Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.