I was extremely pleased to see the conservative German chosen as the newly elected pope.I believe it's a wonderful and much needed thing for the catholic church to get back into the business of setting unbendable standards instead of appeasing and being politically correct at times.I see this as a cleansing that is to come for some things that have been overlooked and somewhat neglected in past years.The church needs to be the church and stand on it's principles without being politically affected in any fashion and I believe this Pope Benedict XVI will see to it that the church is restored and renewed to it's rightful place and that it serves the will of God and not the will of man..
Jeff
Benedict XVI
Moderator: Available
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Recent Letter
The above link takes you to a recent letter written by the current pope when he was still a cardinal on the role of men and women in society and the church.
To me it is a curious and selective read of what the bible says about women. He seems to have carefully chosen those passages that support his view of equality while ignoring a plethora of passages that espouse a woman's role as a husband's property.
The above link takes you to a recent letter written by the current pope when he was still a cardinal on the role of men and women in society and the church.
To me it is a curious and selective read of what the bible says about women. He seems to have carefully chosen those passages that support his view of equality while ignoring a plethora of passages that espouse a woman's role as a husband's property.
Did you show compassion today?
Above all, the fact that human beings are persons needs to be underscored: “Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God”.10 Their equal dignity as persons is realized as physical, psychological and ontological complementarity, giving rise to a harmonious relationship of “uni-duality”,
From the first moment of their creation, man and woman are distinct, and will remain so for all eternity. Placed within Christ's Paschal mystery, they no longer see their difference as a source of discord to be overcome by denial or eradication, but rather as the possibility for collaboration, to be cultivated with mutual respect for their difference.
It is women, in the end, who even in very desperate situations, as attested by history past and present, possess a singular capacity to persevere in adversity, to keep life going even in extreme situations, to hold tenaciously to the future, and finally to remember with tears the value of every human life.
Although motherhood is a key element of women's identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation. In this area, there can be serious distortions, which extol biological fecundity in purely quantitative terms and are often accompanied by dangerous disrespect for women.
In this perspective, one understands the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others.
It means also that women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems.
But, in the final analysis, every human being, man or woman, is destined to be “for the other”.
Therefore, the promotion of women within society must be understood and desired as a humanization accomplished through those values, rediscovered thanks to women. Every outlook which presents itself as a conflict between the sexes is only an illusion and a danger: it would end in segregation and competition between men and women, and would promote a solipsism nourished by a false conception of freedom.
Without prejudice to the advancement of women's rights in society and the family, these observations seek to correct the perspective which views men as enemies to be overcome. The proper condition of the male-female relationship cannot be a kind of mistrustful and defensive opposition. Their relationship needs to be lived in peace and in the happiness of shared love
On a more concrete level, if social policies – in the areas of education, work, family, access to services and civic participation – must combat all unjust sexual discrimination, they must also listen to the aspirations and identify the needs of all. The defence and promotion of equal dignity and common personal values must be harmonized with attentive recognition of the difference and reciprocity between the sexes where this is relevant to the realization of one's humanity, whether male or female.
Well I must say I read this piece and I agree with it wholeheartedly and don't find it demeaning in any way shape or form with respect to your views of course Dana..I think it defines the roles of men and women as God has written them and I agree with the views expressed within this document.I think the words are very profound and enlightening and truthful..I really can't speak to anything else other than what the man wrote and it seems fine to me..
Jeff
From the first moment of their creation, man and woman are distinct, and will remain so for all eternity. Placed within Christ's Paschal mystery, they no longer see their difference as a source of discord to be overcome by denial or eradication, but rather as the possibility for collaboration, to be cultivated with mutual respect for their difference.
It is women, in the end, who even in very desperate situations, as attested by history past and present, possess a singular capacity to persevere in adversity, to keep life going even in extreme situations, to hold tenaciously to the future, and finally to remember with tears the value of every human life.
Although motherhood is a key element of women's identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation. In this area, there can be serious distortions, which extol biological fecundity in purely quantitative terms and are often accompanied by dangerous disrespect for women.
In this perspective, one understands the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others.
It means also that women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems.
But, in the final analysis, every human being, man or woman, is destined to be “for the other”.
Therefore, the promotion of women within society must be understood and desired as a humanization accomplished through those values, rediscovered thanks to women. Every outlook which presents itself as a conflict between the sexes is only an illusion and a danger: it would end in segregation and competition between men and women, and would promote a solipsism nourished by a false conception of freedom.
Without prejudice to the advancement of women's rights in society and the family, these observations seek to correct the perspective which views men as enemies to be overcome. The proper condition of the male-female relationship cannot be a kind of mistrustful and defensive opposition. Their relationship needs to be lived in peace and in the happiness of shared love
On a more concrete level, if social policies – in the areas of education, work, family, access to services and civic participation – must combat all unjust sexual discrimination, they must also listen to the aspirations and identify the needs of all. The defence and promotion of equal dignity and common personal values must be harmonized with attentive recognition of the difference and reciprocity between the sexes where this is relevant to the realization of one's humanity, whether male or female.
Well I must say I read this piece and I agree with it wholeheartedly and don't find it demeaning in any way shape or form with respect to your views of course Dana..I think it defines the roles of men and women as God has written them and I agree with the views expressed within this document.I think the words are very profound and enlightening and truthful..I really can't speak to anything else other than what the man wrote and it seems fine to me..
Jeff
Jeff
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Hi Jeff,
I didn't say what we wrote was demaning at all. What I said was it was unusual for someone to select and interpret so narrowly from biblical passages to place women on what would seem to be equal footing to men through a curious expansion on the concept of "helper."
It would seem that in that letter he layed the groundwork for the elevation of women within the Catholic church though to what extent is unknown.
I didn't say what we wrote was demaning at all. What I said was it was unusual for someone to select and interpret so narrowly from biblical passages to place women on what would seem to be equal footing to men through a curious expansion on the concept of "helper."
It would seem that in that letter he layed the groundwork for the elevation of women within the Catholic church though to what extent is unknown.
Did you show compassion today?
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Interesting discussion. This could go a lot of places, although I think for now the scope will likely stay fairly limited.
First, I consider myself an ex Catholic. That being said, I am very happy with the Catholic Church living by their doctrine, and attempting only to interpret the principles of that faith as they pertain to the contemporary society. I may disagree with their teachings, but that does not mean I think The Church should change. Ultimately we all should be driven by what we believe to be right.
I'm a big believer in division of labor and complimentary roles in partnerships and group efforts. While I believe in principles such as equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity, I find the current trend towards homogenization and blindness to uniqueness to be highly offensive. Recently my own massive umbrella organization made me take this day-long online harassment course complete with scenario training. I can't tell you how incensed I was with the garbage they are forcing down our throats. Anyone who is offended WILL (not may, WILL) get justice up to and including termination of the offending employee. There are no provisions for evaluation of perception. Any mention of uniqueness (race, gender, sexual preferences, etc.) is possible grounds for an offense in these scenarios. We are taught to walk around ignoring what is obvious to us all. We are taught not to celebrate each others' uniqueness (something emphasized and taught in Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Successful People).
It's no wonder that shows like Southpark have become so popular - and so outrageous. It's a backlash against this fascist mindset.
We have differences. We are unique. We each bring something special to the table. Individually we should never attempt to be all and do it all.
What I like about the passage mentioned above is that it reminds us in male/female relationships we are partners who bring unique halves to the relationship.
This does leave a lot to the imagination though. I'm sure there are unique social groups out there who wonder where they fit in all of this, and whether or not they are being boxed in where they feel they don't belong. The final piece that needs to be added is respect. We must respect each others' differences on many levels. An 80/20 rule necessarily can only apply 80% of the time. That doesn't mean we ignore or bash the 80% when considering the 20%. It just means that we take the principles of individuality, respect, and love to another domain.
- Bill
First, I consider myself an ex Catholic. That being said, I am very happy with the Catholic Church living by their doctrine, and attempting only to interpret the principles of that faith as they pertain to the contemporary society. I may disagree with their teachings, but that does not mean I think The Church should change. Ultimately we all should be driven by what we believe to be right.
I'm a big believer in division of labor and complimentary roles in partnerships and group efforts. While I believe in principles such as equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity, I find the current trend towards homogenization and blindness to uniqueness to be highly offensive. Recently my own massive umbrella organization made me take this day-long online harassment course complete with scenario training. I can't tell you how incensed I was with the garbage they are forcing down our throats. Anyone who is offended WILL (not may, WILL) get justice up to and including termination of the offending employee. There are no provisions for evaluation of perception. Any mention of uniqueness (race, gender, sexual preferences, etc.) is possible grounds for an offense in these scenarios. We are taught to walk around ignoring what is obvious to us all. We are taught not to celebrate each others' uniqueness (something emphasized and taught in Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Successful People).
It's no wonder that shows like Southpark have become so popular - and so outrageous. It's a backlash against this fascist mindset.
We have differences. We are unique. We each bring something special to the table. Individually we should never attempt to be all and do it all.
What I like about the passage mentioned above is that it reminds us in male/female relationships we are partners who bring unique halves to the relationship.
This does leave a lot to the imagination though. I'm sure there are unique social groups out there who wonder where they fit in all of this, and whether or not they are being boxed in where they feel they don't belong. The final piece that needs to be added is respect. We must respect each others' differences on many levels. An 80/20 rule necessarily can only apply 80% of the time. That doesn't mean we ignore or bash the 80% when considering the 20%. It just means that we take the principles of individuality, respect, and love to another domain.
- Bill
Hi There
There are no provisions for evaluation of perception. Any mention of uniqueness (race, gender, sexual preferences, etc.) is possible grounds for an offense in these scenarios. We are taught to walk around ignoring what is obvious to us all. --Bill Glasheen's comments...
I think this speaks volumes and says alot about what is wrong with society when any mention of difference is taken as insult..as people we do have complimentary differences as we have complimentary similiarities and both should be taken into account and taken for what they are worth on an individual basis.gagging and denying the natural world is to me arrogant and ignorant.People should be people and words should be words judged on a case by case basis.
Dana,
please excuse me when I read your first post i knew you were curious but i wasn't quite sure about just what until your second post and now I understand. I like this piece and it seems to be a nice positive message of elevation as you said.I guess only time and this mans deeds will tell the tale of the meaning of his words.But i hear alot of people saying that this man is often misunderstood and is taken for someone who doesn't hear all sides but most of the people who are close to him are saying he does listen and this doesn't mean he will change anything but he listens and is open from what they say. I don't know but my gut feeling tells me to trust this man and that he's wise and experienced in the ways of life.I'm looking forward to his time as pope and I think it will be a prosperous time for the catholic church.I hope it will be..
Jeff
I think this speaks volumes and says alot about what is wrong with society when any mention of difference is taken as insult..as people we do have complimentary differences as we have complimentary similiarities and both should be taken into account and taken for what they are worth on an individual basis.gagging and denying the natural world is to me arrogant and ignorant.People should be people and words should be words judged on a case by case basis.
Dana,
please excuse me when I read your first post i knew you were curious but i wasn't quite sure about just what until your second post and now I understand. I like this piece and it seems to be a nice positive message of elevation as you said.I guess only time and this mans deeds will tell the tale of the meaning of his words.But i hear alot of people saying that this man is often misunderstood and is taken for someone who doesn't hear all sides but most of the people who are close to him are saying he does listen and this doesn't mean he will change anything but he listens and is open from what they say. I don't know but my gut feeling tells me to trust this man and that he's wise and experienced in the ways of life.I'm looking forward to his time as pope and I think it will be a prosperous time for the catholic church.I hope it will be..
Jeff
Jeff
"In this perspective, one understands the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others."
Here I see an acceptable but arguable opinion. First, women are great. They're great caretakers and parents, taken as a whole. But I also know that men are good caretakers and parents and I know that not every family needs a woman in it to work. Certainly, not every family needs a man, either. This isn't disputable because there are many such functional families with happy kids or without kids. Many disagree and say that it would be BETTER if those were 2-gender families. Here, the data, save for that from right wing religious groups that can't do serious or objective research, is notably lacking. Immutable opinions then hold sway--mine, and Jeff's, I'm sure.
Perhaps the answer lies in how we perceive the social fabric. If you believe women and men should be taught different roles, and treated separately but equally, as most religious conservatives do, then yea, soounds like one of each would help raise kids. If, on the other hand, you are a secular progressive guy like myself, you believe that individuals not genders are key and people should seek their own paths and behaviors and careers. And then you don't need a female to be the nice compassionate model in each family because a man can do that. And you don't need a man in each family to show that you can work your tail off as an executive, because mom can do it.
"But, in the final analysis, every human being, man or woman, is destined to be “for the other”. "
I could say that this isn't true, and I have my own opinions about exceptions--most notably, my own, as it would certainly do a woman a disservice to be stuck married to me--but I'd rather point out the church's exceptions. Priests and nuns are not destined for the other gender, and neither are gay men and lesbians. They're asked to be celibate. I will save a line or too from Jeff's reply post and call these the exceptions that prove his rule.
Here I see an acceptable but arguable opinion. First, women are great. They're great caretakers and parents, taken as a whole. But I also know that men are good caretakers and parents and I know that not every family needs a woman in it to work. Certainly, not every family needs a man, either. This isn't disputable because there are many such functional families with happy kids or without kids. Many disagree and say that it would be BETTER if those were 2-gender families. Here, the data, save for that from right wing religious groups that can't do serious or objective research, is notably lacking. Immutable opinions then hold sway--mine, and Jeff's, I'm sure.
Perhaps the answer lies in how we perceive the social fabric. If you believe women and men should be taught different roles, and treated separately but equally, as most religious conservatives do, then yea, soounds like one of each would help raise kids. If, on the other hand, you are a secular progressive guy like myself, you believe that individuals not genders are key and people should seek their own paths and behaviors and careers. And then you don't need a female to be the nice compassionate model in each family because a man can do that. And you don't need a man in each family to show that you can work your tail off as an executive, because mom can do it.
"But, in the final analysis, every human being, man or woman, is destined to be “for the other”. "
I could say that this isn't true, and I have my own opinions about exceptions--most notably, my own, as it would certainly do a woman a disservice to be stuck married to me--but I'd rather point out the church's exceptions. Priests and nuns are not destined for the other gender, and neither are gay men and lesbians. They're asked to be celibate. I will save a line or too from Jeff's reply post and call these the exceptions that prove his rule.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Hmmm...
I see your point, Ian, but only up to a point. Then I have to disagree.
Genders are different - period. From the sixties to the nineties, academics spent millions trying to prove that nurture rather than nature determined gender roles and behavior. After much research, the conclusion was (drum roll...) males and females are different. Duh!!!!
Furthermore, research on the relative contributions of each gender offers first-principle justification for hypothesizing that dual gender parents are desireable.
That being said... I believe gay or lesbian parents can be good parents, and should not be denied the opportunity. There is so much variability out there from family to family, and I can't see how gay and lesbian parents can f*** kids up a whole lot worse than many heterosexuals out there.
All that really is being said here is that partners in a relationship have complementary roles. You don't really need to go farther than that with this particular statement.
- Bill
I see your point, Ian, but only up to a point. Then I have to disagree.
As an experienced parent, an academic, and someone reasonably well read on gender differences research, I challenge your perspective. I would argue that the burden of proof is on you to show that single-gender parents raise kids as well - on ALL measureable dimensions - as dual gender parents.Ian wrote: Many disagree and say that it would be BETTER if those were 2-gender families. Here, the data, save for that from right wing religious groups that can't do serious or objective research, is notably lacking.
Genders are different - period. From the sixties to the nineties, academics spent millions trying to prove that nurture rather than nature determined gender roles and behavior. After much research, the conclusion was (drum roll...) males and females are different. Duh!!!!
Furthermore, research on the relative contributions of each gender offers first-principle justification for hypothesizing that dual gender parents are desireable.
That being said... I believe gay or lesbian parents can be good parents, and should not be denied the opportunity. There is so much variability out there from family to family, and I can't see how gay and lesbian parents can f*** kids up a whole lot worse than many heterosexuals out there.
I think you are taking this too literally, Ian, partially because you have a beef with The Catholic Church and their position on GLBT issues.Ian wrote: "But, in the final analysis, every human being, man or woman, is destined to be “for the other”. "
I could say that this isn't true, and I have my own opinions...
All that really is being said here is that partners in a relationship have complementary roles. You don't really need to go farther than that with this particular statement.
- Bill
thinking here...
i was just pondering and i got to thinking does one for the other really have to mean in a physical or sexual sense? I have a sister and a brother of course one male and one female obviously. I feel I am for my sister and for my brother as they are for me.so does sexual relationships always have to dictate what one for the other means or can it also mean in a supportive and complimentary way without physicality? for reproductive purposes of course we need to have one for the other physically.but we still have those situations of one for the other in a supportive manner also.I believe you can be one for the other like the nuns and priests if you're one for the other in a supporting and nurturing role also as a guide of love...it in my view of one for the other doesn't always have to mean by sexual means..
Jeff
Jeff
Jeff
-
jorvik
I think that the Bible has been so heavily edited, that a lot of what was originally thought of as Christianity does not apply now and what we tend to think of as christianity is something quite different than the religion which existed 2,000 years ago. social mores and religious rites ( such as confession.............taken from the Cathars in the 13th Century)
play more of a part than a fundemental study of the scriptures ........did you know that the Pope is considered"infallible" by a church edict
but having said that a religion is a religion and some of the things that are written down should be enforced and practiced .........that is of course if you believe in that particular religion......they are really not that open to interpretation or opinion
play more of a part than a fundemental study of the scriptures ........did you know that the Pope is considered"infallible" by a church edict
but having said that a religion is a religion and some of the things that are written down should be enforced and practiced .........that is of course if you believe in that particular religion......they are really not that open to interpretation or opinion
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
...when speaking to Church matters.jorvik wrote: did you know that the Pope is considered"infallible" by a church edict
That has become problematic in the past though, when The Church attempted to force its bible-interpreted version of "science" on scientists.
Certainly no Church has shown itself to be infallible. But as you say, the fact remains that this is a religion and not a democracy. These are the precepts; accept them or go elsewhere. It is what it is.
- Bill
-
jorvik
Bill
I once read a brilliant book on "Time", and time was discussed by a scientist, a churchman a historian each had a differnt chapter, it was quite amazing. The reason that Columbus was funded to find America was because of a Biblical belief.the book goes on to discuss time from all these differnt concepts .how we measure time etc.............how this affects religious holidays etc.....truly a great read.......wish that I hadn't forgotten the name
I once read a brilliant book on "Time", and time was discussed by a scientist, a churchman a historian each had a differnt chapter, it was quite amazing. The reason that Columbus was funded to find America was because of a Biblical belief.the book goes on to discuss time from all these differnt concepts .how we measure time etc.............how this affects religious holidays etc.....truly a great read.......wish that I hadn't forgotten the name
Hi Guys...
I do agree that the doctrine of the catholic church should be as it is and unchanged by anyone.I believe this man will be a strict leader so I'm pleased about that. Yeah as Bill and Jorvik said so well I think it's either believe in the religion and doctrine or go elsewhere.cause it's not really about what we think it should be, it's about what it is and it's either take it or leave it..good stuff...
Jeff
Jeff
Jeff
"I would argue that the burden of proof is on you to show that single-gender parents raise kids as well - on ALL measureable dimensions - as dual gender parents."
May be currently impossible, because same sex and opposite sex families face different realities. Before you ask people to PROVE that they're as good they have to get a fair shake. Otherwise, duh, maybe our kids WILL get teased more and be unhappier. But if those kids are raised tolerant and don't cause troubles for others, I would argue that we'd fall behind on some hapiness scale YET have produced better kids for the society.
How come blacks don't raise kids as well? Hispanics? American indians? Their outcomes are measurably worse and while people **hypothesize** that opposite sex parents are the "ideal," and happily toss this unproven concept around as presidential policy, no one has asked the minorities to prove their worth and right to have children. But if you just go by the facts you could more easily say that the ideal family is two rich white educated professional males instead of a heterosexual minority couple, instead of saying opposite sex is better than same.
Yes, men and women are different. So are men and men. So are women and women. We notice the obvious anatomic difference and cultural roles and the usual couple is opposite sex. It seems to follow that such a couple provides balance to kids. But anyone who actually has published data that varied genders in a couple are better for kids than varied races, ages, religions, educations, careers, philosophies, political parties or whatever is welcome to cite it right here. I'd be eager to review it. There are lots of ways to contribute balance to a relationship.
And even if there is a value to having parents of opposite (or same) sex, all other things being equal, I feel it's certain that this increment pales in comparison to all the other factors stacked against the kids in 2005.
Jeff, I can see how you're able to bond to an opposite sex sib, but I fail to see how that's different from a bond to a same sex sib. If we extend the marraige logic ought we not be asdking families to have a girl and a boy whenever possible? Are nuns really bonding with priests because they're opposite sex?? Has always seemed to me more of a sorority effect. They bond more to each other, or so depictions have made it seem to me.
May be currently impossible, because same sex and opposite sex families face different realities. Before you ask people to PROVE that they're as good they have to get a fair shake. Otherwise, duh, maybe our kids WILL get teased more and be unhappier. But if those kids are raised tolerant and don't cause troubles for others, I would argue that we'd fall behind on some hapiness scale YET have produced better kids for the society.
How come blacks don't raise kids as well? Hispanics? American indians? Their outcomes are measurably worse and while people **hypothesize** that opposite sex parents are the "ideal," and happily toss this unproven concept around as presidential policy, no one has asked the minorities to prove their worth and right to have children. But if you just go by the facts you could more easily say that the ideal family is two rich white educated professional males instead of a heterosexual minority couple, instead of saying opposite sex is better than same.
Yes, men and women are different. So are men and men. So are women and women. We notice the obvious anatomic difference and cultural roles and the usual couple is opposite sex. It seems to follow that such a couple provides balance to kids. But anyone who actually has published data that varied genders in a couple are better for kids than varied races, ages, religions, educations, careers, philosophies, political parties or whatever is welcome to cite it right here. I'd be eager to review it. There are lots of ways to contribute balance to a relationship.
And even if there is a value to having parents of opposite (or same) sex, all other things being equal, I feel it's certain that this increment pales in comparison to all the other factors stacked against the kids in 2005.
Jeff, I can see how you're able to bond to an opposite sex sib, but I fail to see how that's different from a bond to a same sex sib. If we extend the marraige logic ought we not be asdking families to have a girl and a boy whenever possible? Are nuns really bonding with priests because they're opposite sex?? Has always seemed to me more of a sorority effect. They bond more to each other, or so depictions have made it seem to me.
--Ian
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
Just to play..um... devil's advocateI do agree that the doctrine of the catholic church should be as it is and unchanged by anyone.
Wasn't it accepted doctrine to kill people who didn't accept the faith? I wonder how things would be today if the Church had kept it's same doctines that it had during the inquisition?