You’re allowed to claim it, surely, but don’t be surprised to find a number of people demonstrating with detailed cites that scholarship and interpretation have been applied to Scripture since hundreds of years before the Reformation. In short, as I’ve had occasion to point out before, “historic Christianity” does not equal “what Grandmaw’s church believed.”
Yes, but what about what grandma’s church believe 1000 years ago? What you quoted regarded what kings, soliders, assasin and such believe pre-reformation due to what the common understanding was, not due to some abstact ideal that church leaders knew of.
At the end of high school (Catholic nuns school) we took a three-day course on all things “birds and bees”, in preparation, I suppose to us been released of the constraints of living with our parents to go to college. The gist of all that was to let us know (amongst a lot of other fear and shame inducing stuff) that the Catholic church only allows Complete Abstinence as a contraceptive method before marriage (and they specifically mentioned that yes, oral and anal sex *are sex), after marriage they recommed the Billings Method of contraception. They prefer the latter to the Rythm Method because it is “more natural”, and according to them, easier to follow.
*I used it to help plan my pregnancy after more than a decade of pre-marital sex. 
I’m stating it as the position of the RCC. While it’s not relevant, it’s what I personally believe also.
Hell, sounds like my family-my dad has four sisters-three with Mary as a middle name, and one named Mary Carol. And I’m German-Irish on his side, and Polish-Slovak-Hungarian on my mom’s.
I don’t see why addressing celibacy would be a major problem. They do have married priests in the Byzantine and Anglican rites, and they could always start out by doing it the way the Orthodox do-you can become a priest if AFTER you’re married, but if you’re a priest first, no marriage, if it bothers them that much.
So your position is that married couples should not have sex unless they want a baby?
IIRC, the RCC doesn’t have any problems with heterosexual folks who are incapable of concieving boinking, so long as they are married.
Exactly my point, Grasshopper, which you did not seem to notice. To wit, that as Pope he does not, can not, must not, base policy on what the Gallup Poll says, unlike the professional whores that make up the leadership of the GOP, Dems, Tories, Labour, Socialdemocrats, Likud, New Progressive, Popular Democratic, CDU, or whatever it is any one of us has in our neck of the woods. Hell, whoever holds the Office has enough trouble changing policy based on verifiable, proven facts!
Personally, yes it is. Obviously, I’ve got neither the power or the inclination to enforce this on anyone else. 
In short they take an already fine hair and split it lengthwise into about 5 pieces.
Good lord! Nuns talked to you about oral and anal sex?! That alone must’ve put your whole class off the “sex” idea for a few years . . .
I dunno. I’ve known some hot nuns.
Angels, pins. The Church (and most churches with a provenance that goes back further than a big tent in the neighboring field) are experts at hairsplitting. Otherwise we’d still be eschewing shellfish and linsy-woolsy blends…
It wasn’t so much “talking about” it as it mentioning it was “against nature”. But sure, yes, they screwed me up for life.
Thanks for clarifying that for me.
I hear that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence even give demonstrations.
On roller skates, no less…
I once had a chat with a Roman Catholic bishop about celibacy and women clergy. I mentioned that I knew several Catholic seminarians who had taken orders on the firm belief that these policies would change soon.
His response was two-fold - 1) People often say that the decline in vocations will force the church to change. But the decline in vocations is only a recent phenomenon (the last 50 years or so) and only really in the developed West. The church is a world-wide institution that takes the long view. Before they start changing well established policy, they will be moving priests from the third world to parishes in the first world, and trying other creative things. He did agree that the church will probably have to talk more about the status of women. He mentioned that in Orthodoxy, there is no real push for women priests because there are honored and honorable positions for women, that are not seen as second class. He predicted that the RCC will try for something more along those lines.
- He believes that the problems with sexual abuse among the clergy come from that very attitude of the seminarians. (Not, he was very clear, from anything having to do with homosexuality.) Celibacy is not easy, but it is doable, if you are clear and determined to do it. After a while, you get to know your own triggers, and how to gracefully avoid them. You recognise the signs of sexual attraction and learn how to head things off before they get out of hand. With the right attitude and hard work at the beginning, it actually gets easier. Priests who go into the clergy thinking that the vow of celibacy isn’t going to be around long don’t take it seriously, don’t do the groundwork at the beginning, and then fall apart. They don’t have legitimate sexual outlets (the very definition of celibacy), so they fall into sexual abuse. He was very clear that they are morally and legally culpable, he wasn’t trying to make excuses. But he thought that seminaries should give their students a clear wake-up call that this policy has been around for a thousand years or so, and it isn’t going away anytime soon.
-He forgave his would-be assassin, the man who shot him but failed to kill him. (To be honest, I have yet to hear of anyone forgiving someone who did such a horrid thing to one.)
-He apologized for Christian atrocities against Jews (and against other peoples, although I cannot remember whom).
-He has been very, very vocal in favor of world peace. He tried to avert the Gulf War; he opposed the liberation of Iraq by outside forces; he called for a peace response to 9/11. (I don’t agree with the Holy Father in this regard, but he has been a tireless campaigner throughout his reign for world peace, which is very admirable.)
-He loved the youth; the youth loved him. (To demonstrate how much he loved the youth, while dying, he was told that St. Peter’s Plaza was full of youth. He said: “I have looked for you. You have come to me. For this I thank you.” The fact so many youth were in the plaza is a testament that despite his age and conservatism, the youth truly love him.)
-He respected and got along with different religions and its people. (Jews, Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Muslims at the very least.) This emphasis on ecumenism and interfaith cooperation is unique for the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, yet he did it anyway.
-He tirelessly opposed communism, tyrrany, and rampant consumerism.
-He stood up for his beliefs no matter how controvertial they were.
-He focused on the dignity of each human being.
-He truly led the Church into a faithful application of Vatican II. Anyone who knows the Church prior to Vatican II can easily see how the Holy Father emphasized and was faithful to Vatican II. If he opposed Vatican II: the Holy Mass would be in Latin, there would be no discussion of ecumenism or interfaith dialogue, the priesthood would be above reproach (no matter what priests did), the laity would have much less say than they do now.
This is not to say that everything the Holy Father did everyone will agree with. Even very faithful Catholics disagree with the Holy Father’s statements and directives. But he was a very good, moral, devoted, and sincere man.
WRS - May he rest in peace with the God he loved and served with such devotion.
Unwanted profane images of Mother Angelica and her unholy hand puppets, I renounce you!
I particularly liked JP2’s guest appearance as Carla’s dad on Cheers.