Surely, by the same logic, a Catholic referring to the Pope as “Your Holiness” or “Holy Father” is discourtesy to non-Catholics?
The posts so far on the side of “yes, i’d call him that” often mention good manners. I’m perfectly happy to be polite - i’ll call him the Pope, i’ll address him as sir. I think he’s worthy of respect. I just don’t think he’s holy. So I would choose to express politeness with a different word. It’s not an either-or situation.
Don’t follow that at all. Why would that be a discourtesy?
#1
#2
#3 Hi popal. 
:smack:
#4
“Heil Hitler!”
I think he’d appreciate the childhood memories it would evoke.
Sir. I don’t believe any mortal to be holy so it would feel extremely hypocritical to call him “Your Holiness.”
For the life of me I can’t imagine a situation in which I would find myself addressing the pope, but I would refer to him as “Your Holiness”. I don’t believe that a breach of etiquette would accomplish anything. No one gets to be the pope without learning how to deal with this sort of thing, so he would handle it gracefully and look like the better man, while I would come off looking like a rube for my troubles.
And slightly off topic, who’s brilliant idea was it to elect a German pope? My wife and I think that the Catholic church is doomed unless they elect a Brazilian pope who immediately makes Sunday soccer matches mandatory and changes the communal wine to Sangria. Then the church will have a shot to survive the 20th century.
Duuuude!
Honestly, if I were meeting him unexpectedly, I probably wouldn’t even remember what the proper form of address was supposed to be.
As I understood your argument, your point is that it is courteous to call the Pope “Your Holiness” because of the beliefs of Catholics - to not call him that is to suggest they’re wrong, and to not use it is impolite to all the people who think he is. Assuming that’s true, surely then for a Catholic to call him “Your Holiness” is suggesting that all non-Catholics are wrong, and as such whenever called that by a Catholic they are being discourteous to all people who think otherwise.
IMHO, Stratocaster and Revenant Threshold’s discussion leads to an interesting point: Whoever stands in front of the pope is most likely going to fall within three categories: A Catholic who actually admires and wants to meet him, a diplomat, or a head of state–and neither of the latter two would dream of violating etiquette there. I’m not sure, but I don’t think the pope goes out of his way to meet ordinary non-Catholics off the street, does he? Heathens, Protestants and lapsed Catholics such as myself stand little or no chance of actually running into this situation.
No, let me clarify. To not call him “Your Holiness” does not suggest to Catholics that you think they’re wrong (triple negative here, to those taking notes). Catholics assume you think they’re wrong, otherwise you’d be Catholic. This breach suggests to Catholics that you disrespect their beliefs–according to etiquette, that is. Etiquette holds that civilized, reasonable people can disagree over issues of faith, but still respect each other’s convictions.
The unspoken rule I referred to is simple. If there is a group of people you respect who hold a belief you disagree with (but don’t find particularly offensive), you nonetheless use their honorifics of choice as evidence of your respect for them. Nothing more. Again, it’s a simple courtesy.
Yes, you’re right. It’s somewhat academic.
Ah, I think I get you better. I still think the problem remains, though. On the surface, it’s fine. A Buddhist may show respect for a Catholic by calling the Pope “Your Holiness”, and the Catholic could do likewise by referring to the Dalai Lama, er, whatever religious title he prefers to be called (I don’t actually know).
Problem is that we’re still picking one over the other. It’s courteous for the Buddhist to call the Pope “Your Holiness” because it shows respect for the Catholic’s convictions; they don’t agree, but it is polite to do so. But the Buddhist doesn’t think he’s holy. Surely it is disrespectful towards the Buddhist’s convictions for the Catholic to refer to him as such?
It seems like it’s an arbritrary choice as to who gets “respected”, and in practice going by the person who actually holds the person in question in esteem seems reasonable. We go with the Catholic’s views on the Pope, and so on. We could technically go the other way, but overall, as long as we keep it consistent, it seems fair. The problem is shown when you get to atheists; under this system, our convictions are respected at no point. We really need to hire some priests or something. 
No, not if you’re just acknowledging the etiquette, which specifically disavows such a notion.
Well, to be serious, I respect atheists’ beliefs as well, though I disagree with them. There just doesn’t seem to be any honorifics I can employ as evidence of said respect.
Your definition of etiquette was that it “holds that civilized, reasonable people can disagree over issues of faith, but still respect each other’s convictions”. It is the Catholic’s conviction that the Pope is holy. It is the Buddhist’s conviction that he isn’t. If both convictions are equally worthy of respect, then picking one over the other means that one person’s convictions are not respected.
When you’re being polite in this way, it just seems to say to me “I don’t agree, but I respect your own beliefs and am willing to act as though they are correct”. Why does it go one way and not the other?
Oh, I wasn’t implying I thought you didn’t. My point though is this; when acting respectfully, we could choose to honour the convictions of the person who holds the subject of the belief in high esteem. Thus when talking about the Pope, we go with the Catholic’s belief. With the Dalai Lama, we go with the Buddhist’s. Of course, doing so inadvertently disrespects everonye else, but as long as it’s fair all along the way that doesn’t matter. When you add atheists into the mix, the situation changes. Atheists aren’t shown respect in this manner at any point. Thus I would say the best way to show respect is to go with the views of the the non-Catholics rather than the Catholics with regard to the Pope, and so on. That way, everyone gets respected at some point. The Catholic’s convictions on the Dalai Lama are respected, the Buddhist’s on the Pope, and the atheist’s on both. Everyone is shown politeness.
I suppose it’s a matter of degree. We all accept that there are throngs of people who believe differently than we do. But if there are those who strongly hold something–passionately, let’s say–compared to those who hold the opposite, those with less invested in the opposing belief…well, we ought to respect the convictions of said neighbors thusly.
Or, to put it more simply, it’s because etiquette sorts it out that way for us. Passive versus active, and all that.
Bingo! That hits the nail on the head.
It’s not disrespect, bcause etiquette by definition tells us otherwise.
Huh?
Yeah, that was confusing. Sorry.
I disagree that it’s a case of passive versus active. A non-Catholic on average will feel as strongly that the Pope isn’t holy as a Catholic feels he does. Besides, take someone like Der Trihs. You can’t deny he seems to feel pretty damn strongly about the nonexistance of gods. Plus the active is a part of the passive; a Buddhist’s disbelief in the Pope’s holiness is because of his own beliefs.
I was going by your definition of etiquette. By your definition it doesn’t say otherwise at all. Could you possibly redefine, or show me where i’m going wrong?
My point at the end was this. Picture this conversation;
Catholic: Ah, I hear you met the Pope recently. How was His Holiness?
Buddhist: His Holiness was surprisingly sprightly!
The Catholic’s conviction is that the Pope is holy. The Buddhist’s is that he isn’t. These are mutually exclusive. In this example, the Catholic’s convictions are being respected, while the Buddhist’s aren’t - in fact, they’re being disrespected under this view. If we switch it around - and have them both refer to the Pope as the Buddhist sees him - same problem. One of them will be disrespected. So there’s two options (having thought about it, there is another, but one isn’t as good). We could have them each talk as they believe - the Catholic calls him holy, the Buddhist doesn’t. No-one is respected at all - but hey, at least it’s fair. Or, we can add atheists into the respect loop, by saying that we go with the other person’s views. Both the Catholic and Buddhist don’t call the Pope holy. That way, the Buddhist’s convictions are being respected, instead. Basically a flip; it’s exactly the same in terms of respect. But by going this way, the atheist can be respected, too. It’s more fair that way, and more respect goes around. So it seems more polite, to me.
You’re over-thinking this. This aspect of etiquette isn’t trying to reconcile everyone’s philosophies, and it does not imply that stating your beliefs means you disrespect someone else’s. It’s just one of those thousands of usually unspoken rules of conduct that helps to grease the machinery of society, helps keeps things moving. It’s that simple–if a group of people you respect use certain honorifics, you do too, as evidence of your respect and nothing more. That same code of conduct does not imply that the group using this honorific is disrespecting others who believe differently. In fact, it specifically disavows that idea. Why? Because that’s what etiquette says. It doesn’t need to follow some logical pattern that would appeal to you and me. It’s just the system of unenforceable rules that a society has formulated, so we all know how polite people behave (and conversely, how jackasses do as well). And in our society, that code says that polite people call the Pope and the Dalai Lama, “Your Holiness.”
In fact, if we’re having a beer and in an interesting and polite conversation you let me know why you don’t believe in the RCC and its teachings, I would not be offended. Later that day, if I saw you introduced to the Pope, and your end of the exchange was a casual nod and “Hey, what’s up, buddy,” I would be offended. Personally offended. Can you see the difference here?
Yep. I guess then my problem is just with etiquette, rather than your interpretation of it. Boo social norms!
Just to point out, as i’ve said earlier, it’s not a case of respect vs. disrespect. I wouldn’t call the Pope holy - but then I wouldn’t act like a dick either. I have no problem calling him the Pope or referring to his (earthly) position with respect.
Then you’re a good egg and we needn’t reduce you to tears with a Miss Manners glare of displeasure.
Philosophical differences?
For those Dopers that do not believe that any man is holy, why even address him as “Sir”. Why not merely say, “Pope Benedict”.
And, how can I resist*, Ecce Homo* ###