First things first.... I handed my dissertation in!!!!! I'm all happy!
I also did the quiz thing (that James & Mark both talked about), & I am:
100% Catholic (yes, even dirty liberals like me can be 100% Catholic! Well, according to quizzes like this)
66% Eastern Orthodox
56% Lutheran
54% Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England
38% Pentecostal/Charismatic/Assemblies of God
35% Anabaptist
33% Presbyterian/Reformed
27% Baptist (non-Calvinist)
22% Congregational
18% Baptist
18% Church of Christ
17% Seventh Day Adventist
15% Methodist
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
I am now going to say what I think about Pope Benedict - if you have read the entry below, then you will know that he wasn't really my preference, but I'm not "dismayed" either.
Firstly, I think that the emphasis that excuses for newspapers, such as the Sun and Daily Mirror, have placed upon the fact that as a young boy he was enrolled in the Hitler Youth is appalling. Apart from the fact that it is much easier in retrospect to see that Hitler & his political movements were bad, it is also much easier to see these things as an adult. He was a child, and it was 60 years ago that these things happened. It is obvious that he is not a Nazi sympathiser, so I don't see why it is such an issue to these people.
Then, there's the matter of his being in the German army. What the newspapers don't say, is that in 1943, Ratzinger was a 16 year old at a prepatory seminary, and his WHOLE CLASS were forced to join the anti-aircraft corps. So, it apparently wasn't his choice to get involved with the army in the first place!
He is obviously a man deeply devoted to his faith, and to the Catholic Church. I believe that he has a sound knowledge of the Church in the different continents, and I believe that he will bear the issues that the Church as a whole, and in different parts of the world in his mind, and prayers, and will try to lead the Church as a unified body, whilst recognising that the Church faces different issues in different parts of the world.
He also seems to be a man who is far more concerned that secularism, and denial of God, is far more off track than any other religion (which contain some truth, but as they're not Catholicism do not have the full truth). He seems willing to continue inter-faith dialogue (but too the extent of John Paul II?), with the exception, maybe, of Buddhism, which he doesn't perceive to be worth the space it occupies.
He also wants to make the Church pure, which can only be good.
There are some things about his view-point that I don't like.
The first is his description of homosexuality as "an intrinsic moral evil". People do not choose to be homosexual. Surely it would be worse to be homosexual, but force yourself to have heterosexual relationships. Whether or not homosexuality is something that the Church approves of, the Church still needs to respect homosexual people - they too are made in the image and form of God.
Secondly, (yes, I'm being rather feminist here) is his declaration that the ordination of women would be "a grave offence to the divine constitution of the Church". Even if the ordination of women is not something that he agrees with, I think this is a bit radical! If ordaining women would be such a grave offence, would he agree with things like female eucharistic ministers, and women being allowed on the altar?
The final one is his saying that the use of condoms to prevent AIDS is "a kind of behaviour that will encourage evil". Surely those who have AIDS and are married, should be allowed to have a sexual relationship, without the fear that they may pass the disease on to their partner, or their children.
I think that the Church does need to realise that "contraceptives" are not just to prevent pregnancy. Condoms can prevent AIDS, and in my mind, that can only be a good thing. The Pill is also not used merely as a contraceptive, it helps to relieve period pains - that can be agonising - and PMT - which isn't nice either. But, as celibate men, those who really can influence the teachings of the Catholic Church, don't have to worry about contracting AIDS from their wife, and have never experienced period pains or PMT.
Firstly, I think that the emphasis that excuses for newspapers, such as the Sun and Daily Mirror, have placed upon the fact that as a young boy he was enrolled in the Hitler Youth is appalling. Apart from the fact that it is much easier in retrospect to see that Hitler & his political movements were bad, it is also much easier to see these things as an adult. He was a child, and it was 60 years ago that these things happened. It is obvious that he is not a Nazi sympathiser, so I don't see why it is such an issue to these people.
Then, there's the matter of his being in the German army. What the newspapers don't say, is that in 1943, Ratzinger was a 16 year old at a prepatory seminary, and his WHOLE CLASS were forced to join the anti-aircraft corps. So, it apparently wasn't his choice to get involved with the army in the first place!
He is obviously a man deeply devoted to his faith, and to the Catholic Church. I believe that he has a sound knowledge of the Church in the different continents, and I believe that he will bear the issues that the Church as a whole, and in different parts of the world in his mind, and prayers, and will try to lead the Church as a unified body, whilst recognising that the Church faces different issues in different parts of the world.
He also seems to be a man who is far more concerned that secularism, and denial of God, is far more off track than any other religion (which contain some truth, but as they're not Catholicism do not have the full truth). He seems willing to continue inter-faith dialogue (but too the extent of John Paul II?), with the exception, maybe, of Buddhism, which he doesn't perceive to be worth the space it occupies.
He also wants to make the Church pure, which can only be good.
There are some things about his view-point that I don't like.
The first is his description of homosexuality as "an intrinsic moral evil". People do not choose to be homosexual. Surely it would be worse to be homosexual, but force yourself to have heterosexual relationships. Whether or not homosexuality is something that the Church approves of, the Church still needs to respect homosexual people - they too are made in the image and form of God.
Secondly, (yes, I'm being rather feminist here) is his declaration that the ordination of women would be "a grave offence to the divine constitution of the Church". Even if the ordination of women is not something that he agrees with, I think this is a bit radical! If ordaining women would be such a grave offence, would he agree with things like female eucharistic ministers, and women being allowed on the altar?
The final one is his saying that the use of condoms to prevent AIDS is "a kind of behaviour that will encourage evil". Surely those who have AIDS and are married, should be allowed to have a sexual relationship, without the fear that they may pass the disease on to their partner, or their children.
I think that the Church does need to realise that "contraceptives" are not just to prevent pregnancy. Condoms can prevent AIDS, and in my mind, that can only be a good thing. The Pill is also not used merely as a contraceptive, it helps to relieve period pains - that can be agonising - and PMT - which isn't nice either. But, as celibate men, those who really can influence the teachings of the Catholic Church, don't have to worry about contracting AIDS from their wife, and have never experienced period pains or PMT.
Well, I decided it's time I blogged again, particularly as a new Pope has been elected.
Thrilled at the choice? Well, no (I am a dirty liberal after all). Dismayed at the choice? No.
I think that I can say that, with the limited knowledge I have, Ratzinger would not have been my choice; but, I am not, after all, a cardinal with the responsibility of choosing a suitable leader for a million people.
I think that those who I would have preferred to Ratzinger would have been Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, (who has done much for the Latin American Church in particular, as well as being an active figure in campaigning for human rights; he also established the Catholic University in Honduras.) or Cardinal Angelo Scola (he is generally seen as an open-minded conservative, but he's not too bad as far as those conservatives go! He's written numerous books on topics that are very much in many people's concern, and are often topics of public debate, including things such as bio-medical ethics, and is also keen on inter-faith dialogue, particularly with Islam.) or Cardinal Jeorge Mario Bergoglio (although he is also quite a conservative, he is also well known for his commitment to social justice; also, on a more practical level, it is known that he does not live in a palatical bishop's residence, and favours a one-bedroom apartment; he also uses public transport, rather than being chauffer-driven. I also really admire his stance on homosexuality - he reinforces the Church's teaching, but also emphasises the importance of respecting individulas who are gay. He is also known for his compassion towards AIDS sufferers).
Thrilled at the choice? Well, no (I am a dirty liberal after all). Dismayed at the choice? No.
I think that I can say that, with the limited knowledge I have, Ratzinger would not have been my choice; but, I am not, after all, a cardinal with the responsibility of choosing a suitable leader for a million people.
I think that those who I would have preferred to Ratzinger would have been Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, (who has done much for the Latin American Church in particular, as well as being an active figure in campaigning for human rights; he also established the Catholic University in Honduras.) or Cardinal Angelo Scola (he is generally seen as an open-minded conservative, but he's not too bad as far as those conservatives go! He's written numerous books on topics that are very much in many people's concern, and are often topics of public debate, including things such as bio-medical ethics, and is also keen on inter-faith dialogue, particularly with Islam.) or Cardinal Jeorge Mario Bergoglio (although he is also quite a conservative, he is also well known for his commitment to social justice; also, on a more practical level, it is known that he does not live in a palatical bishop's residence, and favours a one-bedroom apartment; he also uses public transport, rather than being chauffer-driven. I also really admire his stance on homosexuality - he reinforces the Church's teaching, but also emphasises the importance of respecting individulas who are gay. He is also known for his compassion towards AIDS sufferers).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)