certainly they would help, but so would for example, permitting
bank robberies below a certain figure. (Yes, I know that the example is
ridiculous, but the issue is the same for them.) It is not an issue that
my wife and I accept, but we respect others, Some denominations consider
blood transfusions to be immoral. A man in Swan Hill was supportive of a
Protestant school there because he could see that the best workers and
citizens were being turned out by the Catholic Parish schools and College.
And the Pope couldn't have unilaterally allowed contraceptives without
alienating a large proportion of his Church, including, most likely, many
of the cardinals forming his Council. Like any other leader, he has to
deal with political realities.

Only so much can be done for the poor. If contraception is left out. there
is the possibility of more aid. At a youth public speaking contest, one
speaker wanted to bypass the governments and deliver aid directly to their
needy. Apart from the impracticality of doing this without passports and
the country's infrastructure, transport and social statistics, massive
dumping of aid can upset their economy, and make things even worse. Even
contraceptives would have to be a form of aid for the really needy, who
can't afford them, after buying (if they can afford even that) enough to
stay alive on.

The Taliban got rid of all the opium poppy plantations in Afghanistan. Very
moral, but most of the people depended on them for their income. It
created massive unemployment. Here, we have to accept the lesser of two
evils. The contraception issue could be seen the same way, but it is one
thing to live with an inherited evil, and quite another to allow a new one
(accepting their assessment.)

Whether the Pope was really a great man, only historians can judge. He was
certainly a break with tradition. And he was there for a long time during
a periond of political change. Whether Poland would have become free
without his influence is also unknown. Other Communist states were throwing
off Communism.

Isaac Azimov said: "Don't let your sense of morality get in the way of doing
what's right."

Doug L.

WhansaMi wrote:
During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila

--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Drama is life with the dull bits cut out.
-- Alfred Hitchcock.

tracert wrote:
"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:%mS5e.5354$0c2.999@trnddc08... During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila John 12:8 12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 12:2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], which should betray him, 12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

But we don't just leave them to be poor. Jesus said that while He was
around, He was entitled to respect. But with Jesus no longer on Earth to
spend the money on, we can get on with helping the poor. Personally, I
don't see the relevance of your quotation. He was saying: you will always
find some poor to help. It says nothing about how we help them, which is
WhansaMi's argument.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Some men see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were
and say: Why not?
- Robert Kennedy.

tracert wrote:
"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:%mS5e.5354$0c2.999@trnddc08... During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila John 12:8 12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 12:2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], which should betray him, 12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

But we don't just leave them to be poor. Jesus said that while He was
around, He was entitled to respect. But with Jesus no longer on Earth to
spend the money on, we can get on with helping the poor. Personally, I
don't see the relevance of your quotation. He was saying: you will always
find some poor to help. It says nothing about how we help them, which is
WhansaMi's argument.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Some men see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were
and say: Why not?
- Robert Kennedy.

WhansaMi wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:425811DB.6040104@aol.com... WhansaMi wrote: <snip> Well, Sheila, no, you didn't *have* to say it. Tracey I guess "have to" is one of those amorphous terms like "need". In this case, I use it in the sense of "feel compelled to", which is Mirriam-Webster's 13th definition.

lol

I love it when you get all semantical, Sheila!

The way I see it is that the Pope did many good things in his life and I
believe he was a good man. I abhor the Roman Catholic Church's position on
birth control but people have free will. If they choose to accept that
doctrine then they have to take responsibility for it.

People aren't starving in poor countries because they have too many
children, they are starving because they can't grow enough food to feed
themselves. They can't feed themselves because they are too poor to improve
their techniques above subsistance farming and/or because they can't work
their land while they live with constant civil war.

We can't blame the Pope or the RC church any more than we can blame
ourselves for that and we each have to decide what kind of help we feel is
most appropriate to give, based on our own belief system. However, I also
find it hard to stomach when people who live in Palaces talk about charity
and working to fight poverty. Too much of parishioner's money goes into real
estate, imo. But, again, it's *their* choice and their church.


Tai

WhansaMi wrote: "Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message news:425811DB.6040104@aol.com... WhansaMi wrote: <snip> Well, Sheila, no, you didn't *have* to say it. Tracey I guess "have to" is one of those amorphous terms like "need". In this case, I use it in the sense of "feel compelled to", which is Mirriam-Webster's 13th definition.

lol

I love it when you get all semantical, Sheila!

The way I see it is that the Pope did many good things in his life and I
believe he was a good man. I abhor the Roman Catholic Church's position on
birth control but people have free will. If they choose to accept that
doctrine then they have to take responsibility for it.

People aren't starving in poor countries because they have too many
children, they are starving because they can't grow enough food to feed
themselves. They can't feed themselves because they are too poor to improve
their techniques above subsistance farming and/or because they can't work
their land while they live with constant civil war.

We can't blame the Pope or the RC church any more than we can blame
ourselves for that and we each have to decide what kind of help we feel is
most appropriate to give, based on our own belief system. However, I also
find it hard to stomach when people who live in Palaces talk about charity
and working to fight poverty. Too much of parishioner's money goes into real
estate, imo. But, again, it's *their* choice and their church.


Tai

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... Understand that I do not agree with the RCC's teachings on contraceptive technology. But it's not a good criticism to say "I'm upset that that guy acts according to his carefully thought-out convictions." (As I say, I disagree -- but I recognise that the Vatican's position is a thoughtful and reflective analysis of what they consider important moral issues. I believe they're wrong, but they're neither malicious nor stupid.)

Actually, I disagree with you. There are plenty of religious convictions
that I think are inherently wrong. Consider the subjugation of women in
fundamentalist Islamic traditions (shoot, in the LDS tradition, for that
matter). I don't have a problem saying that this is wrong, wrong,
wrongity-wrong, and that the leaders of those faiths are wrong, wrong,
wrongity-wrong either.

As far as the pope being a vehicle for change goes... well, religions are
not static. Even the RC church is not the same as it was 200 years ago
(thank goodness). The pope has tremendous power to shape the tenets of the
faith. He chose not to -- for whatever reason -- and I see this as a
problem. I recognize that *others* may see this as a good thing, I'm just
saying that I, as a member of society, cannot respect his unwillingness to
make changes that would improve the quality of life for all people.

Sheila

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... Understand that I do not agree with the RCC's teachings on contraceptive technology. But it's not a good criticism to say "I'm upset that that guy acts according to his carefully thought-out convictions." (As I say, I disagree -- but I recognise that the Vatican's position is a thoughtful and reflective analysis of what they consider important moral issues. I believe they're wrong, but they're neither malicious nor stupid.)

Actually, I disagree with you. There are plenty of religious convictions
that I think are inherently wrong. Consider the subjugation of women in
fundamentalist Islamic traditions (shoot, in the LDS tradition, for that
matter). I don't have a problem saying that this is wrong, wrong,
wrongity-wrong, and that the leaders of those faiths are wrong, wrong,
wrongity-wrong either.

As far as the pope being a vehicle for change goes... well, religions are
not static. Even the RC church is not the same as it was 200 years ago
(thank goodness). The pope has tremendous power to shape the tenets of the
faith. He chose not to -- for whatever reason -- and I see this as a
problem. I recognize that *others* may see this as a good thing, I'm just
saying that I, as a member of society, cannot respect his unwillingness to
make changes that would improve the quality of life for all people.

Sheila

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... "Sheila WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com>" wrote, of JohnPaul2: I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. This is sort of the yin/yang of the Saints who did awful things: the people who didn't do things we think would be good -- but who did do other things. A number of Polish anti-communists give the man tremendous credit (as much as 50% in one interview I saw) for the fall of Communism in Poland, and, afterwards, across Europe.

Exactly what was it that he did to contribute to the fall of Communism in
Poland?



rg


snip,snip.

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... "Sheila WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com>" wrote, of JohnPaul2: I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. This is sort of the yin/yang of the Saints who did awful things: the people who didn't do things we think would be good -- but who did do other things. A number of Polish anti-communists give the man tremendous credit (as much as 50% in one interview I saw) for the fall of Communism in Poland, and, afterwards, across Europe.

Exactly what was it that he did to contribute to the fall of Communism in
Poland?



rg


snip,snip.

This is sort of the yin/yang of the Saints who did awful things: the people who didn't do things we think would be good -- but who did do other things. A number of Polish anti-communists give the man tremendous credit (as much as 50% in one interview I saw) for the fall of Communism in Poland, and, afterwards, across Europe. Whatever else he might not have done, surely even 1% of the credit for ridding the world of the Soviet Union qualifies him for greatness on any secular scale of accomplishments.
[rest snipped]

amen to that!

An excellent post, thank you

G.P.

This is sort of the yin/yang of the Saints who did awful things: the people who didn't do things we think would be good -- but who did do other things. A number of Polish anti-communists give the man tremendous credit (as much as 50% in one interview I saw) for the fall of Communism in Poland, and, afterwards, across Europe. Whatever else he might not have done, surely even 1% of the credit for ridding the world of the Soviet Union qualifies him for greatness on any secular scale of accomplishments.
[rest snipped]

amen to that!

An excellent post, thank you

G.P.

'There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light.
There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries
with a large Roman Catholic presence.....'

I personally feel that there is something very wrong with Popes living
in opulence , having 17 bedroom summer homes, wearing the finest of Silk
Robes, being waited on hand and foot, and, expecting the masses to bow
to kiss his ring in worship (and it IS worship) . Somehow, i dont
think Christ would live like this if he were here today.

'There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light.
There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries
with a large Roman Catholic presence.....'

I personally feel that there is something very wrong with Popes living
in opulence , having 17 bedroom summer homes, wearing the finest of Silk
Robes, being waited on hand and foot, and, expecting the masses to bow
to kiss his ring in worship (and it IS worship) . Somehow, i dont
think Christ would live like this if he were here today.

rg wrote:
"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... "Sheila WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com>" wrote, of JohnPaul2: I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. This is sort of the yin/yang of the Saints who did awful things: the people who didn't do things we think would be good -- but who did do other things. A number of Polish anti-communists give the man tremendous credit (as much as 50% in one interview I saw) for the fall of Communism in Poland, and, afterwards, across Europe. Exactly what was it that he did to contribute to the fall of Communism in Poland? rg snip,snip.

No saint is perfect. They are still human beings, liable to the same faults
as all of us. Not being a Catholic, I am not sure what makes a saint in
their sense. In the Bible, it means Christians generally. A paperback
"Dictionary of Saints" I have, denies that saints are in any way special
people, yet concedes that they are called on as intercessors. The whole
point of Luther's break was that he - and we - are in direct communion with
God, and we don't need the Virgin Mary or a saint to put in a good word on
our behalf. The idea that God may act more favourably towards us if we can
get a saint on our side seems to me, to be fundamentally wrong.

But plainly, there are some people whose personality or something makes them
able to live better lives. Someone said of Peter Marshall: "He talked with
God." That is beyond the reach of most of us.

The Pope still has tremendous political influence. The Catholic Church, as
I understand it, claims the right to direct the political activities of its
faithful according to what it conceives as the true path. But I am getting
beyond the limits of my knowledge here. Whether they should or shouldn't
have that right, there are arguments both ways.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
The best car safety device is a rear-view mirror with a cop in it.
- Dudley Moore.

rg wrote:
"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... "Sheila WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com>" wrote, of JohnPaul2: I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. This is sort of the yin/yang of the Saints who did awful things: the people who didn't do things we think would be good -- but who did do other things. A number of Polish anti-communists give the man tremendous credit (as much as 50% in one interview I saw) for the fall of Communism in Poland, and, afterwards, across Europe. Exactly what was it that he did to contribute to the fall of Communism in Poland? rg snip,snip.

No saint is perfect. They are still human beings, liable to the same faults
as all of us. Not being a Catholic, I am not sure what makes a saint in
their sense. In the Bible, it means Christians generally. A paperback
"Dictionary of Saints" I have, denies that saints are in any way special
people, yet concedes that they are called on as intercessors. The whole
point of Luther's break was that he - and we - are in direct communion with
God, and we don't need the Virgin Mary or a saint to put in a good word on
our behalf. The idea that God may act more favourably towards us if we can
get a saint on our side seems to me, to be fundamentally wrong.

But plainly, there are some people whose personality or something makes them
able to live better lives. Someone said of Peter Marshall: "He talked with
God." That is beyond the reach of most of us.

The Pope still has tremendous political influence. The Catholic Church, as
I understand it, claims the right to direct the political activities of its
faithful according to what it conceives as the true path. But I am getting
beyond the limits of my knowledge here. Whether they should or shouldn't
have that right, there are arguments both ways.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
The best car safety device is a rear-view mirror with a cop in it.
- Dudley Moore.

WhansaMi wrote:
During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila

Sheila, have you seen this one?

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/3/231846/1970

I neither approve nor disapprove of it. The site is a bit of a "stirrer,"
and one that I monitor. I have already said that it is not for me to
comment. The writer there may be being just as selective as he claims that
the Catholic propaganda is. But he seems to be on your side.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and
hands.
- Robert M. Persig

WhansaMi wrote:
During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila

Sheila, have you seen this one?

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/3/231846/1970

I neither approve nor disapprove of it. The site is a bit of a "stirrer,"
and one that I monitor. I have already said that it is not for me to
comment. The writer there may be being just as selective as he claims that
the Catholic propaganda is. But he seems to be on your side.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and
hands.
- Robert M. Persig

"Doug Laidlaw" <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message
news:l00oi2-0r8.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au... WhansaMi wrote: During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries
with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at
the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people
say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that
the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila Sheila, have you seen this one? http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/3/231846/1970 I neither approve nor disapprove of it. The site is a bit of a "stirrer," and one that I monitor. I have already said that it is not for me to comment. The writer there may be being just as selective as he claims
that the Catholic propaganda is. But he seems to be on your side. Doug L.

Doug, interesting site. I didn't take the time to read it carefully, but in
skimming it, I'd say yes, I agree with many of his points.

I'd just like to say that I don't have tremendously strong feelings about
the pope, one way or another. I was, however, disturbed by an unchallenged
torrent of accolades and praise heaped upon him at the time of his death.
Poeple here, in other forums, and in real life, seemed to be idealizing him,
when I don't think it is warranted. I didn't want the silence to be
mistaken for agreement. Some of us have very significant problems with
things he did, and didn't do.

And, no, I don't believe that one must never speak ill of the dead. From my
perspective, how people speak of you is a direct reflection of how they
percieve you -- good, bad or indifferent. I don't believe in idealizing
people just because they are dead.

Sheila

"Doug Laidlaw" <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message
news:l00oi2-0r8.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au... WhansaMi wrote: During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries
with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at
the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people
say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that
the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila Sheila, have you seen this one? http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/3/231846/1970 I neither approve nor disapprove of it. The site is a bit of a "stirrer," and one that I monitor. I have already said that it is not for me to comment. The writer there may be being just as selective as he claims
that the Catholic propaganda is. But he seems to be on your side. Doug L.

Doug, interesting site. I didn't take the time to read it carefully, but in
skimming it, I'd say yes, I agree with many of his points.

I'd just like to say that I don't have tremendously strong feelings about
the pope, one way or another. I was, however, disturbed by an unchallenged
torrent of accolades and praise heaped upon him at the time of his death.
Poeple here, in other forums, and in real life, seemed to be idealizing him,
when I don't think it is warranted. I didn't want the silence to be
mistaken for agreement. Some of us have very significant problems with
things he did, and didn't do.

And, no, I don't believe that one must never speak ill of the dead. From my
perspective, how people speak of you is a direct reflection of how they
percieve you -- good, bad or indifferent. I don't believe in idealizing
people just because they are dead.

Sheila

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:57:47 GMT, WhansaMi
<whansami@aol.com> wrote: "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... Understand that I do not agree with the RCC's teachings on contraceptive technology. But it's not a good criticism to say "I'm upset that that guy acts according to his carefully thought-out convictions." (As I say, I disagree -- but I recognise that the Vatican's position is a thoughtful and reflective analysis of what they consider important moral issues. I believe they're wrong, but they're neither malicious nor stupid.) Actually, I disagree with you. There are plenty of religious convictions that I think are inherently wrong. Consider the subjugation of women in fundamentalist Islamic traditions (shoot, in the LDS tradition, for that matter). I don't have a problem saying that this is wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong, and that the leaders of those faiths are wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong either. As far as the pope being a vehicle for change goes... well, religions are not static. Even the RC church is not the same as it was 200 years ago (thank goodness). The pope has tremendous power to shape the tenets of the faith. He chose not to -- for whatever reason -- and I see this as a problem. I recognize that *others* may see this as a good thing, I'm just saying that I, as a member of society, cannot respect his unwillingness to make changes that would improve the quality of life for all people.

As Darren so eloquently stated:

"HIV epidemics are caused by people who don't follow Roman Catholic
teachings. Suggesting that "If the Pope would endorse condoms it would
all be okay" is ridiculous: the Pope endorsed a course of action that
would greatly cut down on HIV, and people didn't listen to that."

I think your problem with the Pope's stance is that he's not endorsing
*your* solution which would allow rampant hedonism without consequences.

Most people don't want to take any advice that would interfere with their
personal pleasure. Oh well.

-Tony

PS: How many dollars have you contributed shipping condoms to poor
countries, or is your advice only for other people.

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:57:47 GMT, WhansaMi
<whansami@aol.com> wrote: "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... Understand that I do not agree with the RCC's teachings on contraceptive technology. But it's not a good criticism to say "I'm upset that that guy acts according to his carefully thought-out convictions." (As I say, I disagree -- but I recognise that the Vatican's position is a thoughtful and reflective analysis of what they consider important moral issues. I believe they're wrong, but they're neither malicious nor stupid.) Actually, I disagree with you. There are plenty of religious convictions that I think are inherently wrong. Consider the subjugation of women in fundamentalist Islamic traditions (shoot, in the LDS tradition, for that matter). I don't have a problem saying that this is wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong, and that the leaders of those faiths are wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong either. As far as the pope being a vehicle for change goes... well, religions are not static. Even the RC church is not the same as it was 200 years ago (thank goodness). The pope has tremendous power to shape the tenets of the faith. He chose not to -- for whatever reason -- and I see this as a problem. I recognize that *others* may see this as a good thing, I'm just saying that I, as a member of society, cannot respect his unwillingness to make changes that would improve the quality of life for all people.

As Darren so eloquently stated:

"HIV epidemics are caused by people who don't follow Roman Catholic
teachings. Suggesting that "If the Pope would endorse condoms it would
all be okay" is ridiculous: the Pope endorsed a course of action that
would greatly cut down on HIV, and people didn't listen to that."

I think your problem with the Pope's stance is that he's not endorsing
*your* solution which would allow rampant hedonism without consequences.

Most people don't want to take any advice that would interfere with their
personal pleasure. Oh well.

-Tony

PS: How many dollars have you contributed shipping condoms to poor
countries, or is your advice only for other people.

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... But I'd be happy never to see another word about Prince Charles or Camilla again as long as I live. If they disappeared into obscurity tomorrow, I don't know anyone in the world who would be poorer for it.

There's probably a milliner or two who'd find themselves out of business.

(Camilla perhaps thinks that wearing sheaves of wheat on her head will help
get her likeness on a coin?)

As for the rest--very well said, as usual, Darren, and very similar to how I
view the situation.

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... But I'd be happy never to see another word about Prince Charles or Camilla again as long as I live. If they disappeared into obscurity tomorrow, I don't know anyone in the world who would be poorer for it.

There's probably a milliner or two who'd find themselves out of business.

(Camilla perhaps thinks that wearing sheaves of wheat on her head will help
get her likeness on a coin?)

As for the rest--very well said, as usual, Darren, and very similar to how I
view the situation.

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... But I'd be happy never to see another word about Prince Charles or Camilla again as long as I live. If they disappeared into obscurity tomorrow, I don't know anyone in the world who would be poorer for it.

What??? NOT care about Prince Charles, et al (or anyone else in the
media, for that matter)??? Surely you must be jesting! What WOULD
we do with our lives, if we didn't "care" about these "stars"? How would
we manage to live?

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... But I'd be happy never to see another word about Prince Charles or Camilla again as long as I live. If they disappeared into obscurity tomorrow, I don't know anyone in the world who would be poorer for it.

What??? NOT care about Prince Charles, et al (or anyone else in the
media, for that matter)??? Surely you must be jesting! What WOULD
we do with our lives, if we didn't "care" about these "stars"? How would
we manage to live?

"Bill in Co." <surly04curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Hxj6e.3956$An2.3254@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... But I'd be happy never to see another word about Prince Charles or Camilla again as long as I live. If they disappeared into obscurity tomorrow, I don't know anyone in the world who would be poorer for it. What??? NOT care about Prince Charles, et al (or anyone else in the media, for that matter)??? Surely you must be jesting! What WOULD we do with our lives, if we didn't "care" about these "stars"? How would we manage to live?

I get by just fine.

"Bill in Co." <surly04curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Hxj6e.3956$An2.3254@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... But I'd be happy never to see another word about Prince Charles or Camilla again as long as I live. If they disappeared into obscurity tomorrow, I don't know anyone in the world who would be poorer for it. What??? NOT care about Prince Charles, et al (or anyone else in the media, for that matter)??? Surely you must be jesting! What WOULD we do with our lives, if we didn't "care" about these "stars"? How would we manage to live?

I get by just fine.

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote: In another thread, somebody referred to "Poor Charles and Camilla", and my evaluation of the tremendous contrasts on display this week comes closer to "Pathetic Charles and Camilla".

That was me and it was written very much tongue-in-cheek because of the huge
amount of news coverage we've had here the past few months over the legal
difficulties the couple had arranging a place and a time for their wedding.
Frankly, I was most interested in seeing The Dresses and The Hats for the
five minutes that took but as far as being pathetic is concerned, it isn't
them who are - it's those of us who take an interest in them.

Prince Charles, by comparison, grew up with tremendous material advantages, had access to excellent educational opportunities, has a large budget -- and is followed by reporters almost everywhere. He could have used that attention to lead by example.

All true and it would have been good if he had taken more of a humanitarian
path but I think it's a mistake to expect ordinary people to rise above
their mediocrity just because of an accident of birth. Also, from a
political point of view he is expected to fulfil a particular role and not
be at all controversial. British monarchs, constitutionally speaking, must
give the appearance of pilitical impartiality so it follows that the heir to
the throne is hedged about with all sorts of contraints on his public
behaviour and speech. That can sometimes be difficult for people from other
countries to understand.


Tai

Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote: In another thread, somebody referred to "Poor Charles and Camilla", and my evaluation of the tremendous contrasts on display this week comes closer to "Pathetic Charles and Camilla".

That was me and it was written very much tongue-in-cheek because of the huge
amount of news coverage we've had here the past few months over the legal
difficulties the couple had arranging a place and a time for their wedding.
Frankly, I was most interested in seeing The Dresses and The Hats for the
five minutes that took but as far as being pathetic is concerned, it isn't
them who are - it's those of us who take an interest in them.

Prince Charles, by comparison, grew up with tremendous material advantages, had access to excellent educational opportunities, has a large budget -- and is followed by reporters almost everywhere. He could have used that attention to lead by example.

All true and it would have been good if he had taken more of a humanitarian
path but I think it's a mistake to expect ordinary people to rise above
their mediocrity just because of an accident of birth. Also, from a
political point of view he is expected to fulfil a particular role and not
be at all controversial. British monarchs, constitutionally speaking, must
give the appearance of pilitical impartiality so it follows that the heir to
the throne is hedged about with all sorts of contraints on his public
behaviour and speech. That can sometimes be difficult for people from other
countries to understand.


Tai

WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com> wrote:
There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms.

I am pretty much where you are on this.

WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com> wrote:
There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms.

I am pretty much where you are on this.

I wrote: Understand that I do not agree with the RCC's teachings on contraceptive technology. But it's not a good criticism to say "I'm upset that that guy acts according to his carefully thought-out convictions." (As I say, I disagree -- but I recognise that the Vatican's position is a thoughtful and reflective analysis of what they consider important moral issues. I believe they're wrong, but they're neither malicious nor stupid.)


"Sheila WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com>" replied: Actually, I disagree with you. There are plenty of religious convictions that I think are inherently wrong.

Of course. But many people have no principles worth noting, and will
say anything they think may benefit them. I respect principles and
integrity, even in someone I believe is mistaken.

George W Bush, for example, justified his immoral meddling in the Terri
Schiavo case by saying that he believes "we should err on the side of
life". But when he was governor of Texas, he signed a law that takes
the exact opposite side: allowing doctors to turn off a machine over the
objections of the family. If Terri Schiavo had been in Texas, her
parents would have had far fewer legal options than they had in Florida,
and it was George W Bush who signed the law taking those options away.
He has no principle about erring on the side of life -- he just said
that because he figured his political supporters would like it.

Since the Pope's death, Bush and his supporters have talked about "a
culture of life", trying to get political gain out of late Pope's
popularity, and associate themselves with him. Never mind that the Pope
was against the death penalty, and Bush supports it, or that the Pope
opposed the war in Iraq, which we started over nonexistent weapons.

Bush *pretends* to be a man of principle, but the Pope really *was* a
man of principle.


The biggest accusation I can make against the Pope is that, on several
issues of varying importance, he was mistaken. I see no reason to
believe he was either malicious or stupid. He was just wrong.

Given that I may be wrong about a few things -- and so might you -- it
seems a bad precedent to harbor too much hostility toward someone who
was mistaken.


Criticise the liars, the people who pretend to have principles, the
people who really are malicious, the people who are stupid and won't do
anything to improve, the ones who are willfully ignorant of things that
should be changed. Those who are merely mistaken, who honestly try to
find and do the good, are heroic by comparison.

*
As far as the pope being a vehicle for change goes... well, religions are not static. Even the RC church is not the same as it was 200 years ago (thank goodness). The pope has tremendous power to shape the tenets of the faith.

Not in his view. In his view, his job was to understand and explain the
truths received from On High. One of his letters (about women priests,
I think) says "we cannot ..." -- in essence, he believed he did not have
the authority to arrange for conferring priesthood on women.

He DID have the authority to allow for married priests, and in 1980 did
allow some married men (who were Anglican priests and who converted) to
serve as RC priests. I think, at the time, he should have ordered up a
study of the question, including analysis of married men serving in
other traditions (most notably the Eastern Orthodox). Not necessarily
to have made any changes at the time, but to get the conversation going
and allow the people of the church to think about something which, for
the most part, they simply take as given and never examine.


But that's a pretty small deal compared to the times he owned up to the
sins committed by Roman Catholics -- on slavery, to take one obvious
example -- and sought forgiveness from those who had been harmed. No
amount of telling RCs not to do these things could carry for them the
symbolic power of their Pope having to beg forgiveness. In the short
term, I don't know how much influence that will have. But a lot of
people got a nudge in the right direction by those actions, and the
long-term effects of a nudge can be really significant.

*

"Tai <tainuiti@yahoo.com>" had written about Charles and Camilla, and
I commented to the effect that I think Charles has wasted tremendous
opportunities to make the world a better place. He was given a lot by
his countrymen, and he owes them even more.

Ms Tai has replied:
[F]rom a political point of view he is expected to fulfil a particular role and not be at all controversial.

Oh, well, he was just *brilliant* at that. Being a public slut for
decades in a world obsessed by celebrity was a great way for him to
avoid controversy.

I don't mean he should have jumped into controversies. He should have
thought of something worth doing that interested him, and then worked
hard at doing it, and then wrote a book about it full of pictures. He
could give a few interviews and talk about how much work it was, and how
he never expected it to be so interesting, and he's really glad he did
the work to study and learn so much because it was personally satisfying
to have done a good job at something. He could then encourage his
countrymen to think about what interests them, and what kind of job well
done would give them satisfaction. Maybe it would only a be a nudge,
but for many people a nudge would make the difference.

Deriving personal satisfaction from hard work isn't controversial, is it?

(Of course, he might have done things like this that I never heard about
because he distracted attention from them with his salacious private
life, in which case it's as much the fault of mass media as it is of
Prince Charles.)


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Imagine what the world would be like if football was a worthy ritual
performed in stadiums but mathematics was a misunderstood activity
ignored by almost all." -- Gene Ward Smith

I wrote: Understand that I do not agree with the RCC's teachings on contraceptive technology. But it's not a good criticism to say "I'm upset that that guy acts according to his carefully thought-out convictions." (As I say, I disagree -- but I recognise that the Vatican's position is a thoughtful and reflective analysis of what they consider important moral issues. I believe they're wrong, but they're neither malicious nor stupid.)


"Sheila WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com>" replied: Actually, I disagree with you. There are plenty of religious convictions that I think are inherently wrong.

Of course. But many people have no principles worth noting, and will
say anything they think may benefit them. I respect principles and
integrity, even in someone I believe is mistaken.

George W Bush, for example, justified his immoral meddling in the Terri
Schiavo case by saying that he believes "we should err on the side of
life". But when he was governor of Texas, he signed a law that takes
the exact opposite side: allowing doctors to turn off a machine over the
objections of the family. If Terri Schiavo had been in Texas, her
parents would have had far fewer legal options than they had in Florida,
and it was George W Bush who signed the law taking those options away.
He has no principle about erring on the side of life -- he just said
that because he figured his political supporters would like it.

Since the Pope's death, Bush and his supporters have talked about "a
culture of life", trying to get political gain out of late Pope's
popularity, and associate themselves with him. Never mind that the Pope
was against the death penalty, and Bush supports it, or that the Pope
opposed the war in Iraq, which we started over nonexistent weapons.

Bush *pretends* to be a man of principle, but the Pope really *was* a
man of principle.


The biggest accusation I can make against the Pope is that, on several
issues of varying importance, he was mistaken. I see no reason to
believe he was either malicious or stupid. He was just wrong.

Given that I may be wrong about a few things -- and so might you -- it
seems a bad precedent to harbor too much hostility toward someone who
was mistaken.


Criticise the liars, the people who pretend to have principles, the
people who really are malicious, the people who are stupid and won't do
anything to improve, the ones who are willfully ignorant of things that
should be changed. Those who are merely mistaken, who honestly try to
find and do the good, are heroic by comparison.

*
As far as the pope being a vehicle for change goes... well, religions are not static. Even the RC church is not the same as it was 200 years ago (thank goodness). The pope has tremendous power to shape the tenets of the faith.

Not in his view. In his view, his job was to understand and explain the
truths received from On High. One of his letters (about women priests,
I think) says "we cannot ..." -- in essence, he believed he did not have
the authority to arrange for conferring priesthood on women.

He DID have the authority to allow for married priests, and in 1980 did
allow some married men (who were Anglican priests and who converted) to
serve as RC priests. I think, at the time, he should have ordered up a
study of the question, including analysis of married men serving in
other traditions (most notably the Eastern Orthodox). Not necessarily
to have made any changes at the time, but to get the conversation going
and allow the people of the church to think about something which, for
the most part, they simply take as given and never examine.


But that's a pretty small deal compared to the times he owned up to the
sins committed by Roman Catholics -- on slavery, to take one obvious
example -- and sought forgiveness from those who had been harmed. No
amount of telling RCs not to do these things could carry for them the
symbolic power of their Pope having to beg forgiveness. In the short
term, I don't know how much influence that will have. But a lot of
people got a nudge in the right direction by those actions, and the
long-term effects of a nudge can be really significant.

*

"Tai <tainuiti@yahoo.com>" had written about Charles and Camilla, and
I commented to the effect that I think Charles has wasted tremendous
opportunities to make the world a better place. He was given a lot by
his countrymen, and he owes them even more.

Ms Tai has replied:
[F]rom a political point of view he is expected to fulfil a particular role and not be at all controversial.

Oh, well, he was just *brilliant* at that. Being a public slut for
decades in a world obsessed by celebrity was a great way for him to
avoid controversy.

I don't mean he should have jumped into controversies. He should have
thought of something worth doing that interested him, and then worked
hard at doing it, and then wrote a book about it full of pictures. He
could give a few interviews and talk about how much work it was, and how
he never expected it to be so interesting, and he's really glad he did
the work to study and learn so much because it was personally satisfying
to have done a good job at something. He could then encourage his
countrymen to think about what interests them, and what kind of job well
done would give them satisfaction. Maybe it would only a be a nudge,
but for many people a nudge would make the difference.

Deriving personal satisfaction from hard work isn't controversial, is it?

(Of course, he might have done things like this that I never heard about
because he distracted attention from them with his salacious private
life, in which case it's as much the fault of mass media as it is of
Prince Charles.)


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Imagine what the world would be like if football was a worthy ritual
performed in stadiums but mathematics was a misunderstood activity
ignored by almost all." -- Gene Ward Smith

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5j3ad.8rm.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:57:47 GMT, WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com> wrote: "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... Understand that I do not agree with the RCC's teachings on contraceptive technology. But it's not a good criticism to say "I'm upset that that guy acts according to his carefully thought-out convictions." (As I say, I disagree -- but I recognise that the Vatican's position is a thoughtful and reflective analysis of what they consider important moral issues. I believe they're wrong, but they're neither malicious nor stupid.) Actually, I disagree with you. There are plenty of religious convictions that I think are inherently wrong. Consider the subjugation of women in fundamentalist Islamic traditions (shoot, in the LDS tradition, for that matter). I don't have a problem saying that this is wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong, and that the leaders of those faiths are wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong either. As far as the pope being a vehicle for change goes... well, religions are not static. Even the RC church is not the same as it was 200 years ago (thank goodness). The pope has tremendous power to shape the tenets of the faith. He chose not to -- for whatever reason -- and I see this as a problem. I recognize that *others* may see this as a good thing, I'm just saying that I, as a member of society, cannot respect his unwillingness to make changes that would improve the quality of life for all people. As Darren so eloquently stated: "HIV epidemics are caused by people who don't follow Roman Catholic teachings. Suggesting that "If the Pope would endorse condoms it would all be okay" is ridiculous: the Pope endorsed a course of action that would greatly cut down on HIV, and people didn't listen to that."

Tony, just to show you how dumb I am, I always thought HIV epidemics were
caused by viruses. Can you imagine that with the ability of the HI virus to
mutate, that one of these days it may do so such that it becomes contagious
just from handshaking or even from the air or god forbide, from drinking
from a communal chalice?

I once heard an Islamist say the same thing you did only he said it was
Islamic teachings that prevented it.

Go figure!

rg




I think your problem with the Pope's stance is that he's not endorsing *your* solution which would allow rampant hedonism without consequences. Most people don't want to take any advice that would interfere with their personal pleasure. Oh well. -Tony PS: How many dollars have you contributed shipping condoms to poor countries, or is your advice only for other people. -- "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5j3ad.8rm.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:57:47 GMT, WhansaMi <whansami@aol.com> wrote: "Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message news:d39pli$t03$1@pcls4.std.com... Understand that I do not agree with the RCC's teachings on contraceptive technology. But it's not a good criticism to say "I'm upset that that guy acts according to his carefully thought-out convictions." (As I say, I disagree -- but I recognise that the Vatican's position is a thoughtful and reflective analysis of what they consider important moral issues. I believe they're wrong, but they're neither malicious nor stupid.) Actually, I disagree with you. There are plenty of religious convictions that I think are inherently wrong. Consider the subjugation of women in fundamentalist Islamic traditions (shoot, in the LDS tradition, for that matter). I don't have a problem saying that this is wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong, and that the leaders of those faiths are wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong either. As far as the pope being a vehicle for change goes... well, religions are not static. Even the RC church is not the same as it was 200 years ago (thank goodness). The pope has tremendous power to shape the tenets of the faith. He chose not to -- for whatever reason -- and I see this as a problem. I recognize that *others* may see this as a good thing, I'm just saying that I, as a member of society, cannot respect his unwillingness to make changes that would improve the quality of life for all people. As Darren so eloquently stated: "HIV epidemics are caused by people who don't follow Roman Catholic teachings. Suggesting that "If the Pope would endorse condoms it would all be okay" is ridiculous: the Pope endorsed a course of action that would greatly cut down on HIV, and people didn't listen to that."

Tony, just to show you how dumb I am, I always thought HIV epidemics were
caused by viruses. Can you imagine that with the ability of the HI virus to
mutate, that one of these days it may do so such that it becomes contagious
just from handshaking or even from the air or god forbide, from drinking
from a communal chalice?

I once heard an Islamist say the same thing you did only he said it was
Islamic teachings that prevented it.

Go figure!

rg




I think your problem with the Pope's stance is that he's not endorsing *your* solution which would allow rampant hedonism without consequences. Most people don't want to take any advice that would interfere with their personal pleasure. Oh well. -Tony PS: How many dollars have you contributed shipping condoms to poor countries, or is your advice only for other people. -- "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

WhansaMi wrote:
"Doug Laidlaw" <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message news:l00oi2-0r8.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au... WhansaMi wrote: During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila Sheila, have you seen this one? http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/3/231846/1970 I neither approve nor disapprove of it. The site is a bit of a "stirrer," and one that I monitor. I have already said that it is not for me to comment. The writer there may be being just as selective as he claims that the Catholic propaganda is. But he seems to be on your side. Doug L. Doug, interesting site. I didn't take the time to read it carefully, but in skimming it, I'd say yes, I agree with many of his points. I'd just like to say that I don't have tremendously strong feelings about the pope, one way or another. I was, however, disturbed by an unchallenged torrent of accolades and praise heaped upon him at the time of his death. Poeple here, in other forums, and in real life, seemed to be idealizing him, when I don't think it is warranted. I didn't want the silence to be mistaken for agreement. Some of us have very significant problems with things he did, and didn't do. And, no, I don't believe that one must never speak ill of the dead. From my perspective, how people speak of you is a direct reflection of how they percieve you -- good, bad or indifferent. I don't believe in idealizing people just because they are dead. Sheila

The comment in that article, that he was a popular Pope but not a great one,
might be closer to the truth. I haven't been watching him closely. The
very choice of such a person was revolutionary. In a biography of him, the
previous Pope when elected, said that the late Pope should have been
elected instead, and he seems to have been a stop-gap compromise. I wonder
if he willed himself to die so soon? It doesn't matter anyway, and we
shall never know. Woltjya needed to be a leader, but the Church he was
leading seems to have a lot of inertia, and would have been hard to change.
If his achievements were outwardly slight, they may nevertheless have been
radical in this context. The only point that I wanted to make initially
was that he was not a completely free agent, but under some outside
constraints. It is always difficult to define the boundary between
essential doctrine and its practical applications.

I always go on and on,but being celibate is not the best starting point for
understanding family values. A hospital staff member said that unless a
patient specifically asked for a priest, she would fetch a married man
every time. But I am getting into a different, equally difficult issue.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
But I grow old, always learning many things.
-- Solon, Greek lawgiver, 6th cent. B.C.

WhansaMi wrote:
"Doug Laidlaw" <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message news:l00oi2-0r8.ln1@dougshost.mydomain.org.au... WhansaMi wrote: During this week, as the world watched the pope be mourned and buried, I've held my tongue through all the accolades and proclamations of greatness. But, I'm just going to say it, to get it off my chest: There are those of us who do not see the pope in that favorable light. There are those of us who look at children starving in poor countries with a large Roman Catholic presence, and wonder why the pope didn't say anything to allow contraceptives to be used. There are those of us who look at the AIDS/HIV epidemic is Uganda, and wonder how bishops are being sanctioned by the church for distributing condoms. I, personally, didn't respect the man's views. I didn't know the *man*, so I can't say I feel one way about him, or the other. But, when people say what a great advocate for the poor he was, I can't help but think that the one act that he could have done to assist them, he refused to do. Sheila Sheila, have you seen this one? http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/3/231846/1970 I neither approve nor disapprove of it. The site is a bit of a "stirrer," and one that I monitor. I have already said that it is not for me to comment. The writer there may be being just as selective as he claims that the Catholic propaganda is. But he seems to be on your side. Doug L. Doug, interesting site. I didn't take the time to read it carefully, but in skimming it, I'd say yes, I agree with many of his points. I'd just like to say that I don't have tremendously strong feelings about the pope, one way or another. I was, however, disturbed by an unchallenged torrent of accolades and praise heaped upon him at the time of his death. Poeple here, in other forums, and in real life, seemed to be idealizing him, when I don't think it is warranted. I didn't want the silence to be mistaken for agreement. Some of us have very significant problems with things he did, and didn't do. And, no, I don't believe that one must never speak ill of the dead. From my perspective, how people speak of you is a direct reflection of how they percieve you -- good, bad or indifferent. I don't believe in idealizing people just because they are dead. Sheila

The comment in that article, that he was a popular Pope but not a great one,
might be closer to the truth. I haven't been watching him closely. The
very choice of such a person was revolutionary. In a biography of him, the
previous Pope when elected, said that the late Pope should have been
elected instead, and he seems to have been a stop-gap compromise. I wonder
if he willed himself to die so soon? It doesn't matter anyway, and we
shall never know. Woltjya needed to be a leader, but the Church he was
leading seems to have a lot of inertia, and would have been hard to change.
If his achievements were outwardly slight, they may nevertheless have been
radical in this context. The only point that I wanted to make initially
was that he was not a completely free agent, but under some outside
constraints. It is always difficult to define the boundary between
essential doctrine and its practical applications.

I always go on and on,but being celibate is not the best starting point for
understanding family values. A hospital staff member said that unless a
patient specifically asked for a priest, she would fetch a married man
every time. But I am getting into a different, equally difficult issue.

Doug L.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
But I grow old, always learning many things.
-- Solon, Greek lawgiver, 6th cent. B.C.