what about the ruthless efficiency of the…
Looks to me like he’s blaming women for pretty much everything, what with their uncontrolled animal lusts and unclean emotionalism etc.
Except that he isn’t, really.
The passage is against “gender politics” and in it he is claiming that they are based on an ideological “denial of the reality” of sexual differences. It’s the well-worn, oft-repeated claim that feminism/gender politics have gone beyond the “legitimate” point of seeking equal opportunity in the economy/polity, and on to seeking a society with no clear definitions of gender roles or sexuality.
Fairly bogus, if you take the view that indeed “gender roles” ARE an arbitrary social construct – but hardly medieval.
Surprise, surprise. Even more baffling is why they chose a German Pope instead of a Latin American Pope, where 99% of the population is Catholic. Oh yeah, people of “lesser” countries are never going to make the cut. :rolleyes: Bad strategy, Mr. Pope. Your next hand?
According to the biography on that site, nothing of note has occured in Ratzi’s life since 1981…
I’d say that poking fun of a public figure’s name is, while not the most mature of deabting tactics 
, certainly no where near as assholish a thing to do as hurl epithets at an entire oppressed minority.
Benedict is a big boy, he can take it. Hell, if he were just preaching bigotry to his flock, I’d just roll my eyes and be thankful that my church isn’t so backwards (yes, Christians aren’t necessary opposed to gay marriage, especially if it isn’t in their church, myself, and I daresay a bunch of Spanards are examples of such).
And I do wish people would knock it off with the Hitler Youth stuff. It was compulsory and he was a kid, that’s good enough for me. We’re not talking about the SS here. Besides, it’s not like he hasn’t given us enough to grouse about when he was grown up and freer to act his mind.
Yeah, but the Hitler Youth stuff just lends itself to better jokes. What’s the point of having a Pope if not for us heathens to relentlessly take the piss out of the anachronistic old fart?
Mustn’t forget, even amongst the elite there are castes. Under the current system, being anywhere close to identifiable with Liberation Theology and/or a Jesuit (gaaasp!) makes you nigh close to an “untouchable.”
Next hand? Well, they wouldn’t be the first religion to fade into irrelevance, now would they? A wider chasm between Church and mainstream followers I can hardly phantom.
Ya think they’d welcome a secular humanist as an image consultant?
Except that, as several people have pointed out, the Pope is now telling people they have a duty to disobey the law if it’s immoral.
I will grant completely that 14-year-old Josef Ratziger was made a member of Hitlerjugend completely involuntarily; an undocumented source says that his high school headmaster enrolled the entire student body at once. And his father was outspoken in opposition to Hitler, even though that was a dangerous stance.
However, it’s coming perilously close to Godwin’s Law but needs to be said: how does being an ostensible even if not actual youthful supporter of Hitler compare with officiating at gay civil marriages, on the scale of heinousness used by Benedict XVI?
Believe me if you wish, I am not trying to be facetious, but the answer to your query appears obvious to me:
Ad infinitum.
More of same at 11.
Actually according to the news Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, (look him up in Wikipedia I can’t link it), was running in the second place with 40 votes. He is both a jesuist and was born in a “lesser country”.
Actually I resent you calling latin American countries “lesser countries” and you didn’t provide a cite that the Church think og them as that, (atually the majority of the Cardinals are now Latin American and they still chose Ratzinger… it’s supposed to be a universal church after all).-
Assessment of Jorge Mario Bergoglio
BTW, Estilicon, I may be mistaken but by using quotation marks I think The Hook was ridiculing said sentiment as implied by others in the Vatican hierarchy.
As for the "majority"of Cardinals being Latin Americans, two points. One, I don’t think that is factually correct, and two, the majority of them were in fact elevated in rank by none other than JP-II, and what were the odds he’d pick an outright Liberal? Slim or none?
In fact our local cardinal is one the people whom I dislike the most in the world. And funny enough the local populace is not too thrilled with him either.
You and me both. Good old, Nicolas “Armani” Lopez Rodriguez, who’s fond of little more than hobnobbing with the rich and powerful.
Latin America contains the largest Catholic population but the largest group of Cardinals are European. There are 58 European Cardinal electors and 23 Latin American Cardinal electors.
Being both a Costa Rican and an atheist I am doubly offended by this thread. 
No, I don’t think the Church thinks ill of Latin America (“The Church”, what is that anyway, a Shyamalan film?), but Europe and the Vatican do, at least in these matters. I can’t provide statistics, I’m not your man there, but think of it like this: the chances of a latino cardinal being elected Pope are as good as a gay, black woman elected for the presidency of the United States (in my humble and pitworthy opinion).
that’s
::snort::
Which he did: he deserted.
Really, there’s way better stuff to criticize Benedict on than this.
The Catholic church is just having problems aquiring new priests now that it is socially acceptable to be gay. The church is no longer a necessary haven for homosexuals. Their monopoly on homosexuality has disappeared, and people have the nerve to be upset at them for inducting the young alterboys into their ranks. :eek: 
He ‘deserted’ when it was clear Germany had lost, just like all the other deserters.
Godwin’s law only applies to calling a POSTER a nazi, not the subject matter, especially when the subject matter was factually affiliated with the nazis and killed people in the name of the Nazi cause.
In the previous post about gender politics. I agree largely with Ratzinger about gender politics. I am tired of the idea that the difference between men and women is purely social conditioning. Spread a man and a woman’s legs for my cite. The internal body chemistry is completely different. I don’t think his message was convoluted at all, and it made a lot of sense.
On the other hand, I unlike the pope do not believe that the Catholic Church’s authority supersedes that of the government. However, I also do not believe that governmental figures are absolved of responsibility for prosecuting the government’s agendas. So a civil servant is wholly responsible for marrying a gay couple, just as a soldier is wholly responsible for the deaths he causes, just as a cop is responsible for every drug arrest he makes. So from this point of view people need to decide whether or not their moral beliefs are in conflict with legality. The difference between myself and the Pope is that I believe this is an individual choice a person makes, and he believes it is an organizational choice. Either way, the personal responsibility is on the individual that performs the act, and any individual up the hierarchy that supports such an action.
Me, I think that marriage should not be a governmental issue at all, and that there shouldn’t be laws governing it at all. Let people fuck/marry whomever they like, in whatever quantity, any position, in public parks or not. In America marriage is more or less the most simple form of incorporation. Let it stay at that, if people want to incorporate their sexual relationship then why try to stop them?
Erek