Skip to content


It's stick that in your Pope & smoke it

The place for kittens to discuss GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) issues as well as topics that don't fit in the other forums. (Some topics are off-topic in every forum on the board. Please read the FAQs.)

Pope

Postby mandyanyone » Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:28 pm

Sam, thank you for agreeing with me. All I stated was that people do have other beliefs. Myself included.



Warduke and Sam: I didn't state that people were small minded because of their opinions. Nor did I state that those who said they're opinions were small minded. I simply stated that some people are too small minded to show sympathy for a man dying, regardless of whether he was the pope or not. In this circumstance, he was. I never pinpointed anyones opinions, saying they were wrong, or shouldn't be said. But yet, you're all confronting me for my opinion.



I have been on this site for almost 3 years, and I have not once found something that has turned my stomach more that this topic. Someone died. A well known and highly respected man. How about waiting till he's buried to put him and his beliefs down.



More people than you know are mourning the loss of this man, who some regarded as royalty. Maybe if you listened to some of the news and read about him, you would have respect for those who are upset by his death.



Sam, I never stated that I believed in him, I simply stated I am Catholic. I don't practice. As I stated before.

"Introductions are tricky in a lesbian relationship. It's a word game. To my friends she's my lover, to strangers and family members in denial she's my roommate, to Jehovah's Witnesses at the door she's my lesbian sex slave, and to my mother she's Jewish and that's all that matters." ~~~Denise McCanles

mandyanyone
 


Re: Pope

Postby sam7777 » Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:41 pm

mandyanyone: I said that you cared about him not that you believed in him. As a lapsed catholic, I can certainly sympatize with your view on the catholic church.



What I cannot understand is how it is disrespectful to talk about how I feel about the passing of this pope. I am truly neither happy nor sad about his passing because I think his papacy has been harmful as I said. I am sorry and saddened by any life that passes but that does not prevent me from expressing how I feel about his policies as pope. I felt the same way about Reagan. I'm sorry for anyone who dies but public figures transcend the solely human by the effect that have on others for good or bad. My opinions do not and should not prevent anyone from mourning nor are they meant as "disrespect".



I am talking about how I feel but notice that I have never said how you should feel. I have no right to tell anyone how they should feel in this circumstance.
Quote:
But yet, you're all confronting me for my opinion.
I am not confronting your opinion. You are mourning the loss of a well known and highly respected man. I only question your characterization of other's opinion as "too small minded to show sympathy for a man dying". I have never put the man down since I don't know him personally only his policies that are no more right from stemming from his beliefs as any other.



Once again the title of this thread should tell folks that IT IS NOT SOLELY A TRIBUTE THREAD.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 4/4/05 4:03 pm
sam7777
 


Re: Pope

Postby Gatito Grande » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:25 pm

Quote:
He has his beliefs and we have ours. He was trying to preserve his beliefs. He wasn't trying to force them on you.




mandyanyone, sorry for the bluntness, but this is just NUTS. The Pope ABSOLUTELY was trying to force his beliefs on me (didn't you read that post above, about the RCC's world-wide campaign to ban same-sex marriage?), and I'm gonna call him on it (and "anyone" who sides w/ him, as well). :miff



GG . . . and as just about *everybody* on this board knows, I am a practicing Catholic (Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian :fallen :pride ) Moreover, I have recently begun pursuing a vocation to the priesthood Out



You can have human compassion for the suffering and death of Karol Wojtyla (RIP), and even respect the good things he did do as Pope (especially in opposition to war), while respectfully (and *fearlessly*) condemning the significant number of evil things he did, as well. As far as the balance goes? That's up to God. :peace

Gatito Grande
 


Re: Pope

Postby urnofosiris » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:28 pm

Quote:
I simply stated that some people are too small minded to show sympathy for a man dying, regardless of whether he was the pope or not. In this circumstance, he was. I never pinpointed anyones opinions, saying they were wrong, or shouldn't be said. But yet, you're all confronting me for my opinion.




There is nothing simple about using words like small minded. It is hardly a compliment and if you are taking offense, as you appear to have, at the way people have phrased their opinions so far, I wonder what your response would have been had such words been thrown in your general direction.



I expect that if you keep making general statements talking about ´they´ and ´you´ which can apply to just about anyone in this thread you can sort of expect several different people to reply to you. Surely you are not the only one who gets to question other people´s opinions.



Quote:
I have been on this site for almost 3 years, and I have not once found something that has turned my stomach more that this topic. Someone died. A well known and highly respected man. How about waiting till he's buried to put him and his beliefs down.




Some of the articles that have been posted in the LGBT news and politics threads have turned my stomach far more than anything having to do with this thread, but to each his own right.





Quote:
More people than you know are mourning the loss of this man, who some regarded as royalty. Maybe if you listened to some of the news and read about him, you would have respect for those who are upset by his death.




More people than you know are not mourning him. Their opinions are just as valid as yours. Criticizing the pope and the vatican and not mourning his loss does not equal disrespect for those who do.



Quote:


You may not agree with what the CATHOLIC religion states, and what the CATHOLIC religion believes in. But that is no reason to bad mouth the MAN. He grew up in a different time than us. He has his beliefs and we have ours. He was trying to preserve his beliefs. He wasn't trying to force them on you. If you don't believe the way he did, fine. But it gives people no reason to speak badly about a man who has never personally attacked you. He was a man who lived his life as he wanted to. Let him die in peace and don't disrespect him because you're too small minded to just show sympathy for a lost life.




I honestly have not noticed anyone badmouthing the man himself here, but I am probably looking at this thread with different eyes. I read no personal slight in lack of sadness or criticism about his person and opinions.

This man was head of his church and responsible for it´s policies, just like a man like George Bush is responsible for the policies of the US, though neither of them is solely responsible of course.



Quote:
"The Vatican document, entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, sets out a battle plan for politicians opposed to legislation permitting gay marriage and adoption by gay people.



Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to publicly oppose such legislation and to vote against it in parliament, it says.



To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."




What constitutes a personal attack is up for debate. Those are the words of the vatican, that´s personal to me. It goes beyond just living your life the way you want to. If that is not trying to force his beliefs on someone else, than what is. The Vatican actively tried to influence Dutch politicians to get them to turn against that pesky sinful gay marriage thing we got going here. Zero respect for seperation of church and state.



He is not some anonymous man shouting something in a void. His words clearly mean something to a lot of people, they listen to him, they believe him. If he gets credit for for instance bringing down communism, he can also get the criticism for doing the total opposite of helping the LGBT community.













Edited by: DrG at: 4/4/05 4:31 pm
urnofosiris
 


re

Postby vix84 » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:53 pm

"He was trying to preserve his beliefs. He wasn't trying to force them on you."



Millions of people follow Catholicism and take on its beliefs and opinions as their own. As a result, women are limited to contraception, abortion and the right to be gay, in many countries of this world. I consider that forcing his beliefs upon me and my world and other women. Using your position of power to take away the power of someone else is a horrible misuse of your position. Maybe politically he didn't have much choice, but he could have at least changed the policies on contraception. Come on, it's 2005, not 1930.



I see where you're coming from, Mandy. I'm not happy to see someone die, no matter who they are or what they did. But I think we can have hope that his death might bring on the end of a restrictive era, and bring positive change to the world. No matter who you pray to, surely we're all praying for that.

vix84
 


Re: re

Postby TemperedCynic » Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:27 pm

And so I step in where angels fear to tread.....



I was 18 when I watched JP II installed as the successor to the throne of St. Peter. My family and friends loved his vigor and common sense approach to a very unapproachable position as the world's chief religious leader.



There are many good things Karol Wojtyla accomplished in his lifetime, truth be told. He led the effort to legitimize the Polish union Solidarity, setting the stage for the eventual fall of Communism. So more could have been accomplished – with his popularity, JP II could have changed the world. Instead, the pope and others moved away from the liberal ideals set forth by Italian papal predecessors (Vatican Council II) and moved back to a more restrictive liturgy. It’s suggested here that JP II was elected to St. Peter’s chair by a group of conservative Americans. Hmm, then he goes on tour as an international rock star – interesting (true, by the way – the Pope’s tours were more popular than any rock idol of the time). Sadly, it appears that the new Pope will be as conservative or even more so (Opus Dei types) since JP II installed 100 of the 117 cardinals eligible to vote for the next Pontiff.



JP II’s legacy is bound to be debated for decades – after all, he was pope longer than any other in history. Detractors point out some salient points about the Vatican’s reaction to America’s pedophile outbreak. Might explain why American cardinals are unlikely to be elected Pope, due to Rome’s displeasure with the American see. Ironically, the Vatican went after gay priests instead, believing like most wing-nuts that gay=pedophile .The collusion between the Vatican and BushCo’s same-sex hatred agenda is also a blemish on the papacy. Rome’s positions on homosexuality are well-known and documented. Rome joined Washington in condemning same-sex marriage, while holding their tongues about the other two key precepts of Catholic faith – anti-war and anti-death penalty – where Rome has big issues with the Bush administration. Rome’s silence shows their continued willingness to “play politics with the big boys.” Yet it remains to be seen if the Pope’s followers were responsible for this decision during the Pontiff’s poor health – doubtful, in my own opinion.



Do I wish ill on Catholics or their leaders? No. Never. Not my style (I wish the neo-cons were so forgiving and Christ-like). Am I unhappy with the Church and its anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-FREE WILL stances? Without a doubt!



The Church has changed much just in my lifetime, moving backward rather than forward. We will see what the next Pontiff brings to the table, but I’m not holding my breath.




More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. Woody Allen (1935 - )

TemperedCynic
 


Re: re

Postby Gatito Grande » Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:42 pm

This isn't critique of the Pope, or the Roman Catholic Church, but just a comment:



In several "person on the street" interviews I heard today, of people standing in line to see JP2's body, it struck me that they said [in effect] "Oh, I'm not Catholic. And I don't really have feelings about the Pope as a religious leader. But since I was in [Rome, Italy, Europe] anyway, I just wanted to be part of history." :grin



GG In other words, how much of the hullabaloo about the Pope is due to the (now, world-wide) Cult of The Celebrity??? :hmm Out

Gatito Grande
 


Re: re

Postby Urn of Osiris » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:08 pm

Thanks GG, that was what I was trying to point out. I don't mourn the man, because he meant nothing to me. He didn't change what I believe or what I practice, so to mourn him would be fake as hell for me. I'm a pro choicer all the way. Shouldn't I have the right to choose what I do with my life and my body, how I think and express those thoughts? It is when people start taking away choices that things get scary, because where does it stop. As an example, I Personally would never choose to have an abortion but I would protest with my last breath to make sure any woman could choose to have one. The issue is freedom to make the decision. That is what I believe every human being should be able to do, whether or not I agree with it.



Change would be nice, something to hope for, but something I doubt will ever happen because as we've seen it takes the church a very long time to admit when they've made a mistake.

Urn of OsirisA new idea is delicate. It can be killed by a sneer or a yawn; it can be stabbed to death by a joke or worried to death by a frown on the right person's brow. Charles Brower

Urn of Osiris
 


Re: re

Postby Jennpurr » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:31 pm

There's one good reason why we should mourn for the Pope as a nation, even if you didn't like the man or believe in what he believed in. He's a human being.



May he find eternal rest with the Father. R.I.P.



Jen





~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Home of my Willow and Tara Art || More Art!

"Buffy smash. Grrr." ~ Buffy, Chaos Bleeds VG

Jennpurr
 


Re: re

Postby xita » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:45 pm

Should we as a nation have mourned the passing of Hitler? Being a man or a woman doesn't guarantee anyone the right to be mourned. Please. We have a thread for posting about people who have died. I don't believe anyone has stopped anyone from expressing that opinion. I think the time of someone's death is precisely the time to analyze someone's legacy. For some of us the pope's legacy is a shameful one.





Mandyanyone said:



Quote:


I am not trying to disrespect anyone by saying this. I was talking with a friend of mine and it's obvious that everyone here has different standards for different topics. When it comes to gay marriage, if someone says something bad about it, they are confronted about voicing their opinions. And i would voice my opinions to them as well.




No disrespect taken. As the person who makes the ultimate decisions around here, I can tell you there are ABSOLUTELY double standards. If you read the faq, you would notice that I will not tolerate any kind of homophobia. We do not debate whether any kind of gayness is right or wrong. It's right and beautiful and natural. That's it, defacto.



Any other topics will of course be debated. This is a sanctuary for the queers in their gayness.



oneyedchicklet said

Quote:


Yes, we will be hearing a lot in the weeks to come about the election of a new Pope. But thats a part of life. If you don't want to hear about it or watch it, don't turn your TV or radio on.




The same could be said of this thread. Not so easy to do is it?

- - - - - - - - - - -
"São só dois lados da mesma viagem.

O trem que chega é o mesmo trem da partida."


Encontros e Despedidas - Maria Rita

Edited by: xita  at: 4/4/05 8:53 pm
xita
 


Re: re

Postby Warduke » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:48 pm

Yes, we should all mourn the man who said things like...



Quote:
"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this [gay marriage] is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."




If a man with those beliefs is not mourned by everyone on this board, then I don't know who should? :rolleyes


Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

Warduke
 


Re: re

Postby Jennpurr » Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:11 pm

First of all, comparing the Pope to Hitler is not even fair. Hitler killed Thousands upon Thousands of innocent people. Just because a person does not agree with the Pope's ideology, does not make him an evil man. I don't think anyone will disagree with me in saying, Hitler was evil.



Perhaps, I did not express my thoughts fully. What I was trying to say was that alot of opinions expressed in this thread have been very cold and dehumanizing, not only to the Pope himself, but to the millions of people Catholic or Non-Catholic who respected him in one form or another. As Jixer said, the Pope comes from a different background then most of us. This does not mean he is a hateful person, but rather a product of his enviornment. I understand that his views have influenced a large number of people, however, I don't think he has actually done anything to hurt LGBT rights because there are enough conservative assholes who are doing just fine without him in stunting our rights. And he did bring compassion, God's mercy and compassion, and brought compassion where the majority of conservatives never even mention compassion, but are just very hateful.



Don't get me wrong, I am not Catholic, nor had I ever really thought too much about the Pope or his views, previously. What I am saying is that he was a human being, obviously, with tender feelings, where as Hitler was just a cold hearted murderer. I actually really don't care one way or the other whether or not people are saying bad things about him now. My concern is for the feelings of some of the Catholic Kittens who may be mourning his loss right now. They of course do not have to read this thread, but the title itself is somewhat insensitive to their feelings, as Jixer pointed out.



I of course don't expect everyone to mourn for the Pope, but we need to be more sensitive to those who are mourning for him.



Jen

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Home of my Willow and Tara Art || More Art!

"Buffy smash. Grrr." ~ Buffy, Chaos Bleeds VG

Jennpurr
 


Re: re

Postby maudmac » Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:48 pm

I don't think the Hitler thing was unfair. I had the same thought, actually, when I read your post where you said, "There's one good reason why we should mourn for the Pope as a nation, even if you didn't like the man or believe in what he believed in. He's a human being." I thought, well, that's no reason to mourn for someone, just because they are human. So were Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., all humans. It would be unfair to compare the Pope to Hitler, but that's not what happened. As a response to what you said, I think it was fair.



About the Pope, how am I suposed to feel about a man who insists that homosexuality is a moral evil - not just weird or gross or unnatural, but downright evil? A man who helmed the Vatican, which has worked very hard to suppress not just the rights of us queers but also things like birth control in the Third World, where it is much needed? As a woman, a lesbian, a citizen of this earth, I cannot summon anything but contempt for those who work so hard to brand me and those like me part of an ideology of evil. Because, though I'm not a Catholic, the Vatican has nonetheless attempted to assert its power over me. Most unwelcome.



I have sympathy for anyone who is suffering, anyone who is mourning any kind of loss. Having issues with stances the Pope has taken (especially when they affect me in my secular life) has nothing to do with that.


don't make me come up there - satan

maudmac
 


RE: Pope

Postby tiredsoul » Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:59 pm

First off, I am gay AND I am Catholic...



As Warduke says... if you don't like the topic, skip it... and I agree. Anyone who would think that there would be sympathy for someone in that position on a GBLT board is fooling themselves.



Jennpurr: I think that a lot of people here don't see beyond the position and see a man for whom to mourn. It's not bad, just a fact of life. I don't think that the earlier comment was an actual comparison to Hitler. If President Bush were to keel over, I doubt he'd be mourned too much, despite the fact he is a human being by technical terms. The position, and the affect it has on this community, is what most people see and react to.



As a Catholic, I have my own views of how the Pope's passing affects me, but I respect other's opinions as I would hope they would respect mine. However, I also find the title rather patronizing. It's my choice to not read this thread if I don't want to, but the insulting title stares me in the face each time I click on the Kitten.



As a lesbian, I am fully aware of what type of reaction would go on in a topic such as this. If I don't want to know, I don't read it. Just as if I don't want to watch the incessant coverage of it, I turn to the 300 other channels that aren't covering it.





tiredsoul
 


Re: RE: Pope

Postby Gatito Grande » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:08 am

In all honesty, I did think the thread title was a little bit over-the-top when I first saw it. But Urn of Osiris started it, and she IS Roman Catholic, so who am I say boo about it? The more important thing, is that the thread---much like the Kitten in general---is SAFE place for those of us w/ minority views (You want "All-John-Paul-2-Canonizing-All-The-Time"? You've got umpteen TV networks for that!)



I wouldn't be so indifferent, Jenn, to the effects of the Vatican in terms of legally-enforced homophobia. If you'll take a look at the article I just posted to the "Scarier Religion & Homosexuality Thread", you'll see the the RC Church in Michigan pumped almost a million dollars (at time when they didn't have enough money for schools or parishes!) into the "Yes on 2" campaign, which outlawed same-sex marriage in our state constitution (this was the lion's share of the 'phobes $$$). I don't know if it wouldn't have passed w/o the RC's money . . . though I think there's a good chance it wouldn't have (it passed 59-41%), if "No on 2" had had that money!!! :fit2



Human emotions are what they are . . . but I don't think the causes for those emotions need be accepted, uncritically, just out of "consideration." So someone is sad JP2 died? Tell me about it: I can probably find something to affirm ("it meant so much when I saw him as a child" "he did a lot for the poor" "he apologized to the Jews" "he brought pride to Polish people" "he stood for peace" etc. etc.). Maybe I'll be able to say something comforting: hope for the future? :hmm



However, some people (I trust, no one on the K) are sad for the WRONG reasons ("He held the line on Traditional Values, against those awful _____, and ______, and ______!"), and I want to challenge 'em directly: "Stick your putrid bigotry in the ground alongside the Old Fart that inspired it!" :mad



GG Wanna talk sympathy for human grief? What about all the Roman Catholic people dying of AIDS, who've been told that using condoms is a mortal sin? :wtf I'd like to see their loss honored---not the crocodile tears of the Pope significantly responsible for their suffering. :miff Out

Gatito Grande
 


RE: Pope

Postby tiredsoul » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:38 am

Quote:
Wanna talk sympathy for human grief? What about all the Roman Catholic people dying of AIDS, who've been told that using condoms is a mortal sin? I'd like to see their loss honored---not the crocodile tears of the Pope significantly responsible for their suffering.




GG If someone was THAT staunch of a Catholic to not use condoms, they wouldn't be having premarital or extramarital sex in the first place. To insinuate that Catholics as a group are getting, and spreading AIDS, because of their practices could be dangerously close to suggesting that homosexuals are spreading the virus because of their practices.

tiredsoul
 


Getting really bored

Postby chewy 19 » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:50 am

I understand that everyone has a right to say whatever they want, but how did this go from a simple request to show respect to a bashing of some ones beliefs? I can agree with most of what people are saying but I can also see the other sides’ point of view (not going to tell you which are which). I know if someone were to post here bashing Gays then it would be clipped immediately and life would go on, but what about bashing one of your own. Is it ok for Gays to do it to themselves? Or am I missing something? All I saw was a request for some respect, and I think I could have happened by changing the name of the thread to something a little less harsh. I am in no means trying to solve things but really, what could it hurt to give the people who are different from you a little respect (take that however you what).

Gina



----------

Me: I swear to God im going to be an atheist!!!

My Mother: You can’t swear to God and be an atheist.

chewy 19
 


Re: Getting really bored

Postby WebWarlock » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:23 am

In other news...well almost ALL other news really.



story.news.yahoo.com/news...e_internet



So over 35,000 articles in 24 hours. That's a lot of writing.



As for the thread.



Well here is an idea, instead of saying "I am more understanding damnit!", show it.



Besides, every time I see this thread I think of smoked salmon and get really hungry! And then mad because I don't have any smoked salmon. And I am hungry!



For me. I am a gay-friendly, married white atheist, ands the Pope dying has little to no effect on me. BUT I do see where he was respected and villified (equally) for his ideas and I see where some will miss him dearly and others won't even notice.



I'll respect both groups wishes.



Warlock

Web Warlock, web.warlock@comcast.net, The Other Side.

Liber Mysterium: The D20 Netbook of Witches & The Dragon and the Phoenix: New Adventures of Willow and Tara

"We’re gonna light up the dark of night like the brightest day in a whole new way."

WebWarlock
 


Re: RE: Pope

Postby sam7777 » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:38 am

Quote:
If President Bush were to keel over, I doubt he'd be mourned too much, despite the fact he is a human being by technical terms. The position, and the affect it has on this community, is what most people see and react to.
tiredsoul: Exactly. I don't know JPII or the shrub personally so can only react to what they have done. While I feel sympathy for all who die, public figures do transend the simply human considerations by their effect on others.
Quote:
If someone was THAT staunch of a Catholic to not use condoms, they wouldn't be having premarital or extramarital sex in the first place.
Sadly this is simply not so. In developed countries where women have access to education and the ability to say no this is true to an extent but even in those countries, religion can play a role for or against AIDs prevention as it has in the US. For example the religious fundementalism opposition to condoms and needle exchange programs can and has prevented them from being implemented in the US in certain areas. They have also succeeded in driving out sex ed in some places in the US. The US government has put out a web site that reccommends that parents of GLBT teens should get counselling for them:

U.S. government abstinence web site draws ire

Indeed a recent survey shows that sex Ed in the US is lacking:

Bush's cheap sex ed no bargain

Keeping people in ignorance is the best way to increase teen pregnancy and abortion.



In less developed countries, you can multiply the influence of religion ten fold. One of the largest pockets of catholic growth is in Africa giving the Catholic church a great deal of influence (Africa has seen the most rapid growth, a 168% jump in members. Similarly, while the overall number of diocesan priests rose a mere 2.5% during the Pope's reign, that count in Africa went up 237%. From CNN). Their opposition to condoms is a death sentence to many Africans who are simply pious and without access to education on AIDs:

African AIDS activists describe late pope as obstacle in AIDS prevention



GG IMHO is simply answering the argument that people are "too small minded to just show sympathy for a lost life" with the answering argument of the lives lost in part due to the Church's policies. I have sympathy for all lives lost but can still deploy the policies.



chewy 19: It was neither a simple request to show respect nor a bashing of some ones beliefs. For my part, I was answering the allegation that not mourning the pope's death meant a lack of sympathy for human life by explaining why I am not mourning. This explanation must encompass what I find at fault with Catholic Church policies. Saying that I don't like their policies on birth control, women or GLBT is not bashing but stating an opinion. The mods have posted here over and over again that these views are within broad rules. What is against board views is calling names and attacking fellow board members. I am not attacking catholics on this board or anywhere by saying that I find fault with this pope's legacy and don't mourn him. I have never said that other's should not mourn him and respect their right to do so. What I resent is the implication that I am less of a person for not mourning him or unsympathetic to human life or the grief of others. Not so. My criticism of JPII or the catholic church policies IS NOT a criticism of all Catholics.



So what is "respect" honoring a world religious leader who has died or examining his flawed legacy. It's up to each of us to decide and neither position is superior.



That said I do think that the title of this thread is inflammatory.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 4/5/05 10:54 am
sam7777
 


Re: RE: Pope

Postby urnofosiris » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Quote:
GG If someone was THAT staunch of a Catholic to not use condoms, they wouldn't be having premarital or extramarital sex in the first place.




If both partners would be completely staunch as you put it, their risk should be as low as it can get, in which case the statements by the Vatican should not put them at a greater risk, but you can never be sure that the other partner is or has been completely sex free so to speak. Anyway, it is precisely because we all know that a lot of people (religious or otherwise) do engage in premarital sex and are not monogamous that trying to discourage the use of condoms is utterly wrong in my eyes. If they want to discourage having pre or extra marital sex fine, but to try and discourage and condemn safe sex?



The Vatican is against the use of contraception, that much is clear, condoms are being used for safety nowadays as well as contraception. That makes it really hard to call the use of condoms morally wrong if they protect your health. So what do they try to do? Make people believe that condoms offer no added safety. Well they may not offer complete 100% safety, but nothing does, if everyone just starts going at it unprotected, then the health consequences will be disastrous. That is not overstating things and being overly dramatic.



If people are loath to have sex with use of a condom to begin with, then statements like the ones the Vatican has made will certainly do nothing to help encourage people to practice safe sex. STDs exist, a lot of people have sex with more than one person in their lifetime, they do not just have sex to procreate, they have it a lot because it is fun (hopefully). They are not going to stop, so education about safe sex is paramount. I can understand if the Catholic Church does not want to participate in that, but to mess with it the way they have is inexcusable to me.



Quote:
To insinuate that Catholics as a group are getting, and spreading AIDS, because of their practices could be dangerously close to suggesting that homosexuals are spreading the virus because of their practices.




I can´t see how Gatito´s words that you quoted translate into that, but homosexual men who engage in unprotected sex run a serious risk of contracting and spreading a STD, HIV being the deadliest. The same goes for straight men and women of course. Acknowledging that fact is no moral condemnation of anyone. It is not saying (homosexual) sex is wrong. It only stresses the importance of using the proper protection and why people should not be actively discouraged.









Quote:
There's one good reason why we should mourn for the Pope as a nation, even if you didn't like the man or believe in what he believed in. He's a human being.



-------------





What I am saying is that he was a human being, obviously, with tender feelings, where as Hitler was just a cold hearted murderer.




Hitler surely was one of the most evil vile humans that ever lived, for about 56 years too long did he live as far as I´m concerned.



What I am wondering is whether it is your argument that any person to have tender human feelings is one that should be mourned? If so, then one can mourn Hitler too. It would be sort of comforting to believe that he was a man who never had a tender loving feeling is his life. If he had, how could he have done what he did? It would be easier to understand his crimes if he was wholy devoid of any human decency or characteristics. To think that other humans could be capable of doing what he and his cronies did is scary.



However, he was an innocent child once, he probably loved his mother, he was nice to his dog, he loved his Eva and some other ladies. We cannot know for a fact he did not know how to love or that those feelings could not genuinly exist in such a monster of a man. Like xita pointed out, merely being a human being does not mean he or anyone else should be mourned by anyone, let alone a whole nation. I am not trying to get on your case btw, I just find your assertion very interesting from a philosophical point of view.



Edited by: DrG at: 4/6/05 7:50 am
urnofosiris
 


Re: RE: Pope

Postby maudmac » Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:58 pm

Yeah, maybe we will never agree on this issue, but I don't think we ought to stop discussing it for that reason. I love hearing other people's viewpoints, especially on controversial issues about which they are passionate. I read with interest what everyone has to say. We're all so different, you know? Coming as we do from so many different walks of life. Us meeting here to discuss or debate our thoughts on various issues, everything from politics to TV shows, is a wonderful thing precisely because we don't all agree on everything.



Let's not attack each other personally, but we can certainly keep discussing these issues, especially as conclave approaches.


don't make me come up there - satan

Edited by: Warduke at: 4/6/05 9:08 pm
maudmac
 


Re: re: smokin'

Postby vix84 » Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:44 pm

Sam, I think you said it perfectly here: "The difference is between negativity towards the pope's policies and negativity towards other kittens. One is allowed by the board rules the other is not."



This is why this thread is getting so messed up, because people sharing their thoughts on the Pope and what he did is being confused with people being anti-Catholic/insensitive.



I have to say, like Maudmac, I'm intrigued by all the perspectives and ideas being shared here. I think there has also been some unfairness and unnecessary criticism of certain kittens. I think that the people who can't keep personal attacks out of their opinions should perhaps refrain from posting any more in this thread, it's getting ugly.



In real life many of us don't have the chance to openly debate and discuss such topics with people of completely different views and backgrounds. Maybe that's because in real life we get abusive and overly critical and it becomes an argument. Surely here, as kittens, we can keep it civil.

~*@.......We are the weirdest person in the world.......@*~

Edited by: Warduke at: 4/6/05 9:07 pm
vix84
 


Celebrities, and the way we judge/talk about 'em (or don't)

Postby Gatito Grande » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:23 pm

And again I raise the question of celebrity. If Michael Jackson were Mortimer P. Quackenbush, how many people would stand outside of court and cheer him everyday, w/ the kind of allegations against him? (NB: I am in no way suggesting the MJ is not innocent until proven guilty. But the "law & order" punitive culture in the U.S. often shows that the American People seem willing to forego the benefit of the doubt . . . w/ non-celebrity black men, for example!)



In the same way, if John Paul were an ayatollah in the Mideast, or a political office-holder in some "foreign" country---or just the loud mouth village idiot on the corner---and said the things he did about many if not most of us here on this board (the Kitten family)---would folks be getting so defensive about critique of his policies, NOT his person???



But in the context of 24-hour cable news, and Warm&Fuzzy news magazine segments, and other artifacts of our media-saturated culture, does he just Seem So Familiar ("like he's a grandfather, or an uncle"), that different "Critique-Free Zone" rules apply? [Not to mention the effects of "Recovering Catholicism"? I also wonder whether how many of those lining up to see him, or publicly defending him, have the vestiges "The Pope is the Church---and outside the Church there is No Salvation!" indoctrination in their heads . . . even if they don't "practice the Faith" anymore per se?]



Then again, how much of our disagreements are a matter of taste? Jesus said "Let your Yes be 'Yes', and you're No be 'No'", and that's the standard I try to follow (He really could be pretty blunt: paraphrased, ala Godspell "You snakes! You viper's brood! You cannot escape being devils' food"). Some people just aren't comfortable w/ that kind of harsh rhetoric (aimed at "someone we know" . . . unless maybe it's :joss ?)



GG I cannot overestimate how much it means to me, personally, to be able to speak my piece: knowing that y'all (most of y'all anyway) understand. Thanks, Kittens! :kiss Out



Speaking of celebrities, and media, and religion: I pray for a full recovery from lung cancer for Peter Jennings. :pray By American standards (thank you, Canada! :love ), a very decent anchorman/reporter.

Edited by: Warduke at: 4/6/05 9:07 pm
Gatito Grande
 


Re: It's stick that in your Pope & smoke it

Postby gspiggott » Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:10 am

I think it's ironic that Pople John XXIII is being dislodged for John Paul's interment. Kind of says it all about what's happened to the Catholic Church as far as I'm concerned.

Yes , he fought the good fight against the Nazis, and the Communists, but for discouraging contraception , and safe sex when the aids epidemic is raging in poorer parts of the world where his view has some weight amounts to a serious moral crime. Possibly millions will die in Africa , Asia and even his beloved Eastern Europe while he wrote mystical twaddle about the sanctity of sex between married people ignoring the way people actually do live or are forced to live.

Not only did he look the other way for the pedophile crisis, he placed the authority of the church over the welfare of his flock. Where do you think Bernard Law is, and first hint not in a jail cell where he belongs? At the Vatican, with a very cushy position .

The Church deserves all the DaVinci codes that get flung its way these days.



gspiggott
 


lets at least get the facts straight

Postby LittleMissTulip » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:22 am

Pope John XXIII is not being "dislodged" for Pope John Paul II - John XXIII was moved to a tomb above ground inside the basillica near the alter of St. Jerome when he was beatified by John Paul II in 2000 (the last step before sainthood); John Paul II is taking an empty spot.



LittleMissTulip
 


Pope John XXIII and papal legacies

Postby sam7777 » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:28 am

Gspiggot: Agreed. JPII certainly has a mixed legacy. He has certainly dislodged Pope John XXIII's legacy: Vatican 2 if not his body which is worse IMHO.



Last year when I was at the Vatican, I saw Pope John XXIII's body on display in St Peter's. This is one of the steps to canonization: showing that the body is incorruptible.



Unfortunately, JPII also planned to canonize Pope Pius XII, the controversial WW2 Pope:

Scholars Say Vatican Holocaust Material Inadequate

"Panel of Catholic and Jewish researchers says many questions remain about Pope Pius XII's actions"



The latter canonization says it all about what's happened to the Catholic Church as far as I'm concerned.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 4/8/05 11:27 am
sam7777
 


Re: Pope John XXIII and papal legacies

Postby gspiggott » Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:32 pm

Sam, and Little Miss Tulip, thanks for clearing that up .

Pius XII has absolutely no business being canonized for looking the other way when he was told what the Nazis were doing in WW2. Plus it also bothered me that John Paul was so enamored of Maximilan Kolbe who was very brave and very anti-semitic.

gspiggott
 


Re: Pope John XXIII and papal legacies

Postby TinyAnt » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:26 pm

That actually brings to mind another reason, besides the ones stated before, why I couldn't mourn for the Pope JPII.



In the seventies and early eighties, my country was under a military government, responsible for the dissapearance and murder of thousends, often after tourture. The church din't just 'look the other way' here, priests sanctionated this action, actually _encouring_ the soldiers that managed to express some discomfort with their actions. Not just small town priests, either. Bishops and the Cardenal as well. You can't tell me that JPII didn't know what was going on, he even came here during the 70s. He did the same thing PiusXII is accused of, looking the other way.



Despite having always been closely linked to the government, a believe the church is its own power. If there had been any actual desire from the higher levels of the church to help, to put a stop to what was going on, it could've made a difference, it could've saved many people's lives.




EzCode Parsing Error: color=blue size=2] I'm a teeny tiny little ant, checking out this and that

I am nothing so you have nothing to hide



- 'Pea' - Red Hot Chili Peppers

TinyAnt
 


Re: Pope John XXIII and papal legacies

Postby sam7777 » Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:04 am

Yes JPII's legacy has been a terrible one for GLBT folks:

Mixed emotions for gay Catholics

(It's a long article so I only quote a few bits. Check out the link above for the full article. )
Quote:
Despite a broadening sense of acceptance of gays within the Catholic Church, in 1986 Pope John Paul II issued a “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” The letter, which was written in English and was seen as aimed at American Catholics, called same-sex attraction an “objective disorder” and “intrinsically evil.”



“I think it was obviously on his watch and his approval that we got the 1986 letter on homosexuality as a problem,” said Mark Jordan, a religion professor at Atlanta’s Emory University whose books include “The Silence of Sodom: Homosexuality in Modern Catholicism.”



“The view of that letter is now part of the official catechism of the Catholic Church and also been written into a number of other official documents, so it would be very hard to reverse,” said Jordan, a gay Catholic.

...

The Catholic Church, under John Paul II, argued not only that homosexuality is against natural law, but that gays should no protections under civil law either.



In 1992 the Vatican issued a letter to bishops urging them to oppose gay rights initiatives.




The pope pressured the Italian government to withdraw support for the World Pride Celebration in Rome in 2000.



The pope also supported the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and asked bishops in America to become involved in campaigns against same-sex marriage.



When the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. became embroiled in the scandal involving priests sexually abusing teenagers, usually males, the Vatican suggested that gays should be excluded from seminaries. Sinnett, of Dignity USA, said John Paul II attempted to scapegoat gay priests during the scandal.



In November 2002 the church released a letter entitled, “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life” which stated that Catholic politicians should advance Catholic teachings in their work.



AIDS activists say that by traveling to Africa and speaking against the use of birth control and condoms, the pope set back efforts to curb spread of the disease and that many have died because of the pope’s theological rigidity and opposition to condom use.



While many gay advocates expressed hope that the next pope will develop more progressive positions on sexuality, 114 of the 117 Cardinals who will decide on a replacement were appointed by John Paul II, and many doubt that any major doctrinal changes are on the horizon.
I too have little hope for any change from the conclave.

sam7777
 


From the advocate

Postby Thespia » Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:43 pm

Who deserves respect?



"Twice I have brought myself great professional grief because “feeling gay man Charles Bouley” went on the radio instead of “thinking talk-show host Karel.”



The first was when Ronald Reagan died. All day long I heard everyone make this man a saint on TV and radio, and I couldn’t stomach it. I had a very different experience of this man, and that experience was most decidedly as a gay man. His disregard for AIDS, the tone he set in the country about how it was OK to let us die, the lack of resources that he provided, and the overall response of his administration to gay people were abhorrent.



So when I went on air, all that came to mind was “Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead,” so I played a piece of the song. I went on to speak of all the problems I had with Reagan and his administration. It was a spirited two hours. It was also on the day that he died.



The following Monday there was hell to pay. Complaints rolled in. I was classless. I was evil. I was way off base. I brought disrespect.



Now, maybe all that was true. But the fact is that as a gay man, I shed not one tear for Ronald Reagan.



(...)



ended up apologizing, not for what I said but for when I said it. I even wrote an open letter to Nancy Reagan, which is in my book You Can’t Say That.



That incident was a definite case of Charles Bouley, gay man—with all the pent-up anger and frustration building from the 1980s coming out.



After that, I reacted “normally” for most major events.



And then the pope died.



(...)



And this man, this soon-to-be saint had written and said that homosexuality is, “part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.”



So I am part of the new ideology of evil. According to him and his church I should not get married, ever, to the man I love. And the church loves me, the gay man, but as such I can never have sex if I want to be in the church.



(...)



Wonder how Jesus would feel about the pope’s finery, about the images broadcast on giant-screen televisions throughout the world, about people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a pilgrimage to walk by John Paul II’s dead, deified body. What would Jesus do?



Well, I said all these things the day he died and again and created for myself a great deal of professional grief. Again, I was off in my timing. I should have waited a week—or two. It was a knee-jerk reaction to the day’s events, a reaction rooted firmly in the fact that I am gay and that as a gay man I feel this man and his organization are trying to keep millions like me in the dark—or the dark ages.



(...)



As a gay man I had every right to detest Ronald Reagan and the pope. The question is, as a talk-show host, did I have the right to say it on the day of their respective deaths? Well, yes, I have the right, but like any speech, it’s not free. And I did myself more harm than good professionally. Why? Because sometimes I simply can’t take it anymore and my anger comes out.



People have spent their lives telling me how intolerant they are of my lifestyle. This intolerance is allowed; it’s accepted. A gay man dies and it’s OK to go on TV or radio that very day and talk about the scourge of AIDS or how it’s God’s retribution. No one says a thing. A man in a black outfit with a white collar goes on TV and says homosexuality is a sin punishable by burning in hellfires, and everyone’s fine with that. A pontiff writes that I and many like me are part of the ideology of evil, and then we’re supposed to wait until the dust settles to bring that up.



Well, I’m sorry. For once, I’m gay first. I’ve never wanted to be. I’ve struggled not to be. I’ve tried to be the good little gay boy they want me to be and merge it with who I am, not let it dictate who I am. But twice in the past I’ve let it dictate. And twice I’ve paid a price.



(...)





When my husband died, who waited a respectful amount of time before commenting? No one. The next day articles were written about AIDS, even though he didn’t die of it. The next day a radio commentator went on the air to comment on his death and talk about how the “gay lifestyle” can lead to such things. That morning in the emergency room the doctors and police called me his “friend.” Later lawyers stood up in court and called our relationship nothing, not giving me any legal standing (they lost that argument on appeal, by the way).



A generation of young gay Americans died on Reagan’s watch, and it was OK because basically they deserved it for living the “lifestyle.” Millions of gays are openly shunned because the pope called them evil and because they don’t want to be celibate, and that’s all right. A reportedly devout gay man in San Diego couldn’t be eulogized in his beloved Catholic Church recently because church officials found out he owned gay bars. The family, at the last minute, had to move the body and find a new church. But that’s OK.



Say something against the person that is partially responsible for those attitudes before he’s put in the ground, and that’s classless. Let the gay man inside of me out in his righteous indignation, and he gets slapped under the guise of propriety.



I do not mourn the pope. He was a man. An old man with old ideas leading an archaic institution that acted like a crime ring with abusive priests, an institution that maintains opinions that lead to separation and pain. Yup, that’s the gay man talking. But as I get older, I can see now how wrong I was to assume my gay man wouldn’t come out. That’s what being out at its core is. It’s not just living an open life, it’s letting that gay man out to say what he feels in times of crisis, in times of world events. I may think “normal,” but I feel “gay.” At least at times. And I grow weary of worrying about how I feel, and how I seem to be the only one worried about it.



Yes, I’m a gay man. And as much as I’ve tried to deny it, I’m a gay talk-show host. I don’t host a gay show, but there’s a gay guy doing it. And that brings new experiences to the table and new points of view. Ones even those claiming to be tolerant don’t seem to want to hear because they upset their idea of propriety.



(...)







Buffy: "Come on! This is Sunnydale! How bad an evil can there be here?"

Thespia
 

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to The Kitten

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


Powered by phpBB The phpBB Group © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007
Style based on a Cosa Nostra Design