# Pope Ratzi **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 19, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086 "2005-04-19T17:22:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/241 "2005-04-20T03:01:18Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’m asking where you got the authority to condemn anyone else. All the self-abasement in the world is insufficient to grant you that prerogative. Where did I condemn anybody else? I stated an irrefutable fact: if you do something knowing what the consequences may be, you have to accept the consequences of that action, and nobody is to blame but you. I am living the words. I condemned nothing, I condemned nobody. I wish I could say that I’m surprised that you don’t get that, but I’m really not. You habitually attribute motives to others where there are none. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/242 "2005-04-20T03:01:31Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > True, but neither did he lose the right to comment on current issues because of his past deeds, **Diogenes**. I’m not talking about rights. Of course he has the right. That doesn’t mean he can’t exercise his rights hypocritically. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/243 "2005-04-20T03:06:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It shouldn’t. Who said it should be immune? I thought you have made it pretty clear in this thread and the one we did last week about AIDS that the actions of the Catholic Church can not be critized by those that do not believe in its mythology. For example this quote from earlier in the thread: > [@Bricker](#): > > If that’s the way you see it, I would suggest you’d probably not be too comfortable as a Catholic. > > Yet you want to dictate how the Church should behave. > > Fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/244 "2005-04-20T03:06:26Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Where did I condemn anybody else? I stated an irrefutable fact: if you do something knowing what the consequences may be, you have to accept the consequences of that action, and nobody is to blame but you. I am living the words. I condemned nothing, I condemned nobody. I wish I could say that I’m surprised that you don’t get that, but I’m really not. You habitually attribute motives to others where there are none. Essentially you’re saying that people deserve whatever they get and there is a clear tone of contempt and moral judgement in how you’re saying it. Aw…crap…forget it…this is a stupid hijack. I retract everything, AD. I don’t want to accuse of harboring feelings that you say you don’t harbor. I’ll just say that it _seemed_ like you were passing moral judgement even if it was unintentional. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/245 "2005-04-20T03:06:36Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > A heroin addict gets clean and gets a job counseling others not to take to take heroin. An addicted person walks in and asks for help easing the withdrawl. The counselor tells them that they made the decision to get high and now they need to deal with the results and closes the door, telling them that methods to ease withdrawl don’t really work and in fact increases the risk of deeper addiction. > > Liar? Yes. But my example was relevant to Dio’s accusation of hypocrisy against AD. What is the relevance of your example? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/246 "2005-04-20T03:12:12Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Essentially you’re saying that people deserve whatever they get and there is a clear tone of contempt and moral judgement in how you’re saying it. > > Aw…crap…forget it…this is a stupid hijack. I retract everything, AD. I don’t want to accuse of harboring feelings that you say you don’t harbor. I’ll just say that it _seemed_ like you were passing moral judgement even if it was unintentional. I can see how you could say that, but all previous sarcasm aside I have no right, nor have I ever had the right, to make judgments on others. I think my irritation was getting in the way of my point, and that’s that it’s silly to blame someone else for actions that you undertake when the results are bad. The Pope bears a lot of burden for stuff, but the bottom line is that it falls on you to protect yourself, the Pope be damned. I personally think that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is the safest (and best) way to go in that regard, but to each his/her own. It’s none of my business. Fair enough? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/247 "2005-04-20T03:34:48Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > I can see how you could say that, but all previous sarcasm aside I have no right, nor have I ever had the right, to make judgments on others. I think my irritation was getting in the way of my point, and that’s that it’s silly to blame someone else for actions that you undertake when the results are bad. The Pope bears a lot of burden for stuff, but the bottom line is that it falls on you to protect yourself, the Pope be damned. I personally think that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is the safest (and best) way to go in that regard, but to each his/her own. It’s none of my business. > > Fair enough? I still think you’re oversimplifying things a little but it’s not a big enough issue for me that I want to keep fighting about it. Truce. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/248 "2005-04-20T03:57:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > But my example was relevant to Dio’s accusation of hypocrisy against AD. > > What is the relevance of your example? Simple. This thread has placed the responsibility of ‘sin’ squarely on the backs of the sinner, ignoring the Church’s and the Pope’s role to be a force for good. Not just enforcers of the Word. That’s the easy part, point to chapter and verse and close your doors. It’s easy to tell people to zip it, harder to admit to those same people that zipping it, just might not be enough. Over and over again the excuse has been, " if you only follow the Church you will be safe." That is not true. Further as you know, the Church has behaved in a manner similar to my extension of your AD post. There is no defense for such behaviour, yet you and others defend that behaviour by making it a matter of personal responsibilty and failure to obey doctrine, when in this instance doctrine will fail them. It can’t function in today’s society; when the results don’t matter if you’re break tradition or not. My question to you is, how can one use the Church teachings as judgement, as example, as rules to live by, when the Church itself lies about the very thing you and others consider sinful behaviour? How can one point to the Word as an example, when the example itself sins? Better to have the Church be truthful and see the world as it is, then do everything it can to upload tradition…including allowing its keep to die. If you allow the Church no responsibility for the lies it tells, then how can you demand responsibility for people who fail to follow doctrine; especially when the Church has the ability to help them, within the doctrine of the Church? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/249 "2005-04-20T04:07:54Z")
The question is not if you will follow the docterine of the catholic church- the question is, will your spouse? And if your spouse only sins “a little bit” instead of going full on and sinning without a condom, is that going to make you die? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/250 "2005-04-20T04:32:53Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Simple. This thread has placed the responsibility of ‘sin’ squarely on the backs of the sinner, ignoring the Church’s and the Pope’s role to be a force for good. Not just enforcers of the Word. That’s the easy part, point to chapter and verse and close your doors. It’s easy to tell people to zip it, harder to admit to those same people that zipping it, just might not be enough. > > Over and over again the excuse has been, " if you only follow the Church you will be safe." That is not true. Further as you know, the Church has behaved in a manner similar to my extension of your AD post. There is no defense for such behaviour, yet you and others defend that behaviour by making it a matter of personal responsibilty and failure to obey doctrine, when in this instance doctrine will fail them. It can’t function in today’s society; when the results don’t matter if you’re break tradition or not. > > My question to you is, how can one use the Church teachings as judgement, as example, as rules to live by, when the Church itself lies about the very thing you and others consider sinful behaviour? > > How can one point to the Word as an example, when the example itself sins? Better to have the Church be truthful and see the world as it is, then do everything it can to upload tradition…including allowing its keep to die. > > If you allow the Church no responsibility for the lies it tells, then how can you demand responsibility for people who fail to follow doctrine; especially when the Church has the ability to help them, within the doctrine of the Church? How has the Church lied on this issue? And please note that a line must be drawn between what the entire Church does and what individual members of the church may have done. It has been in the past, and will be seen again, that people in the Church may act as fallen human beings. This is to be expected, for such is the nature of all of us. Have I been disappointed at times by the actions of some Catholic leaders? Of course. However, I’ve only been a Catholic since 1999, so I went into this with full knowlege of the Church’s myriad faults and virtues. I think the Church sees the world as it is quite well - most members of the clergy and laity that I’ve met are quite worldly. Sending someone to work in missions or in parishes in tough areas of the world will give them a great idea of the problems many people face. I noted above the work many Catholics are doing to care for people with AIDS. Wouldn’t this be an example of seeing the world as it exists, and trying to help? To mitigate one particularly nasty aspect of this imperfect and unredeemed world? You know, it’s a teaching of the Catholic Church that one shouldn’t lie, either. Would you, recognizing that people lie anyway, advise that the Church abandon this outdated bit of morality that nobody really follows anyway. I bet lots more people fib a little than screw around without condoms. Those who would have us jettison morality for the sake of dealing with modernity only ensure a modern world devoid of morals. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/251 "2005-04-20T04:52:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What’s the cut-off point. If Polycarp were to found a political action committee, and it grew to a hundred members, would he then have to silence himself? How about a thousand members? A million? Well, gee, **Bricker** , that’s a tough one. As a rough estimate, I’d guess maybe the cut-off point is somewhere between “some guy posting on a message board” and “infallible leader of the largest organized religion on the planet Earth.” You really don’t think that asking **Polycarp** how come he’s different from the Pope is fatuous, at best? Considering how quickly y’all are willing to separate everyone into “acting completely according to the teachings of the Catholic church” and “total moral anarchists devoid of any sense of personal responsibility,” you sure do seem to be dodging the “personal responsibility” side of things. The Pope has a responsibility to recognize his role as leader of the Catholic Church _and_ to recognize that his influence should extend only to Catholics. It’s not religion’s place to influence government. At least, American government. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/252 "2005-04-20T04:55:12Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > You know, it’s a teaching of the Catholic Church that one shouldn’t lie, either. Would you, recognizing that people lie anyway, advise that the Church abandon this outdated bit of morality that nobody really follows anyway. I bet lots more people fib a little than screw around without condoms. > > Those who would have us jettison morality for the sake of dealing with modernity only ensure a modern world devoid of morals. Yeah, that’s pretty much what people in this thread have been saying. Your choices are limited either to blind, unquestioning devotion to traditional values regardless of context; or completely jettisoning all personal responsibility and living a life completely devoid of morals. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/253 "2005-04-20T04:59:18Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not religion’s place to influence government. At least, American government. If it’s wrong for religion to try to influence government, isn’t it equally as wrong to try to influence religion to not try to influence government? ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/254 "2005-04-20T05:22:38Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > If it’s wrong for religion to try to influence government, isn’t it equally as wrong to try to influence religion to not try to influence government? People, could I get a ruling on this one? Is there a point in the Pit at which a question is too stupid to deserve a response? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/255 "2005-04-20T05:26:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What’s the cut-off point. If Polycarp were to found a political action committee, and it grew to a hundred members, would he then have to silence himself? How about a thousand members? A million? Tell you what, Rick. When you accede to me the authority to tell you that your soul is in danger and you cannot take communion until you give up this stupidity of being an original-intentist and strict constructionist, repent of being a Republican and perform an appropriate act of contrition, and you will either obey my instructions because I have a hotline to God and can speak infallibly in his behalf, or else you will abstain from attending church until I absolve you from your sin, then maybe I ought not to speak of what I think you ought to be doing politically. I don’t see you extending me that authority, though. Josef Ratziger, now Benedict XVI, _Servus Servorum Dei, Pontifex Maximus_, Patriarch of the West, heir to the Fisherman, **has** that authority over devout Catholics. And that’s the point at which he should stop meddling. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/256 "2005-04-20T06:00:51Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Tell you what, Rick. When you accede to me the authority to tell you that your soul is in danger and you cannot take communion until you give up this stupidity of being an original-intentist and strict constructionist, repent of being a Republican and perform an appropriate act of contrition, and you will either obey my instructions because I have a hotline to God and can speak infallibly in his behalf, or else you will abstain from attending church until I absolve you from your sin, then maybe I ought not to speak of what I think you ought to be doing politically. I don’t see you extending me that authority, though. > > Josef Ratziger, now Benedict XVI, _Servus Servorum Dei, Pontifex Maximus_, Patriarch of the West, heir to the Fisherman, **has** that authority over devout Catholics. And that’s the point at which he should stop meddling. And again, I have to ask - does this hold true regardless of the issue? [From this site:](http://www.yourcatholicvoice.org/print_news1.php?article=28) > [@](#): > > The case of Louisiana racist Leander Perez illustrates why Communion must be denied to those who are publicly rejecting fundamental church teaching. In 1962 an exasperated Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans finally excommunicated Leander Perez for opposing desegregation in Catholic schools. Perez eventually repented (as did others of his ilk), and the school integration succeeded. > > As a state judge and political boss of Louisiana’s Plaquemines Parish, Perez made the lives of African-Americans miserable. But Perez could not intimidate Archbishop Rummel, who not only knew that racial segregation was sinful, but that it needed to be ended. The Archbishop noted that “enforced racial discrimination inflicts incalculable mental and emotional cruelty and pain, physical and social privations, educational and economic restrictions upon 16 millions of our fellow citizens, and that these discriminations are unjustifiable violations of the Christian way of life and the principles of our American heritage.” > > In 1953 the Archbishop’s pastoral letter, “Blessed Are the Peacemakers,” was read aloud in the archdiocese’s churches. It declared “the unacceptability of racial discrimination.” Perez and his allies were unmoved. The Archbishop threatened in 1956 to excommunicate them, but they held protest rallies and withheld church contributions instead of repenting. > > Interestingly, segregationist Catholics formed the Association of Catholic Laymen of New Orleans and it “asked the Pope (Pius XII) to stop Rummel from taking further steps to integrate white and Negro Catholics and to decree that racial segregation is not ‘morally wrong and sinful’” (“Morals” 36). The Vatican’s response was a reminder that that “the Pope had condemned racism as a major evil, asserting ‘that those who enter the Church… have rights as children in the House of the Lord.’” > > In 1962, the Archbishop at last acted decisively. He announced that in the fall, the city’s Catholic schools would admit black students. Perez and his allies persisted in their opposition, so the archbishop excommunicated them for continuing “to hinder his orders or provoke the devoted people of this venerable archdiocese to disobedience or rebellion in the matter of opening our schools to all Catholic children.” They were barred from the Mass and sacraments as well as Catholic burial. > > By the fall, 104 black children were admitted to the city’s Catholic schools. By 1968, Perez repented and, after his death in 1969, was given a Catholic burial. Now, I’m sure you would have no problem with the Church excommunicating a racist like Perez. But if the Church took similar steps with abortion supporters (and remember that the Church considers this an unmitigated evil) you probably would be on these boards calling it an interference with the American political process. So what is it? The Church has been criticized here for retreating from societal problems, and now you’re accusing them of attacking them heavyhandedly and mucking around in the political process. I admit the Church isn’t perfect, but around these parts it truly cannot win. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/257 "2005-04-20T06:15:47Z")
Sorry \*\*Mr Moto \*\* but that is not a comparible situation. Integration in Catholic schools was a private matter and the excommunication of Mr. Perez was a private matter within the church. But to answer your question it does not matter what the issue is religion should never be a justification for a law. I do not have a specific objection to a religious orginization campaigning for a certain cause if they desire to. However in this country the government should not be used to enforce a religions moral code on the populous. Unfortunately that is exactly what the Catholic Church has a history of doing and why I would prefer the Church to butt out of political matters. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/258 "2005-04-20T11:11:28Z")
Enforce a religious code? Like, say, the integration of all schools? You probably recall that the chief proponent of this idea was a Protestant clergyman. He was even a (gasp) Southern Baptist. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/259 "2005-04-20T12:23:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why are YOU permitted to try to influence the political sphere to achieve results you believe are valuable, but the Pope is not? The issue of relative influence is a red herring, IMO. The actual issue are what said results are. No one claims that it’s a good thing when Fred Phelps attempts to play politics, regardless of the size of his church. When **Polycarp** does it it is a good thing, and when the Catholic church does it, it is sometimes a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/260 "2005-04-20T12:31:45Z")
You know who else was a promenant advocate of Civil Rights? Quaker/communist/homosexual Bayard Rustin, right hand man to Martin Luther King Jr. Hell, until orders came from the top (Joseph Stalin ), the whole Communist Party USA was heavly involved in civil rights. [http://rogueimc.org/en/2005/01/3822.shtml](http://rogueimc.org/en/2005/01/3822.shtml) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086.md?page=14)