Pope to U.S.: you immoral schmucks!

[Seany-D]

warning: I'm ranting!

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/a/2004/06/04/international1058EDT0538.DTL&type=printable

Here's a cut-and-paste, in case the link doesn't work, or you're immoral *and* lazy:

---

(06-04) 07:58 PDT VATICAN CITY (AP) --

In his latest blunt assessment of U.S. society, Pope John Paul II on Friday denounced the acceptance of abortion and same-sex unions as "self-centered demands" erroneously depicted as human rights.

The pontiff said that "in the face of such erroneous yet pervasive thinking," visiting U.S. bishops should stress to congregations "their special responsibility for evangelizing culture and promoting Christian values in society and public life."

"Rights are at times reduced to self-centered demands: the growth of prostitution and pornography in the name of adult choice, the acceptance of abortion in the name of women's rights, the approval of same sex unions in the name of homosexual rights," he said.

The Catholic Church forbids abortion and considers homosexual activity a sin.

Last week, John Paul warned another group of U.S. prelates that American society is in danger of surrendering to a "soulless vision of life."

Greeting the latest group of bishops on the same day he held a private audience with President Bush, John Paul acknowledged the challenges to Catholic Church teaching and faith.

"Ambiguous moral positions, the distortion of reason by particular interest groups ... are just some examples of a perspective of life which fails to seek truth itself and then abandons the search for the ultimate goal and meaning of human existence," John Paul said.

He urged church leaders to be courageous despite detractors. "Some today view Christianity as weighed down by structures and failing to respond to people's spiritual needs," he said.

Every bishop must visit the Vatican every five years for periodic consultations. This year is the turn of bishops from the United States.

---

"rights are reduced to self-centered demands"? Church ideology is mostly reduced to lemming-like "do it 'cause we say so" reasoning. Leviticus isn't a justification for denouncing man-butt-sex, or pork. *Trichinosis* is a justification for not eating pork; specifically, the uncooked kind. Besides, if someone offers me irrefutable proof of a deity (a) existing and (b) being concerned with where I stick my penis, what my diet consists of, etc., I'll offer my apologies. This method of learning has served me well during my other score and a half of years; however, I'm not holding my breath. "ambiguous moral positions" isn't a sign of decline of society, it's a recognition of the complexities of our world. If John-to-the-Paul were truly concerned with the search for truth, he'd stop accepting things on faith. Acceptance of abortion as an absolute negative is pointless and counterproductive for women who will be killed by childbirth; even more so if the baby will expire as well. And please, let's have more children born in a persistant vegetative state, with malformed organs and the inability to even attempt continence ... god doesn't abort them all.

If same sex marriage results in less divorce and a home for children that aren't otherwise loved, than it's a good thing. Maybe that will turn around the 50% divorce rate. But I guess marriage is still seen as a success. If it's merely the "spirit" of marriage that matters, and not the results, than I am sure the spirit will do just fine, even if both participants have a penis.

If it weren't a sin, W. would have probably rubbed one out after meeting the pontiff today. I'm glad he gave him a medal. I know the Pope's been looking forward to it! It makes as much sense as giving Ian a tampon.

Sean "wow, where did all that come from?" Davis

[Rama]

I hereby vow to one day purchase and deliver to Ian at least one Tampon.
Maxi-pad may be substituted for convenience.

[ebonywnd]

"rights are reduced to self-centered demands"? Okay...here's a question....what are rights if not self-centered demands? People should have the right to be free from slavery. Why? Because we don't want to be slaves, or see our loved ones as slaves. There is no true altruism, everything is done to further our own agenda or to gratify ourselves.

The church just refuses to admit that people are flawed and selfish, and will never change. Either that, or they know people are base creatures, and somehow expect them to rise above their natures, sending people into an agony of self-loathing. Ooh ooh, sign me up for that.

The church makes no sense. Maybe it did once (I doubt it) but it definitely doesn't anymore. Mankind would be better without its influence. Then, the bigots and other unsavories would have nowhere to hide.

[Seany-D]

I've been chewing on these remarks this weekend, and I shall respond; if you were just venting Laura, and didn't want a response, well .... my bad.

ebonywnd said:

"rights are reduced to self-centered demands"? Okay...here's a question....what are rights if not self-centered demands? People should have the right to be free from slavery. Why? Because we don't want to be slaves, or see our loved ones as slaves. There is no true altruism, everything is done to further our own agenda or to gratify ourselves.

OK, I've been musing on this one for a bit. I would counter that rights aren't self-centered, if they are indeed rights. Rights should benefit society as a whole, though on a micro-scale, their primary purpose is to benefit the individual. Rights also confer with them a responsibility, which is often lost, particularly, me thinks, amongst the more liberal portion of society. Claiming freedom of speech while calling someone a asshole or worse should be ideologically similar (though obviously not congruent) to going on a three-state killing spree with your MAC-10. Getting back on track, though, I would say that true rights offer individual benefits that are to further society as a whole. Example: freedom of speech allows us to seek the truth easily and offer more diverse points of view then otherwise possible; freedom of the press, similarly.

ebonywnd said:

The church just refuses to admit that people are flawed and selfish, and will never change. Either that, or they know people are base creatures, and somehow expect them to rise above their natures, sending people into an agony of self-loathing. Ooh ooh, sign me up for that.

At a lower level, people are selfish -- see Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. But through discipline and intelligence, we can rise above that. It also doesn't hurt to have familial ties which can override the urge for self-preservation for the good of the whole -- e.g., shoving your kid out of the way of an oncoming car, taking some broken ribs in the process. But the church's methodology of encouraging the pursuit of perfection is illogical at times and counterproductive in certain instances. One family I know (guess who?) is downing antidepressives at an alarming rate. They seem to beat themselves up for not meeting God's (well, their own, but who's counting?) standards, even though they're basically reasonably decent folk. I think church is nothing more than a shrink session for them, with the pastor telling them that they're trying, and that's OK, and God still loves them. But do they love themselves?

BTW, I'm perfectly capable of self-loathing *without* the use of a religious construct. Yay me.

ebonywnd said:

The church makes no sense. Maybe it did once (I doubt it) but it definitely doesn't anymore. Mankind would be better without its influence. Then, the bigots and other unsavories would have nowhere to hide.

I still believe that the church offered a great guide for living 3000 years ago. Don't eat pork or shellfish; be clean -- c'mon, this is a guide for survival in pre-Ivory-soap-or-Saran-Wrap times! But groupthink settled in, and once people stopped taking responsibility for themselves, we got the Pope, bad communion food, and rabbis and imams who don't see the brilliance of thorough cooking as applied to the blue crab.

It is supremely disturbing how many terrorist groups -- Hamas, Hezbollah, EIJ, the KKK, the Bush Administration, Al Qaeda, Aryan Nation -- have a religious component that seems to drive their ideology. I was particularly shocked with the KKK .... saw a documentary on them recently, and I thought it was just a bunch of white trash running around talking about lynching blacks, but they have this whole religious foundation that "validates" (heavy irony) their position. Now, the less extreme sects would argue that these folk don't represent the true spirit of what they are trying to accomplish -- and I believe them, just as Stalin or Kim Jong don't represent the proper pursuit of atheism (or at least not humanism!). But religion, particular evangelical religion sets up a framework whereby groupthink and an "us vs. them", "good vs. evil" mentality pervades and indeed replaces rational thought.

My writing would be better if this weren't Monday. Bleh.

Sean "new and improved -- with 35% more skepticism" Davis