http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/world/europe/pope-benedict-xvi-says-he-will-retire.html?ref=global-home&_r=0

The second pope in history to "resign"

Good.

That's really all I can say. The guy should really be facing criminal charges for his (and the Churches) dealing with the problem of pedophile priests, and how they covered it up.

Interesting, I wonder what the reasoning is behind this

Like I said in the other thread: Surprising, but better he resign now if he knows he can't really handle it anymore due to his age.

What always puzzles me, is why every Pope they elect always has 'one foot in the grave' already - Couldn't they give the job to someone a wee bit younger this time?

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:
What always puzzles me, is why every Pope they elect always has 'one foot in the grave' already - Couldn't they give the job to someone a wee bit younger this time?

JP II was pope for 22 years, hardly one foot in the grave.

 punkow wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/world/europe/pope-benedict-xvi-says-he-will-retire.html?ref=global-home&_r=0

The second pope in history to "resign"

Did he eat the Findus beef?

I think it’s rather refreshing to see a Pope resign over his health. It’s odd the way so many Popes hang on till death despite the fact it’s patently obvious that their duties are quite literally killing them all the quicker.

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

From the Vatican, 10 February 2013

BENEDICTUS PP XVI

.... does the Papacy come with a good pension scheme ?

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:
What always puzzles me, is why every Pope they elect always has 'one foot in the grave' already - Couldn't they give the job to someone a wee bit younger this time?

John Paul was pretty young in pope terms, 50s iirc. But the reason is you first must be a cardinal (which is a higher rank than an Arch Bishop) and then win the majority of votes from the other cardinals, who are also running.

So there's that. I would expect that one reason Benedict is resigning is to have a say in choosing his successor, and to keep out refrmist elements.

Funny though I'd heard popes could not resign, they were chosen by God to carry their mission for life.

 reds8n wrote:
.... does the Papacy come with a good pension scheme ?

Idk, I always thought the pension plan was a 1 way trip to Heaven, with no possibility of going to Hell. I mean considering that the Pope has some of the best medical care around, it would seem silly to just give that up.

Though, I wonder what seems to be challenging his faith, which was stated as one of the reasons (besides health) for him stepping down.

And K_K, I don't think Benedict will get much say in his successor, since they're holding another Conclave to elect a new one in March, unless of course he is stepping down and becoming a Cardinal again.

I'm going to guess he's got something. They cited health and I wonder if it's Alzheimer's? If he's losing his mind he wouldn't be able to effectively be the head of the church.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'm going to guess he's got something.

Like a better offer ?



You'd need to be a miracle worker for them to win anything now so...

My money is evenly split between "he's got Alzheimer's" as MGS speculated, or there is a report coming out imminently shows he has even greater culpability in covering up child molestation then was previously known; or something in that vein.

in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary,

Either he's alluding for the former, or he's just being poetic.

 reds8n wrote:

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

From the Vatican, 10 February 2013

BENEDICTUS PP XVI

.... does the Papacy come with a good pension scheme ?

They say he's going to retire in Castel Sant'Angelo in a monastery

maybe he just wants to spend more time with the wife and ki.d..s... oh, hang on....

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'm going to guess he's got something. They cited health and I wonder if it's Alzheimer's? If he's losing his mind he wouldn't be able to effectively be the head of the church.

This, I mean we can discover it, before it really starts to hit you, I would be surprised if it wasn't this.

 Ouze wrote:
My money is evenly split between "he's got Alzheimer's" as MGS speculated, or there is a report coming out imminently shows he has even greater culpability in covering up child molestation then was previously known; or something in that vein.

in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary,

Either he's alluding for the former, or he's just being poetic.

Even greater? From what I read he basically ordered a world wide cover up and told churches not to cooperate with investigators.

Seriously he was right in the center.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
My money is evenly split between "he's got Alzheimer's" as MGS speculated, or there is a report coming out imminently shows he has even greater culpability in covering up child molestation then was previously known; or something in that vein.

in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary,

Either he's alluding for the former, or he's just being poetic.

Even greater? From what I read he basically ordered a world wide cover up and told churches not to cooperate with investigators.

Seriously he was right in the center.

No, not at all. Rome has been somewhat silent on the matter and lacking in the forthright confrontation of the matter that they probably should have had. Sucessive Irish Cardinals, Arch Bishops and Irish Politicians have tried to cover things up, and Bishops throughout the world have done much the same, however there actions have been much the same as those of the BBC, hospitals and other organisations have with the Jimmy Savile (and others) scandle that is now ongoing. There has, in the past, been a tendancy to ignore children and so undue trust in authority. The Catholic church is far from being the only group to have acted in this way. The problem is that they have failed to truly address the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:
What always puzzles me, is why every Pope they elect always has 'one foot in the grave' already - Couldn't they give the job to someone a wee bit younger this time?

They don't. There was a feeling that he was elected because JP was in the post for so long they should elect someone older this time, but someone who was not going to be a reformer. Most likely we will see someone younger and a bit more radical this time. Hopefully Cardinal Peter Turkson as the odds sugest. A black Pope and an African with real power in the west would be a good thing IMO.

They need a fire breathing South American Pope.

 Huffy wrote:
Interesting, I wonder what the reasoning is behind this

He has been in increasingly poor health since his 80th birthday.

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:
Couldn't they give the job to someone a wee bit younger this time?

God forbid. Long reigns are not necessarily good ones.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Funny though I'd heard popes could not resign, they were chosen by God to carry their mission for life.

You have not been listening. This has happened before. And Ratzinger himself has talked about it for many years.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I think it’s rather refreshing to see a Pope resign over his health.

This is also my first reaction. But we'll have to see what the implications are.

 Frazzled wrote:
They need a fire breathing South American Pope.

I sincerely hope not. It is generally thought that any pope from Latin America or Africa would be ultra-conservative by First World standards.

Benny also has a bit of an image problem from what I can tell. Even setting the issue of health aside, the majority of Catholics don't seem to be conservative (Machu knows lots about this so maybe we'll get an analysis about Ben's current political popularity among the Church).

He gets blamed for covering up child abuse scandals, for being out of touch, for being too old. From my limited observation he's just not the most popular guy but idk.

 Manchu wrote:

 Huffy wrote:
Interesting, I wonder what the reasoning is behind this

He has been in increasingly poor health since his 80th birthday.

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:
Couldn't they give the job to someone a wee bit younger this time?

God forbid. Long reigns are not necessarily good ones.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Funny though I'd heard popes could not resign, they were chosen by God to carry their mission for life.

You have not been listening. This has happened before. And Ratzinger himself has talked about it for many years.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I think it’s rather refreshing to see a Pope resign over his health.

This is also my first reaction. But we'll have to see what the implications are.

 Frazzled wrote:
They need a fire breathing South American Pope.

I sincerely hope not. It is generally thought that any pope from Latin America or Africa would be ultra-conservative by First World standards.

Actually Catholic priests are often known for being quite leftist in Latin American, some outright communist.

Just no one from the US... please.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'm going to guess he's got something. They cited health and I wonder if it's Alzheimer's? If he's losing his mind he wouldn't be able to effectively be the head of the church.

This, I mean we can discover it, before it really starts to hit you, I would be surprised if it wasn't this.

Sadly, I think MGS is going to be proven correctly. From all accounts, Benedict was the conservative choice, and I was disappointed. I think it's time the church took a hard look at letting women in the clergy, or expanding the roles of nuns.

When I was growing up, I recall when our priest was out sick, and the local convent lent two nuns to administer mass. It was confusing at first, but it worked out just fine. No reason that they can't have more of a role in sermons and so on...

Join the Episcopal Church. We allow de wimminz, and our booze is better!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They need a fire breathing South American Pope.

I sincerely hope not. It is generally thought that any pope from Latin America or Africa would be ultra-conservative by First World standards.

Actually Catholic priests are often known for being quite leftist in Latin American, some outright communist.

Well, an african Pope would be a disaster... they're incredibly conservative... about Latin America... urhmm, I know priests tend to be left-leaning there but I don't know if you can tell the same for the Ecclesiastic Hierarchy

 Frazzled wrote:
Join the Episcopal Church. We allow de wimminz, and our booze is better!

I helped those same nuns from my story gather pears to make pear wine.

Your booze is not better!

They were also here from Italy and made lasagna which they sent home with me on occasion. Home made lasagna from Italian nuns whose only vices are the occasional pear wine and homemade lasagna...

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Join the Episcopal Church. We allow de wimminz, and our booze is better!

I helped those same nuns from my story gather pears to make pear wine.

Your booze is not better!

They were also here from Italy and made lasagna which they sent home with me on occasion. Home made lasagna from Italian nuns whose only vices are the occasional pear wine and homemade lasagna...

Bring them along too. They will be assimila...er they can be priests! We will add their pear wine and lasagna distinctiveness to our own.
Barbeque, whisky, pear wine, and lasagna, now its starting to be a dinner!

Why did you get the nice Italian nuns, and the rest of us just get mean old ladies who took cruel pleasure in beating small children with rulers?

In America, well-informed Catholics are not divided between "liberal" and "conservative" based so much on sideshow issues like abortion or gay marriage but rather on the issue of centralization and the attendant culture of clericalism. To define the term, clericalism is generally an attitude of privileged authority on the part of priests and bishops. Lay people (including those in religious orders) often cooperate in this privilege for whatever reason. Clericalism is in my opinion characterized by condescension, reactionary political and cultural values, and extreme secrecy.

Clericalism is not limited to the Catholic Church. Recent sex abuse scandals in the US and UK prove that this kind of culture pervades organizations like university sports programs and even government media organs. I do not hesitate even a moment in saying that clericalism is the root of the sex abuse cover ups throughout the Catholic Church. On this issue, Ratzinger has a mixed reputation. On the one hand, he seems far less interested in the political aspects of the papacy than his PR-savvy predecessor. On the other hand, he has either unsuccessfully resisted or not extensively resisted clericalism in practice.

My overall impression is that he always looked at himself as a scholar rather than a politician despite holding essentially political offices for most of his career. I think this attitude has led him to mistrust and disregard modern media as so much spin and that, combined with his less authoritarian (in comparison to Wojtyla) style of governing the Church, has isolated him from the severity of clericalism -- without even considering the problems that privilege has with acknowledging privilege.

I think it will be easy for him to resign because the papacy is very hard on him. It seems to me he has approached the office with a very great historical authenticity: namely, he sees his primary role as bishop of Rome to be a teacher. His teachings have been very good -- I would especially suggest that Western people (not just Catholics) read Deus caritas est. But the pope is also an administrator and good teachings must be exercised as well as commended. I think Ratzinger's papacy has demonstrated that he is rather ambivalent about administration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually Catholic priests are often known for being quite leftist in Latin American, some outright communist.

You're thinking of liberation theology, which has been formally denounced for decades. The kind of priests who find that appealing have not moved up to bishops and cardinals and so are in no position to become pope. The Latin Americans who are bishops and cardinals are extremely conservative. Now, keep in mind I don't mean in the exact sense of US politics. But African and Latin American bishops tend to take an extremely vociferous hard line against abortion, contraception, and gay marriage vis-a-vis the state.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Why did you get the nice Italian nuns, and the rest of us just get mean old ladies who took cruel pleasure in beating small children with rulers?

His roguish good looks, and know the Pope from way back when the Pope was still in seminary. Its good to know people in high places.
Not like me. I have friends in low places.

 Manchu wrote:
You're thinking of liberation theology, which has been formally denounced for decades. The kind of priests who find that appealing have not moved up to bishops and cardinals and so are in no position to become pope. The Latin Americans who are bishops and cardinals are extremely conservative. Now, keep in mind I don't mean in the exact sense of US politics. But African and Latin American bishops tend to take an extremely vociferous hard line against abortion, contraception, and gay marriage vis-a-vis the state.

Interesting. I know our African bishops are much more conservative. Its almost like we had a schism about it...

 Frazzled wrote:

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Why did you get the nice Italian nuns, and the rest of us just get mean old ladies who took cruel pleasure in beating small children with rulers?

His roguish good looks, and know the Pope from way back when the Pope was still in seminary. Its good to know people in high places.
Not like me. I have friends in low places.

Where the whiskey drowns and the beer chases your blues away?

Despite not being a catholic, and not agreeing with a lot of their church policy, I have enjoyed his books on Jesus. He might be a good example of the saying that good teachers don't make good leaders.

I thoroughly enjoyed his rule of the galactic empire, but it was sad that his defeat was caused because his greatest pupil couldn't hold back the guilt of not playing ball with his son Luke.

At least he survived the fall to govern the Catholic church.


It'll be interesting, I felt that the last papal election was interesting, simply because I was taking Latin at the time, so it was weird having "current" events for a language that for "all" accounts is dead (My Latin 1 teacher is keeping the language alive by constantly conversing in nothing but Latin).

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Why did you get the nice Italian nuns, and the rest of us just get mean old ladies who took cruel pleasure in beating small children with rulers?

His roguish good looks, and know the Pope from way back when the Pope was still in seminary. Its good to know people in high places.
Not like me. I have friends in low places.

Where the whiskey drowns and the beer chases your blues away?

Exactly!

Awwww...I'm going to miss imagining the head of the catholic church wandering around muttering "something, something, something, Dark Side!" to himself.

 Manchu wrote:
My overall impression is that he always looked at himself as a scholar rather than a politician despite holding essentially political offices for most of his career. I think this attitude has led him to mistrust and disregard modern media as so much spin and that, combined with his less authoritarian (in comparison to Wojtyla) style of governing the Church, has isolated him from the severity of clericalism -- without even considering the problems that privilege has with acknowledging privilege.

I think it will be easy for him to resign because the papacy is very hard on him. It seems to me he has approached the office with a very great historical authenticity: namely, he sees his primary role as bishop of Rome to be a teacher. His teachings have been very good -- I would especially suggest that Western people (not just Catholics) read Deus caritas est. But the pope is also an administrator and good teachings must be exercised as well as commended. I think Ratzinger's papacy has demonstrated that he is rather ambivalent about administration.

My initial reaction to some of the changes they made to prayers -- "consubstantial" in place of "one in being with" comes to mind -- was that they were exactly the kind of thing that would come from a scholar, or at least a Vatican headed by a scholar.

The new liturgical translations are very interesting indeed. When the vernacular translations were first made back in the '60s, the local churches did them. Thus, the American bishops got their people together and came up with what we've been saying until recently. This time around, all the translations were done in Rome. Furthermore, after they were finished and approved by the American bishops a further unapproved series of edits (literally thousands upon thousands) were undertaken and -- most tellingly of all -- no one seems to know or be willing to say exactly who made these additional changes or under what authority.

The approach of the changes over all shifted from "dynamic equivalence" to "formal correspondence." In practice, this means the translations are much more literal or at least faux-literal. The Latin word "calix" has been translated as "chalice" rather than "cup," for example. Also, as you mentioned, the use of "consubstantial" in place of "one in being" seems pedantic given that if anyone ever asked me what consubstantial means I would simply say of the same being or substance.

You can see how this ties into the idea of curial centralization and clericalism.

Frazzled for Pope. That's all I will say.

 4oursword wrote:
Frazzled for Pope. That's all I will say.

Ditto... kickstarter his plane ticket?

 4oursword wrote:
Frazzled for Pope. That's all I will say.

I have two questions before I accept:
1. Can the Pope have a Harley Sportster?
2. Can said Harley Sportster have a sidecar modified to carry between two and thirty dogs?

Animals are not allowed in the papal apartments. No joke -- Ratzinger had to give up his cat.

To be fair, the cat would probably think it is the pope.

 Manchu wrote:
Animals are not allowed in the papal apartments. No joke -- Ratzinger had to give up his cat.

I'm sure exceptions will be able to be made once the entire clergy is replaced with wiener dogs.

 Manchu wrote:
Animals are not allowed in the papal apartments. No joke -- Ratzinger had to give up his cat.

Wait if you're Pope you can do what you want.

"Your Eminence...no animals are permitted."
"These aren't animals. This is my security detail."
"But we have the Swiss Guard."
"They're fired. You displease Pope Frazzled. You're fired too."
"But your Emin..."
"You know what we haven't had around here in a while? A good old fashioned witch burning."
"Leaving right away!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Animals are not allowed in the papal apartments. No joke -- Ratzinger had to give up his cat.

I'm sure exceptions will be able to be made once the entire clergy is replaced with wiener dogs.

Now you're thinking properly! Plus, there will be an end to scandals. On the negative the clergy would be easily distractable via steak treats.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I thoroughly enjoyed his rule of the galactic empire, but it was sad that his defeat was caused because his greatest pupil couldn't hold back the guilt of not playing ball with his son Luke.

At least he survived the fall to govern the Catholic church.

Awesome.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait if you're Pope you can do what you want.

I should think this very issue might disprove that notion.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait if you're Pope you can do what you want.

I should think this very issue might disprove that notion.

Let me rephrase that. The Pope with a Mossberg 500 and a camo bandanna. The Vicar of Christ with a scattergun...yea I think he can rescind that no pets thing.

Good luck with those Swiss fellows.

 Manchu wrote:
Good luck with those Swiss fellows.

Again, thats what the Mossberg is for. The camo bandanna just provides a certain...penache.

"Thou shalt not murder! "
"I'm Pope, I absolve myself!"
"Oh crap..." (in Latin of course)

And this is why a Texan will never be Pope.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Good luck with those Swiss fellows.

Again, thats what the Mossberg is for. The camo bandanna just provides a certain...penache.

"Thou shalt not murder! "
"I'm Pope, I absolve myself!"
"Oh crap..."

Oh gak that's hilarious!

On a serious note... could the pope ever be "removed"? Impeached?

I absolve myself at least once a day. I find it helps to keep the humours balanced.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Good luck with those Swiss fellows.

Again, thats what the Mossberg is for. The camo bandanna just provides a certain...penache.

"Thou shalt not murder! "
"I'm Pope, I absolve myself!"
"Oh crap..."

Oh gak that's hilarious!

On a serious note... could the pope ever be "removed"? Impeached?

Not Pope Frazzled.

Now remember, this is Italy. He'd just get wacked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I absolve myself at least once a day. I find it helps to keep the humours balanced.

Thats very humourous.


*Frazzled note, Frazzled is not picking on the Catholic Church, or Popes. Just the Swiss Guard. And Cats. We hates them don't we Precious..er have I said too much?

 whembly wrote:
On a serious note... could the pope ever be "removed"? Impeached?

The pope is the bishop of Rome. A bishop can be laicized. It is therefore theoretically possible even if it is administratively improbable.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
On a serious note... could the pope ever be "removed"? Impeached?

The pope is the bishop of Rome. A bishop can be laicized. It is therefore theoretically possible even if it is administratively improbable.

That sounds really painful.

I'm sure it is.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
On a serious note... could the pope ever be "removed"? Impeached?

The pope is the bishop of Rome. A bishop can be laicized. It is therefore theoretically possible even if it is administratively improbable.

Oooooo... "laicized"... need to do some google-fu... brb!

 whembly wrote:
need to do some google-fu

That might not be helpful. Do you have a question?

I assume from the context of the sentence it just means to remove someone from power/remove the rights of their position.

 LordofHats wrote:
I assume from the context of the sentence it just means to remove someone from power/remove the rights of their position.

Yep, that's it, in the ecclesiastical context.

I told this to my mam and dad, who are over visiting me. My dad's response was fairly typical (an embittered squint and non committal grunt), but my mam's response surprised me- she was quite vehement in her dislike for Pope Benedict, especially with regard to the handling of the various abuse scandals. She's always been reasonably catholic, unlike my dad who I suspect has been a closet atheist for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I told this to my mam and dad, who are over visiting me. My dad's response was fairly typical (an embittered squint and non committal grunt), but my mam's response surprised me- she was quite vehement in her dislike for Pope Benedict, especially with regard to the handling of the various abuse scandals. She's always been reasonably catholic, unlike my dad who I suspect has been a closet atheist for years.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
need to do some google-fu

That might not be helpful. Do you have a question?

Just wondering if it was possible (even historically) to defrock (another term?) a sitting Pope...

I send my kids to Catholic school/church... but, I'm a heathen. But, I'm still very interested in catholicism as I have high regards to the folks I meet in church and school.

I don't remember who, but someone on Dakka was thumping for Catholic by saying "oh yeah!?! We EAT our God!"... I said that to the Priests/Deacons at my school while describing my lovely hobby and they got a kick out of that.

Good sports.

I don't know any place in the world more angsty, one way and the other, about religion than Ireland.

Hah, really? It's pretty angsty alright, but there's reasons for it.

I'm sure you know them, so I won't go on, but that's an odd comment to me, Manchu. I just hope you didn't mean that in a dismissive way.

 whembly wrote:
Just wondering if it was possible (even historically) to defrock (another term?) a sitting Pope...

With Catholicism, it's a matter of law. I don't mean "the law of God" or some bother like that. I mean the canons. The question is therefore whether a given bishop is canonically different than the bishop of Rome for the purposes of laicization. I haven't researched the issue but I can't think of any legal impediment other than the procedural -- i.e., there is no procedure for it. A claimant to the papacy who refused to resign was excommunicated by an ecumenical council (a meeting of all the bishops) in the early fifteenth century. So perhaps an ecumenical council could do it? These days, such a council is called by the pope however. Like I said, it is administratively improbable.

 whembly wrote:
someone on Dakka was thumping for Catholic by saying "oh yeah!?! We EAT our God!"

That was me, although there was no chest thumping involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I just hope you didn't mean that in a dismissive way.

No, I'm not saying the Irish haven't suffered thanks to their Catholicism. But it is their Catholicism and not some "foreign influence." Catholicism is not like how it is in Ireland in other places in the world. It's not a matter of the Irish "getting what they deserve" or something mean-spirited like that, either, but at the same time this isn't a matter of Irish people against the Irish church. This is an entirely Irish issue.

Ah, well, that I can most certainly agree with, and actually shows a fairly nuanced understanding of the whole thing, which I have come to expect from you.
*tips hat*

I don't know if you've traveled much in the US but Americans even two or three generations distant from Ireland still have a very angsty relationship with their Catholicism. It's a very powerful aspect of Irish culture and even the "melting pot" doesn't relieve the pressure.

I haven't travelled to the US yet, but I certainly plan on it. I think that aspects of identity like that actually become more pronounced once you emigrate. Certainly it's noticeable in the communities in England.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just wondering if it was possible (even historically) to defrock (another term?) a sitting Pope...

With Catholicism, it's a matter of law. I don't mean "the law of God" or some bother like that. I mean the canons. The question is therefore whether a given bishop is canonically different than the bishop of Rome for the purposes of laicization. I haven't researched the issue but I can't think of any legal impediment other than the procedural -- i.e., there is no procedure for it. A claimant to the papacy who refused to resign was excommunicated by an ecumenical council (a meeting of all the bishops) in the early fifteenth century. So perhaps an ecumenical council could do it? These days, such a council is called by the pope however. Like I said, it is administratively improbable.

 whembly wrote:
someone on Dakka was thumping for Catholic by saying "oh yeah!?! We EAT our God!"

That was me, although there was no chest thumping involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I just hope you didn't mean that in a dismissive way.

No, I'm not saying the Irish haven't suffered thanks to their Catholicism. But it is their Catholicism and not some "foreign influence." Catholicism is not like how it is in Ireland in other places in the world. It's not a matter of the Irish "getting what they deserve" or something mean-spirited like that, either, but at the same time this isn't a matter of Irish people against the Irish church. This is an entirely Irish issue.

So it WAS you! Yeah, I remember'ed it wasn't chest pumping... just got a kick out of it. Thanks for all the info.

Most of the Americans I know from recent Irish stock aren't so much bitter about Catholicism, like the post-colonial Irish, but there is a lot of guilt, a lot of insistence on a certain attitude of obedience, and a lot of superstition that I've read characterizes the older generation of contemporary Ireland -- of course, this is even among young Irish Americans. I can only imagine how "flammable" all that angst would be in the context of Irish history since WWI. The sex abuse scandal did not hit the US in the same way. The bishops here were actually very quick to address it and -- although there have been big problems with transparency -- there hasn't been the same intensity of anger.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't know if you've traveled much in the US but Americans even two or three generations distant from Ireland still have a very angsty relationship with their Catholicism. It's a very powerful aspect of Irish culture and even the "melting pot" doesn't relieve the pressure.

Explain please.

See above.

Sorry, not being critical. I'm really not understanding. Mom was Louisiana Catholic. Thats a whole different breed of...well everything. All the real Catholic I'm used to Central American Gangnam style! Catholic. Literally Latin and Spanish.

I have no idea what you mean by Gangnam style there. I think most US pop culture thinks of Catholicism in Italian and Irish terms -- so the pope is a big deal. That and Hollywood loves fancy old-looking stuff. Mexican Catholicism is pretty different, characterized by their own historical traumas (ever read the Power and the Glory?). When you go to mass in the US, at least everywhere I've been, there's a modern "American" church that kind of glosses over all of these differences. Although formally a heresy, "Americanism" is pretty well ensconced (at a very general level) in Catholics in the US, and you can see that culminating in JFK's famous 1960 speech.

I guess my Irish family isn't very in touch with the Father Land... My very Irish family is extremely Catholic... My mother and her sisters are 100% Irish, few generations removed from Ireland, but they're die hard Catholics... I don't see this resentment thing :-/

Edit: I think I got it now... still now sure.

Depends on where in the US you are. Around here I would associate it with Hispanics. And thats probably true for most of the west coast and the central south.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I don't see this resentment thing

Not to say that it will apply to every single person but I didn't really suggest resentment among Irish American Catholics.

 Manchu wrote:
Most of the Americans I know from recent Irish stock aren't so much bitter about Catholicism, like the post-colonial Irish, but there is a lot of guilt, a lot of insistence on a certain attitude of obedience, and a lot of superstition

 Manchu wrote:
I have no idea what you mean by Gangnam style there. I think most US pop culture thinks of Catholicism in Italian and Irish terms -- so the pope is a big deal. That and Hollywood loves fancy old-looking stuff. Mexican Catholicism is pretty different, characterized by their own historical traumas (ever read the Power and the Glory?). When you go to mass in the US, at least everywhere I've been, there's a modern "American" church that kind of glosses over all of these differences. Although formally a heresy, "Americanism" is pretty well ensconced (at a very general level) in Catholics in the US, and you can see that culminating in JFK's famous 1960 speech.

Gangnam was thrown in to sound cool.
As noted I've not been to "American" Catholic church, but 1st and 2nd generation hispanic hence not really understanding what you're talking about.

You remember JFK right?

"I do not speak for my church on public matters. And the Church does not speak for me."

That's pretty much it, broad stokes "Americanism" (at least in the sense of lay people).

As a practical example, many American Catholics -- myself included -- do not support illegalization of abortion or oppose homosexual marriage. On the other hand, as a religious matter, many of us still find abortion to be a grave personal sin and social evil and homosexual marriage to be a legal fiction even where our own homosexual friends and acquaintances are concerned. In the same sense, lay American Catholics, especially in cooperation with people of other faiths (Protestants, evangelicals, Mormons, and even Muslims), have also orchestrated of their own initative the very aggressive pro-life movement, which the bishops have since bandwagoned.

 Manchu wrote:
You remember JFK right? That's pretty much it.

Er...they have a Massashusetts accent?

I added stuff in above to make it more clear.

Manchu, my post/confusion was in relation to this quote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don't know if you've traveled much in the US but Americans even two or three generations distant from Ireland still have a very angsty relationship with their Catholicism. It's a very powerful aspect of Irish culture and even the "melting pot" doesn't relieve the pressure.

I saw your "not really bitter" quote a few posts later, which is why I edited my post.

 Manchu wrote:
I added stuff in above to make it more clear.

Thanks!

I think the church itself is out of touch with the common person
I stopped caring...well I never cared about religion even as a kid... And no surprise, I still don't. I have no belief in God because I see no need for it

Good for you. Not certain about the point of your post.

oh sometimes I tend to ramble, guess my point could have been "good, I hope the church falls apart and goes away!"

Which really adds nothing to the conversation and could be seen as flamebait.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
I have no belief in God because I see no need for it

That's an interesting statement. I wonder how many people believe in God because they "need" such a belief and what such a "need" really implies about beliefs. For example, do we believe in history because we "need" a past? To what ends? We also often talk about belief in terms of evidence. We say we believe in certainmaterial insights (for example, about molecular structure) independent from any "need" -- rather, we believe in these things because we "have good reason to do so." I'm not so sure those are different sentiments. The very word "need" reflects its own good reason. They are synthetic as a practical matter; or in other words, ideology is a practical matter. As for religion, I don't think it is a matter of belief, at least not in the same sense as one holds an opinion, constructs an argument, or selects what one "needs" when jotting down a grocery list. Events like papal elections tempt us to conflate the world of those things, of administration for example, with religion. I also see no "need" for a belief in God in the same sense that I definitely see a "need" for cancer treatment, the internet, or snack foods. If belief in God has to compete with snack foods on snack foods' terms, I am sure belief in God would lose and, in fact, I'd say it has lost that very fight already. What seems insane to anyone who does not herald the irrelevance of religion is that the comparison was ever made in the first place. What surprises me, as a religious person, is that this "loss" has been rather insignificant.

So he's killing himself or something? I thought the only way out was dying.

This was the moment lightning struck the Vatican today - hours after Pope Benedict XVI's bolt-from-the-blue resignation.

The lightning touched the dome of St. Peter's Basilica, one of the holiest Catholic churches, after the Pope's shock admission he lacks strength to do the job.

I thought the only way out was dying.

No no, the Catholic church strongly supports people's right and ability to terminate, or abort, something that was presumably ordained by God before it's come to full term.

 reds8n wrote:


No no, the Catholic church strongly supports people's right and ability to terminate, or abort, something that was presumably ordained by God before it's come to full term.

Almost fell for the gut reaction to refute that, then looked at the context, the nuance within the nuance, then finally smiled at the winky face at the end.

 n0t_u wrote:
So he's killing himself or something? I thought the only way out was dying.

No, he could be resigning over the priest scandals or he could have a terminal disease or he could have Alzheimer's (all speculation, of course). Either way, this way he can have a say in his successor and the church can move on.

 kronk wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
So he's killing himself or something? I thought the only way out was dying.

No, he could be resigning over the priest scandals or he could have a terminal disease or he could have Alzheimer's (all speculation, of course). Either way, this way he can have a say in his successor and the church can move on.

I guess I missed this, but where does it say the pope can have a say in his successor? The next pope will elected by the college of cardinals like always, does the Pope go back to these duties, and thus gets 1 vote amongst the 120 currently in there? Just some cursory glances, the only way to not be a cardinal, once appointed, is by death, resignation, or election to the papacy. So Benedict could step down, but wouldn't be a cardinal anymore, nor would he get a vote if he were to be a cardinal again because a ruling in 1970 limited the voting members of the college to those under the age of 80 (i.e. those that could be elected Pope). So Benedict is pretty much just going back to Joseph Ratzinger and living a quiet life with his cat(s).

Edit: Though to be fair, he is still technically infallible until the end of the month, he could change up the voting rules.

Unlike previous popes (who were dead during the selection process), Benedict will be alive during this selection. Even if he can't vote, he can still speak with the cardinals about the direction he things the church should go before they sequester themselves.

 kronk wrote:
Unlike previous popes (who were dead during the selection process), Benedict will be alive during this selection. Even if he can't vote, he can still speak with the cardinals about the direction he things the church should go before they sequester themselves.

it is an interesting anomaly because normally a pope's say in who becomes the next pope dies along with him and its up to the surviving electors to interpret his living will.

Now we will have a former pope be involved in the process one way or another!

 kronk wrote:
Unlike previous popes (who were dead during the selection process), Benedict will be alive during this selection. Even if he can't vote, he can still speak with the cardinals about the direction he things the church should go before they sequester themselves.

Okay, so it's nothing official, which is where my confusion was stemming from. I don't think Benny will be giving much advice though. I mean they can't start for 15 days after he resigns... *shrugs* it'll be interesting.

I have heard the most likely candidate for the new Pope is a Cardinal from Canada.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/14/pope-allegedly-sought-immunity-for-abuse-crimes-just-before-resigning/

meh, sounds unlikely to me.

Well, it's all going to remain a secret, anyway. source

Pope says Vatileaks probe will stay secret, adding intrigue to final days
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News

A potentially explosive report into embarrassing leaks from the Vatican will be seen by only two people — Pope Benedict XVI and the man who succeeds him.

Italian newspapers have already angered the Vatican by suggesting that the report found evidence of corruption, blackmail and a gay sex ring, and that it triggered Benedict’s decision earlier this month to give up the papacy.

The Vatican said in a statement Monday that Benedict, who commissioned the report on leaks from three cardinals, is the only person who knows its contents and will make them available only to the next pope.

The pontiff also praised the cardinals for showing "the generosity, honesty and dedication of those who work in the Holy See," considering "the limitations and imperfections of the human component of each institution."

Over the weekend, the Vatican took the unusual step of lashing out at the Italian press — accusing it of "unverifiable or completely false news stories" designed to influence the conclave that will pick the next pope.

Father Thomas Reese, author of "Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church," said that Benedict’s decision to keep the report secret was not a surprise.

"The Vatican doesn’t like to do its laundry in public," he said.
In any event, he added, the new pope could always decide to make the report public. Benedict’s decision simply gives him cover in case he wants to keep it private, Reese said.

The pope ordered the report on what has become known as the Vatileaks scandal last year after documents became public that deeply embarrassed the church, including some of Benedict’s own correspondence and letters alleging corruption.

Benedict pardoned the ex-butler, Paolo Gabriele, just before Christmas.

The pope, 85, announced earlier this month that he would abdicate, the first leader of the Catholic Church to do so since the Middle Ages. His last day is Thursday. A conclave to pick successor begins next month.

The decision to keep the leaks report secret adds a layer of intrigue to what has already been a tumultuous papal transition.

Just Monday, the most senior cleric in Britain, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, resigned after The Observer newspaper reported that three priests and a former priest had accused him of inappropriate behavior going back 30 years.

Also Monday, the pope changed Vatican law to allow his successor to be picked sooner — as soon as all the voting cardinals are in place in Rome. Under previous law, the conclave could not have begun before March 15.

That last sentence there is especially fascinating.

Come back to earth, please:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/23/opinion/allen-vatican

That said, what about the Scottish cardinal resigning suddenly?

Cardinal O'Brien resigned amid allegations that he himself once had inappropriate relations with seminarians (mind you, seems like whatever this was involved adults). Cardinal O'Brien is still a cardinal and a bishop emeritus but has said he will not participate in the coming conclave.

I'm not an expert and this is just my uneducated, gut feeling, but I think that humans are sexual beings and a lifetime of celibacy - whatever the declared reason - is going to screw up the majority of people who take one and I think lead to a higher-than-normal rate of "sexual deviancy", however you define that.

I think I prefer the religions that allow for it's priests to marry. Besides, how can you realistically counsel married folks on issues you have decided never to partake in? Eh, maybe that's an appeal to... something. I guess you can counsel victims of abuse without being abused yourself.

I hope this isn't too offtopic, just filling space until there is a new development.

I don't think celibacy is unnatural much less that it necessarily drives anyone to "deviancy," criminal or otherwise. That idea strikes me as particularly uncritical, to be polite.

You don't think celibacy is, by definition, abnormal for humans?

No more than homosexuality, I suppose.

That is presupposing that all homosexuality is by choice, yes?

Not at all.

I dont think Celibacy is abnormal in the sense that it is wrong but I agree it must be damn well hard to uphold
I dont know about the increased proneness to become sexually deviant because isnt most rape crimes about control rather than sexual pleasure?

I think you're on the right track. The quality of "naturalness" is pretty much a red herring.

 Manchu wrote:
No more than homosexuality, I suppose.

Strictly speaking, both are abnormal, as normality refers to the social norm (which is to marry a person from the opposing sex).

Homosexuality has over abstinence the advantage that the sexual impulses are spent rather then frustrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 unmercifulconker wrote:

I dont know about the increased proneness to become sexually deviant because isnt most rape crimes about control rather than sexual pleasure?

Control (or domination) is a huge provider of sexual pleasure. In the case of rape, both are indissociable, as otherwise rapists would have plenty of occasion of spending their desire of control in many, much more socially acceptable manners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
That idea strikes me as particularly uncritical, to be polite.

You could be fair and say that it is simply opposed to your position.

http://www.psyplexus.com/ellis/83.htm

I said what I meant.