Well, what we feared when Ratzinger was voted, is becoming (painful) reality. Even my mum, faithful follower of the Catholic church, admitted she did not like this new Pope.
I have just listened to the flash BBC news mentioning the last *naughtiness* by pope ratzinger denying to any gay man of becoming priest, *even if there is only the suspect of ambiguous gay behaviours*. This latest inquisition-style ban is the second ban and implicit condemn (I am aware of) in the arch of two months of so. In June, his *subtle* influence inflicted on the Italian people, by encouraging them not to go and vote for the referendum about assisted procreation, was winning. Even my mum was unsure about what to do. She asked me an advise. And I simply put the question on a personal level, by saying: "Think if I can't have children and would be compelled to go abroad to get treatments". The next day she was at the voting site. But unfortunately, I could not persuade, on time, the other thousands of people who decided to stay at home that day.
I am sometimes irritated by the laicity of the country I am currently living and saddened by the arideness of people without a faith (no matter which one). I am also quite annoyed by the constant irreverent sarcasm of the English media about religion. But I appreciate the fact that here the news--at least on this matter--come thorugh straight.
This news, for example, was posted on the BBC News website, whereas in the Italian online newspaper Il Corriere della Sera appears an article about the value and importance of the family--noble thought; and the implicit condemn of the couples living together. But not mention of the ban of gay men from priesthood.
More (elaboration) later.
Friday, 23 September 2005
Oh my god!
Well, what we feared when Ratzinger was voted, is becoming (painful) reality. Even my mum, faithful follower of the Catholic church, admitted she did not like this new Pope.
I have just listened to the flash BBC news mentioning the last *naughtiness* by pope ratzinger denying to any gay man of becoming priest, *even if there is only the suspect of ambiguous gay behaviours*. This latest inquisition-style ban is the second ban and implicit condemn (I am aware of) in the arch of two months of so. In June, his *subtle* influence inflicted on the Italian people, by encouraging them not to go and vote for the referendum about assisted procreation, was winning. Even my mum was unsure about what to do. She asked me an advise. And I simply put the question on a personal level, by saying: "Think if I can't have children and would be compelled to go abroad to get treatments". The next day she was at the voting site. But unfortunately, I could not persuade, on time, the other thousands of people who decided to stay at home that day.
I am sometimes irritated by the laicity of the country I am currently living and saddened by the arideness of people without a faith (no matter which one). I am also quite annoyed by the constant irreverent sarcasm of the English media about religion. But I appreciate the fact that here the news--at least on this matter--come thorugh straight.
This news, for example, was posted on the BBC News website, whereas in the Italian online newspaper Il Corriere della Sera appears an article about the value and importance of the family--noble thought; and the implicit condemn of the couples living together. But not mention of the ban of gay men from priesthood.
More (elaboration) later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
There's a word for Catholics who don't agree with the Pope. It's called Protestant. :-)
I am a protester, not sure that I am a protestant. For example, I am not sure about the predestination theory and other Lutheran dogmas.
My religiosity is better described by Ghandi's words: "I am Muslim, I am Buddhist, I am Catholic, and I am Jewish. :o )
Well Martin Luther was a protester when he started. Maybe that's what you're doing. Starting a new Protestant Sect. Not all Protestants are Lutheran.
I've never understood the importance the religious put on having a faith. I've seen arguments for and against God and both obviously fall down at some point before proof, hence faith. But faith in what? How can anyone have the gall to say they know exactly the word of God (or God(s)). Are Catholics right? Are Mormons right? Scientologists? Hindus? Jews? And while philosophically you can argue that something exists you can't argue that a particular thing exists without proof. Which basically puts the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism on about the same level as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (www.venganza.org).
And I'm still trying to get my head round why priests have to be heterosexual... considering the whole celebacy thing.
At the moment, particularly in the States and Ireland, you'd think they'd just be happy they didn't like alter boys.
I now have this image of gay potential priests trying to look straight.
"Will you look at the rack on that one. I'd do her. If I wasn't about to devote my life to celebacy and devotion to Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour of course."
Well, I will probably elaborate the concept of (my) faith in future posts.
In *brief*, I think that having a faith means believing in some values. If, for example, you believe in the value of family and love, and you demonstrate those principle by acting accordingly in your life, then you have a faith and an inner religiosity--even though you are perhaps not aware of it, or call it differently. But, to me, this means that you have God in you, whichever His name. God is by all religions intended as a trascendental force that the human rationality can't comprehend, as well as it can't comprehend many phenomenons of this world. Science, in fact, fails as much as trascendental thoughts can be confuted by scientifical explanations.
You can put it in this terms: science states that thoughts and feelings are the result of different chemical reactions in the brain.
A religious person could raise the question: "is it possible to conceive the reverse sequence where the thought gives raise to the sequence of chemical events in the brain?"
For a scientist this is not possible simply, and arguably, because science starts from some assioms (or premises) that thoughts are products of chemical reactions...
To believe in an after-life--whether in the memory of your beloved; in the form of energy; or of the soul going to Heaven or reincarnated into another form of life--is the consequence of your inner faith. As part of a bigger system (the universe), which keeps regenarating infinitely, it's difficult for a faith-full brain to deeply and truly believe that one day it will become ash to ash. It is also against the nature of it (the brain)--which, not remembering the day of its birth, works as if it was infinite.
To answer to your question ("I'm still trying to get my head round why priests have to be heterosexual...) in dogmatic terms, that the doctrine would probably reply: "Jesus was not gay". Like Jesus was not a woman.
Thanks for the explanation.
I always liked the discussion about faith in the movie Contact.
[Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God]
Palmer Joss: Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.
Jesus was not gay or female. But he was not black either. Or Blonde. Or clean-shaven. Yet I've seen priests who were all of these.
And thinking about it, do we know that Jesus was heterosexual. In the Bible does he have any sexual thoughts concerning women?
I read yesterday about a girl being expelled from a school in Canada, because her guardian's were lesbians, apparently the head of the school said it was against the christian ethics of the establishment.
Dunno if that's related to what you're talking about, I just thought I'd share.
For my further answer, see post "Dopo Miss Italia nera, ..." in Self Development page.
He looks like a dirty old pervert, about to flash some nuns in that photo.
it was in california where she got expelled, ontario california
tis true
i was brought up catholic with a father very involved in the church
i do not consider myself catholic, nor have i since i was 18 and no longer required by house law to attend church
mainly because i don't like dictatorships or empires and the catholic church is the last bastion of the roman empire,
to be catholic (in my mind ) means to believe in catholic dogma, and bellieve in what the church stands for morally and ethically and spiritually
that being said, what the church believes changes, not quickly but it does change
priests used to be able to be married until they started amassing a lot of land and then they weren't
i don't blindly believe in a set of morals because some old celibate men across the ocean say so
thats foolish
first off they cut off half the population from being a preist then out of the few men that do want to become preists they are trying to not allow gay men
pedophiles are fine and will be given cushy jobs in rome just like the new nazi pope did and like JP II
i went and saw the pope when i was a kid, and once again a few years ago when he came to toronto
my ears have been open but i don't like what i hear,
for i don't like idiots and crimonals telling me what to do
that and the vatican supresses the dead sea scrolls and holds a bank account with the queen and the rothchilds and the yakuza in chigaco
i also think catholic dogma is beyond absurd
since i did not baptize my son will he then go to hell
no of course not
silly catholics
Post a Comment