Forums dot lukpac.org

Former Hitler Youth Joseph Ratzinger. Nice going, Catholicism. Way to think outside the box.

Really?

(goes to CNN.com)

Oh, crap. Well, so much for any improvement on *that* front.

Ryan

Hey, he looks like the Emperor from Return of the Jedi.

Pope Benedict XVI.

Ryan

And the antichrist accusations start....NOW!

Rob P wrote:Former Hitler Youth Joseph Ratzinger. Nice going, Catholicism. Way to think outside the box.

Holy SHIT. And I mean that.

Welcome back to the middle ages.

I do believe, though, that he was one of the older guys - 78 i think - under consideration, so they may very well be thinking of him as an "interim Pope." Still not a good sign along "progressive" lines...

And here I was really hoping he would choose as his name Pope John Paul George Ringo I...

I just want to save this SHtv post for posterity, because I know it will disappear in a few minutes. "Handletom" wrote the following in the "New Pope" thread:

handletom wrote:At least Ratzinger was briefly in the Hitler Youth and worked for BMW in war time with forced slave labor. He'll work well with Sen Byrd and Gov. Arnold .

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showt ... ge=2&pp=20

The new pope, opining that fags need to stop being fags if they don't want to get the shit kicked out of them on a regular basis:

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well

Link.,

Ryan

...the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.

What the heck is he talking about here? When he says "compulsive" is he referring to homosexuality itself or the sexual behavior of homosexuals?

If it's the former -- why would that be "demeaning"? Furthermore, the idea that sexual orientation is congenital (not something we choose) is hardly "unfounded."

If it's the latter -- I don't think anyone has ever claimed that all sexual behavior of all homosexuals is compulsive. No one is compelled to be promiscuous, for example. It is a matter of choice no matter what the orientation.

Also, is he implying that homosexuality is sometimes a compulsion (to the point of absolving culpability)? If there is no culpability, how can it be considered a sin? Perhaps the implication is that homosexuality isn't (automatically) a sin, but that acting on it is?

Ahhh...that brings back memories of Catholic grade school, where we were all taught that thinking about committing a sin is a sin in itself. So it isn't enough to not act on it, you can't even think about it.

Which begs the question -- if the definition of "sinless" homosexuality is not acting on it or even thinking about it, how would the Catholic church identify "sinless" homosexuality? Without action or thought, homosexuality (or heterosexuality) doesn't exist...unless it can be identified strictly through genetic analysis -- which, once again, would raise the question of culpability.

What the heck is he talking about here? When he says "compulsive" is he referring to homosexuality itself or the sexual behavior of homosexuals?

If it's the former -- why would that be "demeaning"? Furthermore, the idea that sexual orientation is congenital (not something we choose) is hardly "unfounded."

If it's the latter -- I don't think anyone has ever claimed that all sexual behavior of all homosexuals is compulsive. No one is compelled to be promiscuous, for example. It is a matter of choice no matter what the orientation.

I read it as fairly typical "ex-gay" doublespeak -- "To say that homosexuality is not a choice is demeaning because it underestimates a person's willpower." IOW, saying it's congenital is a cop-out because you don't want to try *hard* enough to stop being gay. (Or, even worse, you *like* being gay.)

After all, we *are* talking about a guy from a religious tradition that celebrates total abstinence. Self-denial is an art form. (Though they do seem to go whole-hog on the interior decorating. Not a lot of restraint there...)

Ryan