[some] LEFT WINGERS [aren't fond of] THE POPE!
Song Weaver
>>>
>>>I would hope not, sir! The Pope isn't my favorite guy, but hey, I don't
>>>*hate* him....
>>
>>I view him at about the same level as I view Gramm: Someone who wants to
>>screw with my life to achieve his own agenda.
>
>I take offense at that. The Pope happens to be the leader of my
>church. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from being derogatory
>towards him.
I'm stating my honest opinion about the Pope. Bill Clinton is the leader
of my country. I've no intention of asking you to "refrain from being
derogatory towards him."
You have the right to choose to be a Catholic. I have the right to my own
opinions about a man who insists that the only proper role of women is to
be homemakers and mothers and that it's the obligation of Catholics to not
only not be homosexual but to oppose laws which support equal rights for
homosexuals, even if they're not Catholic. It's one thing to use your
moral authority to control your own followers. It's another thing to
meddle with the human rights of people who have nothing to do with you.
--Julie
-------------...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu---------------------------
"Let's close down the Education Department and spend the money
on our children..." --Bob Dole
Jean E. Mulrenan
>When the Pope speaks in his official capacity he is speaking for the
>Church. Catholics believe he is under divine influence when he does
>this. You cannot criticize the Pope without criticizing the Church. You
>are misconstruing what the Pope and the Church position is. Not only are
>you wrong, but your insults to my religion are inapropriate. D.GOOCH
Are you trying to abridge Julie's First Amendment rights?
Jean
Song Weaver
>Church. Catholics believe he is under divine influence when he does
>this.
Excuse me, but, no... that's only when he speaks Ex Cathedra.
You cannot criticize the Pope without criticizing the Church. You
>are misconstruing what the Pope and the Church position is. Not only are
>you wrong, but your insults to my religion are inapropriate.
Actually, I'm being completely accurate and I've made no statement
whatsoever about your religion. I've made specific references to claims
made by the Pope. If you disagree with the claims than I am willing to
discuss that. But I will not be accused of attacking your religion simply
because I disagree with the Pope.
To the other Catholics on the list (I know Kurt and Jean fall into this
category, and there are a few more of you): Is _anything_ I've said about
Catholicism or the Pope today inaccurate?
Have I offended any of you with my comments about The Pope?
Michaelson, David
Church. Catholics believe he is under divine influence when he does
are misconstruing what the Pope and the Church position is. Not only are
*************************************
I have some very strong opposition to some of what this pope says. I have
even stronger objections to what many supposidly infallable popes have done
in the past. Is my opposition an attack on your religion? Would it be an
attack if I said that I firmly do not believe in the infalibility of the
pope? Or if I say I see him as no more (nor less) divinely inspired than any
other religious figure in the world? How about if I say he wears funny hats?
Those statements vary in their potential to offend. All of them express my
genuine opinions about the pope. None are intended to be derogatory to your
faith. I am genuinely curious to know if you find any of them derogatory to
your faith.
The pope is as open to insults as any world leader is. Would you object to
such statements about the Ayatollah, for example? (He also wears funny head
gear...) How about regarding the Japanese Emperor (a divine figure in the
Shinto religion)?
david m
Donald M. Gooch
> At 4:08 PM 5/8/95, Donald M. Gooch wrote:
> >When the Pope speaks in his official capacity he is speaking for the
> >Church. Catholics believe he is under divine influence when he does
> >this. You cannot criticize the Pope without criticizing the Church. You
> >are misconstruing what the Pope and the Church position is. Not only are
> >you wrong, but your insults to my religion are inapropriate. D.GOOCH
>
> Are you trying to abridge Julie's First Amendment rights?
>
> Jean
>
Jean, this is why I have to spend so much time saying, "no, that's not
what I meant." No, that's not what I meant. I said it was
*inappropriate* and I found it insulting. She can say it all she wants
to. I would be the last person to suggest that she can't say it if she
does. It just struck me wrong and I was suggesting that she not make
such harsh and personal statments in the future. Much as she suggested
that I not use getting AIDS as an example. D.GOOCH
*****************************************************************************
Donald Michael Patrick Gooch "Now, you understand Commander, that torpedo
University of Arkansas did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull.
(501) 450-3053 (home) And I, was never here."- Admiral James Greer
(501) 575-4165 (dorm) E-Mail: dgo...@comp.uark.edu
*****************************************************************************
Song Weaver
>such harsh and personal statments in the future. Much as she suggested
>that I not use getting AIDS as an example.
I said nothing "harsh and personal" about the Pope. I referenced what I
felt to be his approach towards American public policy and disagreed with
it. I said very little about him on a personal level and mentioned
_nothing_ about Catholicism.
I asked that you "not use getting AIDS as an example" because I thought you
were being flippant about it in a manner which I consider to be disturbing.
Donald M. Gooch
> "When the Pope speaks in his official capacity he is speaking for the
> Church. Catholics believe he is under divine influence when he does
> this. You cannot criticize the Pope without criticizing the Church. You
> are misconstruing what the Pope and the Church position is. Not only are
> you wrong, but your insults to my religion are inapropriate. D.GOOCH"
> *************************************
>
> I have some very strong opposition to some of what this pope says. I have
> even stronger objections to what many supposidly infallable popes have done
> in the past. Is my opposition an attack on your religion? Would it be an
> attack if I said that I firmly do not believe in the infalibility of the
> pope? Or if I say I see him as no more (nor less) divinely inspired than any
> other religious figure in the world? How about if I say he wears funny hats?
That is a matter of religious difference. I don't object to your opinion
nor your right to express it. I just don't see what it has to do with
politics. The infalibility or lack there of is strictly a religious
question. Saying that you disagree with the Pope on some pertinent issue
and then telling why is a political question involving religious
beliefs. Do you see the difference? When Julie said she didn't like the
Pope (and thus the Church) telling other people who do not belong to
their faith, she was discussing the very religious issue that springs up
between universialist churches and moral relativists. Such a discussion
is currently going on on the Belief-l. I am not going to presume to tell
either of you that you can't discuss it here, but in my opinion it isn't
appropriate. I also found Julie's comments about the Pope to be a
personal attack on him wich I did find insulting. I was hoping that she
might tone down her rhetoric in regards to my feelings on the subject.
If she chooses not to that is her right.
> Those statements vary in their potential to offend. All of them express my
> genuine opinions about the pope. None are intended to be derogatory to your
> faith. I am genuinely curious to know if you find any of them derogatory to
> your faith.
Not rude. Simply a disagreement. What I found derogatory about Julies
comment was her lack of respect towards the head of my Church. Of
course, that is a personal opinion.
> The pope is as open to insults as any world leader is. Would you object to
> such statements about the Ayatollah, for example? (He also wears funny head
> gear...) How about regarding the Japanese Emperor (a divine figure in the
> Shinto religion)?
Whether I would object to them depends on the level of discourse at wich
they are presented. And if you began to discuss whether the Japanese
Emperor was actually a descendent of the Sun God, I would suggest that
that is an inappropriate discussion for this list. D.GOOCH
*****************************************************************************
Donald Michael Patrick Gooch "Now, you understand Commander, that torpedo
University of Arkansas did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull.
(501) 450-3053 (home) And I, was never here."- Admiral James Greer
(501) 575-4165 (dorm) E-Mail: dgo...@comp.uark.edu
*****************************************************************************
> david m
>
Peter J. Schledorn
> Church. Catholics believe he is under divine influence when he does
> this. You cannot criticize the Pope without criticizing the Church. You
> are misconstruing what the Pope and the Church position is. Not only are
> you wrong, but your insults to my religion are inapropriate. D.GOOCH
What harm is she doing?
Now, if Julie were a television series . . .
Best,
Peter
Just BTW, you might actually try to respond to Julie's point. Why does
the Pope get to criticize her and back attempts to restrict her freedom,
while any criticism by her of the Pope's efforts (which is protected
political debate, in case you hadn't noticed) is "inappropriate"?
In other words, why should the Pope get a free ride?
Michaelson, David
they are presented. And if you began to discuss whether the Japanese
Emperor was actually a descendent of the Sun God, I would suggest that
that is an inappropriate discussion for this list. D.GOOCH"
*************************
Okay. That clarifies things. But I have never been as strong about keeping
religion off the politics list as some have been. I beleive that religion
has been a major force in politics throughout history and contiues to be so.
I consider its role to have been largely regressive and "bad" but at times
quite progressive and "good". But it has almost always been a major factor
in politics. Of course so have alcohol, coffee, chocolate, sex,
food...everything you need for a great weekend.
david m
Song Weaver
>Pope (and thus the Church) telling other people who do not belong to
That's not what I said. I don't like for the Pope to attempt to influence
legislation which affects non-Catholics. He can speak to anyone whom he
pleases.
And, as I noted, you have no problem attacking Bill Clinton, though you
don't seem to equate that with attacking the USA or the Armed Services.
Donald M. Gooch
> >When Julie said she didn't like the
> >Pope (and thus the Church) telling other people who do not belong to
> >their faith...
>
> That's not what I said. I don't like for the Pope to attempt to influence
> legislation which affects non-Catholics. He can speak to anyone whom he
> pleases.
You never said anything about legislation. Comparing him to Gramm does
not mean you were discussing American policy or how the Pope influences it.
> And, as I noted, you have no problem attacking Bill Clinton, though you
> don't seem to equate that with attacking the USA or the Armed Services.
That isn't the same thing and you know it. D.GOOCH (the nefarious speeler)
*****************************************************************************
Donald Michael Patrick Gooch "Now, you understand Commander, that torpedo
University of Arkansas did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull.
(501) 450-3053 (home) And I, was never here."- Admiral James Greer
(501) 575-4165 (dorm) E-Mail: dgo...@comp.uark.edu
*****************************************************************************
> --Julie
Donald M. Gooch
> "Whether I would object to them depends on the level of discourse at wich
> they are presented. And if you began to discuss whether the Japanese
> Emperor was actually a descendent of the Sun God, I would suggest that
> that is an inappropriate discussion for this list. D.GOOCH"
> *************************
>
> Okay. That clarifies things. But I have never been as strong about keeping
> religion off the politics list as some have been. I beleive that religion
> has been a major force in politics throughout history and contiues to be so.
We are in agreement here.
> I consider its role to have been largely regressive and "bad" but at times
> quite progressive and "good". But it has almost always been a major factor
> in politics. Of course so have alcohol, coffee, chocolate, sex,
> food...everything you need for a great weekend.
Sure. Looks like we have come to some agreement. Like I said, it is a
fine line. And I think if we are going to err then we ought to do it on
the side of it being discussed and not the other way. I felt that
Julie had stepped over that line, but I am not going to make a big
deal about it or insist that she stop. D.GOOCH
*****************************************************************************
Donald Michael Patrick Gooch "Now, you understand Commander, that torpedo
University of Arkansas did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull.
(501) 450-3053 (home) And I, was never here."- Admiral James Greer
(501) 575-4165 (dorm) E-Mail: dgo...@comp.uark.edu
*****************************************************************************
> david m
>
Song Weaver
>>>Pope (and thus the Church) telling other people who do not belong to
>>>their faith...
>>
>>That's not what I said. I don't like for the Pope to attempt to influence
>>legislation which affects non-Catholics. He can speak to anyone whom he
>>pleases.
>
>You never said anything about legislation. Comparing him to Gramm does
>not mean you were discussing American policy or how the Pope influences it.
Actually, I did mention legislation. Peter just quoted the post in which I
did.
>>And, as I noted, you have no problem attacking Bill Clinton, though you
>>don't seem to equate that with attacking the USA or the Armed Services.
>
>That isn't the same thing and you know it.
No I don't know it. Don't just bark this at me. Tell me _why_ it isn't
the same thing.
Kurt Kruschinska
>
>Have I offended any of you with my comments about The Pope?
>
and mitre. :-) ;-)
>--Julie
>
>
>-------------...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu---------------------------
>
>"Let's close down the Education Department and spend the money
> on our children..." --Bob Dole
-----
Kurt Kruschinska Bitnet: KKRUSCH@WAYNEST1
Wayne State University Internet: KKR...@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU
Enrollment Systems URL: http://141.217.58.17/kkrusch.html/
2 West, Helen Newberry Joy (UNDER *HEAVY* CONSTRUCTION)
Detroit, Michigan 48202 USA Phone: 313.577.6748
Donald M. Gooch
> >>>When Julie said she didn't like the
> >>>Pope (and thus the Church) telling other people who do not belong to
> >>>their faith...
> >>
> >>That's not what I said. I don't like for the Pope to attempt to influence
> >>legislation which affects non-Catholics. He can speak to anyone whom he
> >>pleases.
> >
> >You never said anything about legislation. Comparing him to Gramm does
> >not mean you were discussing American policy or how the Pope influences it.
An agenda can include legislation, but it does not necessarily follow
that it does. Simply because you mention "agenda" does not refer to
legislation. It doesn't even suggest you are talking about the U.S.
> Actually, I did mention legislation. Peter just quoted the post in which I
> did.
>
> >>And, as I noted, you have no problem attacking Bill Clinton, though you
> >>don't seem to equate that with attacking the USA or the Armed Services.
> >
> >That isn't the same thing and you know it.
>
> No I don't know it. Don't just bark this at me. Tell me _why_ it isn't
> the same thing.
Simple, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. That's it. Bill
Clinton is the President. Of the duties that that entails, one of them
is Commander n' Chief. To assume that an attack on him the person is
either an attack on the President or one of his duties is unwarrented.
The same does not apply to John Paul the II becasue he is not seperate
from his position nor is his official capacity seperate to the Church.
D.GOOCH (the nefarious speeler)
*****************************************************************************
Donald Michael Patrick Gooch "Now, you understand Commander, that torpedo
University of Arkansas did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull.
(501) 450-3053 (home) And I, was never here."- Admiral James Greer
(501) 575-4165 (dorm) E-Mail: dgo...@comp.uark.edu
*****************************************************************************
> --Julie
Jean E. Mulrenan
>Jean, this is why I have to spend so much time saying, "no, that's not
>what I meant." No, that's not what I meant. I said it was
>*inappropriate* and I found it insulting. She can say it all she wants
>to. I would be the last person to suggest that she can't say it if she
>such harsh and personal statments in the future. Much as she suggested
Thanks for the clarification. However, if you criticize leaders of other
religions, your (and my, btw) religious leader is fair game as well.
Jean
Donald M. Gooch
> Hi, y'all:
> Donald wrote:
> >Simple, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. That's it. Bill
> >Clinton is the President. Of the duties that that entails, one of them
> >is Commander n' Chief. To assume that an attack on him the person is
> >either an attack on the President or one of his duties is unwarrented.
> >The same does not apply to John Paul the II becasue he is not seperate
> >from his position nor is his official capacity seperate to the Church.
>
> Donald, could you please clarify this? It seems to me that the reasoning
> "Bill Clinton is to the U.S. as the John Paul is to the Church" is pretty
> good (although not perfect). Both are individuals; both hold positions of
> authority with specified responsibilities and privileges; both are, by
> virtue of their positions, somewhat symbolic of larger entities (the U.S.,
> the Catholic Church). In both cases, it is quite possible to criticize
> separately the individual, the way in which he performs his duties, and the
> larger entity he symbolizes.
You are missing the big one Kerry. ONE is a gov't, the other is a
Religion.
> To the extent that the actions of the Pope have political ramifications, he
> and his actions are valid topics of discussion.
Geez, I'm getting tired of this! Look, I don't want to come down hard on you
Kerry, but I have specfically said exactly the above. SEVERAL times.
I have since seen my comments blown completely out of proportion to imply
that I am trying to censure what Julie can say in regards to religion.
I didn't like the way Julie refered to the Pope. I asked her to
tone it down. Not that she has to, or doesn't have a right not to, or
shouldn't be allowed to discuss religion...none of that! As to her
question whether the Pope (which is just the same as saying the Church)
can impose their beliefs on others was a religious question. I said why
I thought that was so. I said I thought it was inappropriate. Not that
she doesn't have a right to say it, or that my opinion is the only one
that counts, or that it was against the rules. Only that *I* thought it
was not appropraite. Now Julie has since clarified her statement to say
that she is critisizing the "influence" the Pope has on American policy
and legislation. How I was supposed to get that out of her original post
I don't know but I have said, O.K. and would be happy to discuss this
influence. Now at the least I think she was being callous towards my
religious leader. I found that insulting. I *asked* her to tone it down
and she said she wasn't trying to be mean towards the Pope. Fine, it
didn't come off that way to me, but if she is saying that she is treating
the Pople with respect I'll except that. I am not, in any way at all,
trying to prevent or say she can't discuss what she wants. Sheesh, and
crimenetly! It's an opinion!! D.GOOCH (the nefarious speeler)
Song Weaver
>Religion.
Actually the Pope is a leader of a country as well.
Donald M. Gooch
> >You are missing the big one Kerry. ONE is a gov't, the other is a
> >Religion.
>
> Actually the Pope is a leader of a country as well.
And if you want to talk about the Pope's role in Vatican City go right
ahead. I'm not going to say a thing. D.GOOCH (the nefarious speeler)
*****************************************************************************
Donald Michael Patrick Gooch "Now, you understand Commander, that torpedo
University of Arkansas did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull.
(501) 450-3053 (home) And I, was never here."- Admiral James Greer
(501) 575-4165 (dorm) E-Mail: dgo...@comp.uark.edu
*****************************************************************************
> --Julie
Ron Festine
>
YES - it's true -
Question: Can a woman be the Pope?
Donald M. Gooch
No. D.GOOCH
Peter J. Schledorn
> >Religion.
>
And Commander-in-Chief of the Swiss Guard, too, no doubt.
:-),
Peter
> --Julie
Song Weaver
>>>Religion.
>>
>>Actually the Pope is a leader of a country as well.
>
>ahead. I'm not going to say a thing.
But you'd rather I not say anything about his role in America, right? ;-)
KIL...@wvsvax.wvnet.edu
Donald wrote:
>Simple, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. That's it. Bill
>Clinton is the President. Of the duties that that entails, one of them
>is Commander n' Chief. To assume that an attack on him the person is
>either an attack on the President or one of his duties is unwarrented.
>The same does not apply to John Paul the II becasue he is not seperate
>from his position nor is his official capacity seperate to the Church.
Donald, could you please clarify this? It seems to me that the reasoning
"Bill Clinton is to the U.S. as the John Paul is to the Church" is pretty
good (although not perfect). Both are individuals; both hold positions of
authority with specified responsibilities and privileges; both are, by
virtue of their positions, somewhat symbolic of larger entities (the U.S.,
the Catholic Church). In both cases, it is quite possible to criticize
separately the individual, the way in which he performs his duties, and the
larger entity he symbolizes.
To the extent that the actions of the Pope have political ramifications, he
and his actions are valid topics of discussion. And that discussion does
not necessarily have to involve criticizing the Catholic Church as a whole.
Of course, to the extent that it's the Catholic Church as a whole that is
doing things with wide-ranging political repercussions, it's a perfectly
reasonable target of criticism.
Kerry
who still remembers being pissed at John XXIII for allowing us to eat meat
on Friday :)
Jean E. Mulrenan
>>Actually the Pope is a leader of a country as well.
>>
>
>
>YES - it's true -
>
>Question: Can a woman be the Pope?
No, since women are not allowed to be ordained priests.
Jean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Coffee *is* food.
Jean E. Mulrenan
JMul...@vma.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
K=A*T
>Actually, I'm being completely accurate and I've made no statement
>whatsoever about your religion. I've made specific references to claims
>made by the Pope. If you disagree with the claims than I am willing to
>discuss that. But I will not be accused of attacking your religion simply
>because I disagree with the Pope.
Actually I agree with Gooch. I think millions of Jews and Muslims
have attacked Gooch's religions by virtue of being a Jew or a Muslim. :-)
>--Julie
--KAT
Donald M. Gooch
> >>>You are missing the big one Kerry. ONE is a gov't, the other is a
> >>>Religion.
> >>
> >>Actually the Pope is a leader of a country as well.
> >
> >And if you want to talk about the Pope's role in Vatican City go right
> >ahead. I'm not going to say a thing.
>
> But you'd rather I not say anything about his role in America, right? ;-)
>
> --Julie
No, if you want to do that that's fine too. It was his role in the
Church that you were talking about before, complaining about his espousal
of a Church belief. D.GOOCH (the nefarious speeler)
*****************************************************************************
Donald Michael Patrick Gooch "Now, you understand Commander, that torpedo
University of Arkansas did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull.
(501) 450-3053 (home) And I, was never here."- Admiral James Greer
(501) 575-4165 (dorm) E-Mail: dgo...@comp.uark.edu
*****************************************************************************
>
Donald M. Gooch
> On Mon, 8 May 1995 18:05:41 -0500 Song Weaver said:
>
> >Actually, I'm being completely accurate and I've made no statement
> >whatsoever about your religion. I've made specific references to claims
> >made by the Pope. If you disagree with the claims than I am willing to
> >discuss that. But I will not be accused of attacking your religion simply
> >because I disagree with the Pope.
>
> Actually I agree with Gooch. I think millions of Jews and Muslims
> have attacked Gooch's religions by virtue of being a Jew or a Muslim. :-)
(rolling of eyes) You know, I don't even know why I bother. Y'all
apparently like fantasy rather than the reality of what I post. I think
you miss Larry so now you are trying to make me out as him. Sorry, no
dice. You want to make fun of Christain fundamentalists...do it to
someone else because you are going to be surprised if you start agruing
with me. D.GOOCH (the nefarious speeler)
*****************************************************************************
Donald Michael Patrick Gooch "Now, you understand Commander, that torpedo
University of Arkansas did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull.
(501) 450-3053 (home) And I, was never here."- Admiral James Greer
(501) 575-4165 (dorm) E-Mail: dgo...@comp.uark.edu
*****************************************************************************
> >--Julie >
> --KAT
>
Song Weaver
>
>Church that you were talking about before, complaining about his espousal
>of a Church belief.
He made a public policy statement, Donald.
--Julie
Song Weaver
>>have attacked Gooch's religions by virtue of being a Jew or a Muslim. :-)
>
>(rolling of eyes) You know, I don't even know why I bother. Y'all
>apparently like fantasy rather than the reality of what I post.
I'm getting really tired of being generalized like this. KAT enjoys making
fun of you. Just because he does is no excuse to claim that everybody else
does as well.
>I think you miss Larry so now you are trying to make me out as him.
We've been through this before. You're not even remotely like Larry.
>Sorry, no dice. You want to make fun of Christain fundamentalists...
You're the one who brought religion into this, not us.
John Conover
>>Actually the Pope is a leader of a country as well.
>>
>>--Julie
>
>
>YES - it's true -
>
>Question: Can a woman be the Pope?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oops. You *were* joking, right?
John
Song Weaver
>
I _did_ post this here when he first made the statement, but I don't have
the exact quote. I have been searching for it, though. As soon as I find
an exact quote, I'll post it. But what I recall him saying was that it was
the duty of Catholics to attempt to influence law by working against
gay-rights initiatives and the repeal of anti-sodomy laws.
Kurt Kruschinska
>I _did_ post this here when he first made the statement, but I don't have
>the exact quote. I have been searching for it, though. As soon as I find
>an exact quote, I'll post it. But what I recall him saying was that it was
>the duty of Catholics to attempt to influence law by working against
>gay-rights initiatives and the repeal of anti-sodomy laws.
Are you claiming that that statement is outside his authority as moral leader
of the Roman Catholic Church?
>
>--Julie
>
>
>-------------...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu---------------------------
>
>"Let's close down the Education Department and spend the money
> on our children..." --Bob Dole
-----
Song Weaver
>>I _did_ post this here when he first made the statement, but I don't have
>>the exact quote. I have been searching for it, though. As soon as I find
>>an exact quote, I'll post it. But what I recall him saying was that it was
>>the duty of Catholics to attempt to influence law by working against
>>gay-rights initiatives and the repeal of anti-sodomy laws.
>
>Are you claiming that that statement is outside his authority as moral leader
>of the Roman Catholic Church?
I have no concern at all for what his statements connections to the
Catholic Church are and have no interest in discussing it. I'm interested
specifically in how he interacts with American politics and public policy.
I don't think what he does is any more _wrong_ than for any other political
leader to attempt to attempt to meddle in American affairs. I simply think
he's doing so in a way which I find to be personally apalling.
Kurt Kruschinska
>
>I have no concern at all for what his statements connections to the
>Catholic Church are and have no interest in discussing it. I'm interested
>specifically in how he interacts with American politics and public policy.
>I don't think what he does is any more _wrong_ than for any other political
>leader to attempt to attempt to meddle in American affairs. I simply think
>he's doing so in a way which I find to be personally apalling.
The pope is in a precarious position. He is the spiritual leader for people
outside his *direct* control (that is, outside Vatican City.) But as
spiritual leader of these people, it's his duty to guide them as he sees fit
in matters of faith and morals. And, his statements against abortion, and
against gay rights are what he believes to be the correct path for a moral
person to take, and he has 2000 years of dogma to back him up on it. It is
his duty to speak out on these topics, and as leader of the Church, it is
his duty to guide his people through this. That is why I tend to disagree
with yuou. I don't find it apalling, but I must admit that I find him to be
unrealistic on some matters. (Those of you who know me know my feelings about
letting the clergy marry, letting women become priests, and other matters.
I tend to be in disagreement with His Holiness.) Now, if Pope John Paul
lobbied Congress to raise our taxes (or lower them for that matter) then
you'd have a point. He has no business interfering or commenting on affairs
of state such as that. But, I welcome his input on matters of social
importance. I don't always agree with him, but he is a man whose opinion
I respect *immensely.* Note that I'm not defending the Pope (he can do
that himself, if he feels the need) but I am explaining to you why I think he
*must* have a word in the debate.
>
>--Julie
>
>
>-------------...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu---------------------------
>
>"Let's close down the Education Department and spend the money
> on our children..." --Bob Dole
-----
Donald M. Gooch
> >On Wed, 10 May 1995 09:33:07 -0500 Song Weaver said:
> >>I _did_ post this here when he first made the statement, but I don't have
> >>the exact quote. I have been searching for it, though. As soon as I find
> >>an exact quote, I'll post it. But what I recall him saying was that it was
> >>the duty of Catholics to attempt to influence law by working against
> >>gay-rights initiatives and the repeal of anti-sodomy laws.
> >
> >Are you claiming that that statement is outside his authority as moral leader
> >of the Roman Catholic Church?
>
> I have no concern at all for what his statements connections to the
> Catholic Church are and have no interest in discussing it. I'm interested
> specifically in how he interacts with American politics and public policy.
> I don't think what he does is any more _wrong_ than for any other political
> leader to attempt to attempt to meddle in American affairs. I simply think
> he's doing so in a way which I find to be personally apalling.
And exactly *how* is he "doing" that? D.GOOCH (the nefarious speeler)
*****************************************************************************
Donald Michael Patrick Gooch "Now, you understand Commander, that torpedo
University of Arkansas did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull.
(501) 450-3053 (home) And I, was never here."- Admiral James Greer
(501) 575-4165 (dorm) E-Mail: dgo...@comp.uark.edu
*****************************************************************************
> --Julie
Kurt Kruschinska
>>
>> Actually the Pope is a leader of a country as well.
>
First wise thing you've said this entire debate, grasshopper...
>
>*****************************************************************************
>Donald Michael Patrick Gooch "Now, you understand Commander, that torpedo
> University of Arkansas did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull.
> (501) 450-3053 (home) And I, was never here."- Admiral James Greer
> (501) 575-4165 (dorm) E-Mail: dgo...@comp.uark.edu
>*****************************************************************************
>
>
>
> > --Julie
>>
>>
>> -------------...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu---------------------------
>>
>> "Let's close down the Education Department and spend the money
>> on our children..." --Bob Dole
>>
-----
Peter J. Schledorn
> > have attacked Gooch's religions by virtue of being a Jew or a Muslim. :-)
>
> (rolling of eyes) You know, I don't even know why I bother. Y'all
> you miss Larry so now you are trying to make me out as him. Sorry, no
> dice. You want to make fun of Christain fundamentalists...do it to
> someone else because you are going to be surprised if you start agruing
> with me. D.GOOCH (the nefarious speeler)
Hey, Donald, would you like some cheese to go with that?
Best,
Peter
Janet White
There has been a rumor around for a few centuries that one of the popes
or anti-popes was a woman who somehow escaped detection while passing as a
man and priest. Supposedly, the way the story goes, there is now a
physcial exam of the successful pontiff after to vote to ensure that the
horrible condition of being female does not exist. I don't know the
details on the story or whether it has any historical base, but found
the idea interesting.
Does anyone know which one is identified as the possible female?
Janet
---
pacifier.com - Vancouver's Public access Internet (206) 693-0325
telnet or dial the above and type "new" at the prompt to register
On Tue, 9 May 1995, Jean E. Mulrenan wrote:
> At 04:01 PM 5/9/95 -0700, Ron Festine wrote:
> >>Actually the Pope is a leader of a country as well.
> >>
> >>--Julie
> >
> >
> >YES - it's true -
> >
> >Question: Can a woman be the Pope?
>
David Haddock
> or anti-popes was a woman who somehow escaped detection while passing as a
> man and priest. Supposedly, the way the story goes, there is now a
> physcial exam of the successful pontiff after to vote to ensure that the
> horrible condition of being female does not exist. I don't know the
> details on the story or whether it has any historical base, but found
> the idea interesting.
I didn't realize that being a female was so horrible.
Men can't have babies, you know. Being male must be horrible too.
--davidh
"You owe me an apology."
KIL...@wvsvax.wvnet.edu
Janet wrote:
>There has been a rumor around for a few centuries that one of the popes
>or anti-popes was a woman who somehow escaped detection while passing as a
>man and priest.
I've heard the story -- I think the name was supposed to be Pope Joan (but
I don't recall when exactly this was supposed to be). I wish I could
remember the rest -- I vaguely recall some nifty stories about her.
Apocryphal, of course . . .
:)
Kerry
Janet White
Only horrible in the context of females are not allowed to serve in the
priesthood and are therefor ineligible to be Pope.
Janet
---
pacifier.com - Vancouver's Public access Internet (206) 693-0325
telnet or dial the above and type "new" at the prompt to register
On Wed, 10 May 1995, David Haddock wrote:
> > There has been a rumor around for a few centuries that one of the popes
> > or anti-popes was a woman who somehow escaped detection while passing as a
Janet White
Thanks. My memory on it was really vague and I didn't want to spend the
evening hunting for something that was tickling my curiosity. :-)
Janet
---
pacifier.com - Vancouver's Public access Internet (206) 693-0325
telnet or dial the above and type "new" at the prompt to register
On Wed, 10 May 1995, Edwin Horneij wrote:
> > Jean,
> >
> > There has been a rumor around for a few centuries that one of the popes
> > or anti-popes was a woman who somehow escaped detection while passing as a
> > man and priest.
>
> > Does anyone know which one is identified as the possible female?
>
> The mythical female pope was named Joan. I don't remember what man's
> name she used. She is supposed to have been discovered because she
> went into labor in public (and died in childbirth). She is known to
> be a legend; the years of her supposed papacy coincide with those of
> two popes known really to have existed and ruled or sat or served or
> whatever the word is.
>
> > Janet
>
> -- Ed Horneij
>
Kurt Kruschinska
>>Actually the Pope is a leader of a country as well.
>>
>>--Julie
>
>
>YES - it's true -
>
>Question: Can a woman be the Pope?
Nope...Not until women can be priests.
Kurt Kruschinska
>
>He made a public policy statement, Donald.
What did he say?
>
>--Julie
>
>
>-------------...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu---------------------------
>
>"Let's close down the Education Department and spend the money
> on our children..." --Bob Dole
-----
Song Weaver
>The pope is in a precarious position. He is the spiritual leader for people
>outside his *direct* control (that is, outside Vatican City.) But as
>spiritual leader of these people, it's his duty to guide them as he sees fit
>in matters of faith and morals.
Well... this may or may not be true, but he still _chooses_ to be in this
"precarious position." He's wholly responsible for his own actions in this
respect.
>And, his statements against abortion, and
>against gay rights are what he believes to be the correct path for a moral
>person to take, and he has 2000 years of dogma to back him up on it.
The former may or may not be true. I've never heard anything to suggest
that the latter is.
>Now, if Pope John Paul
>lobbied Congress to raise our taxes (or lower them for that matter) then
>you'd have a point. He has no business interfering or commenting on affairs
>of state such as that.
Why not?
>But, I welcome his input on matters of social
>importance. I don't always agree with him, but he is a man whose opinion
>I respect *immensely.* Note that I'm not defending the Pope (he can do
>that himself, if he feels the need) but I am explaining to you why I think he
>*must* have a word in the debate.
I think this is inconcistent with the comment about tax increases. I don't
see what distinction you are making.
I also, of course, take issue with churches who involve themselves in
lobbying efforts and still maintain tax-exempt status, but that's another
issue ;-)
--Julie
-------------...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu---------------------------
"Must have been something I ate."
-- The X-Files
Kurt Kruschinska
>>The pope is in a precarious position. He is the spiritual leader for people
>>outside his *direct* control (that is, outside Vatican City.) But as
>>spiritual leader of these people, it's his duty to guide them as he sees fit
>>in matters of faith and morals.
>
>Well... this may or may not be true, but he still _chooses_ to be in this
>"precarious position." He's wholly responsible for his own actions in this
>respect.
You are correct.
>
>>And, his statements against abortion, and
>>against gay rights are what he believes to be the correct path for a moral
>>person to take, and he has 2000 years of dogma to back him up on it.
>
>The former may or may not be true. I've never heard anything to suggest
>that the latter is.
The Catholic Church is rooted in both the old law (The Old Testament) and the
new law (The New Testament.) There are statements against homosexuality
specifically in Dueteronomy, I believe, and there are indirect statements
against abortion. (The 10 Commandements, for one.) That goes back *at least*
2,000 years...
>
>
>Why not?
Because that is outside his position as spiritual and moral leader of Catholics
worldwide.
>
>I think this is inconcistent with the comment about tax increases. I don't
>see what distinction you are making.
I thought I was quite clear, and I think it is quite consistent. I don't see
taxes as a matter of spiritual or moral importance. I do see gay rights and
abortion as matters of spiritual or moral importance. What don't you see as
consistent?
>
>I also, of course, take issue with churches who involve themselves in
>lobbying efforts and still maintain tax-exempt status, but that's another
>issue ;-)
Yes it is. And, btw, that's not the pope's decision. That's a decision made
by the individual diocese, at least for the Catholic Church. But, I digress.
>
>--Julie
>
>-------------...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu---------------------------
>
> "Must have been something I ate."
>
> -- The X-Files
-----
Michaelson, David
someone else because you are going to be surprised if you start agruing
with me. D.GOOCH (the nefarious speeler)"
But Don, we LIKE surprises.
david m