• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope move ignites Holocaust row

This thread is a perfect example of why I think all organized religions are stupid. All religion does is bring people together....to bicker.
 
This thread is a perfect example of why I think all organized religions are stupid. All religion does is bring people together....to bicker.

That there, my friends, is what the English teachers call "irony.":rofl
 
Why are people allowed to mock governments, Islam, people and so forth but no the Catholic church? Am I missing something here or are the rules slightly slanted? Or just not set properly?
 
This thread is a perfect example of why I think all organized religions are stupid. All religion does is bring people together....to bicker.

ahhhh so so. When it comes to doctrines yeah there is bickering. Especially with me. I bicker with everybody. My wife has asked me more than once if there is anybody on the planet that I can actually agree on anything with.

Nope.:2razz:

But that is the sad thing about forums. My face to face experiences are we bicker. then we sit down eat have a good time and then pray together and wish each other God speed. Those are things that forum goers never see or experience.

Moe
 
Why are people allowed to mock governments, Islam, people and so forth but no the Catholic church? Am I missing something here or are the rules slightly slanted? Or just not set properly?

Probably because it does not get reported. I have seen mods step in and warn on a thread that is getting out of hand.

Moe
 
I'm not a Catholic but I think the pope did the right thing. Denying the Holocaust is so ridiculous it's laughable that people get all worked up over it. Their idiots, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed in a Church.
 
Is denying the holocaust hate speech?
 
It is interesting to see how atheists in their mentality cannot even imagine existence of a freedom of thoughts and ideas. It is also interesting to see that Catholic Church still allows freedom of thoughts and ideas on many secular matters. It is very interesting to see that nobody has ever cared to see by himself what really the guy says on the matter. It is quite astonishing I would say, - to see how people follow any BS printed by media without looking at a problem by themselves.

It is impossible to say if this guy is a denier or an anti-Semite. He submits his reasoning. It is all wrong, actually he does not even define Holocaust or claims of Holocaust correctly, but it is reasoning. People who believe in Holocaust as well often do not know what it is. It is certainly not killing 6 million of Jews in [only]gas chambers [by only cyanide]. It is quite possible that his human perception does not allow him to imagine such an inhumanity to be real. As well he may be rightfully concerned about the guilt of Germans, when anybody who has a reason shouldn’t associate it with anything specifically German.

And of course it has nothing to do to the position of the Catholic Church towards holocaust, as one can see from the interview he is actually condemned strongly by his fellow Catholics, - he mentions a bishop….


It is interesting to see how it is always a need to bring in homosexuality...
Islam - bring in Christianity,
Christianity - bring in homosexuality... It is not like after that one has to prove that there is something wrong with homosexuality - it starts from demonstrating its needs.
 
Question: If the teachings in Leviticus were superseded by the teachings of Jesus then why is homosexuality still considered such a grievous sin? Is it because Jesus specifically affirmed it as a sin or is it simply an instance of the Church picking and choosing which segments of the OT they wish to abide by?

Genuinely curious.

P.S. - I'm glad the mood of this discussion was able to move in a favorable direction. We can disagree with one another without being disrespectful or ignorant. Civility does not have to preclude constructive criticism.
 
Question: If the teachings in Leviticus were superseded by the teachings of Jesus then why is homosexuality still considered such a grievous sin? Is it because Jesus specifically affirmed it as a sin or is it simply an instance of the Church picking and choosing which segments of the OT they wish to abide by?

This is from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church

CCC said:
Chastity and homosexuality

2357
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

141: Cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
142: CDF, Persona humana 8.

If you have a Bible handy, read the three New Testament references referred to in footnote 141.

Genuinely curious.

P.S. - I'm glad the mood of this discussion was able to move in a favorable direction. We can disagree with one another without being disrespectful or ignorant. Civility does not have to preclude constructive criticism.

So am I. Some of those early posts were HIGHLY offensive.
 
Last edited:
Question: If the teachings in Leviticus were superseded by the teachings of Jesus then why is homosexuality still considered such a grievous sin? Is it because Jesus specifically affirmed it as a sin or is it simply an instance of the Church picking and choosing which segments of the OT they wish to abide by?

Genuinely curious.

P.S. - I'm glad the mood of this discussion was able to move in a favorable direction. We can disagree with one another without being disrespectful or ignorant. Civility does not have to preclude constructive criticism.
It is a new Testement teaching also--as well as contradicts the nature of mankind's design--(IOW--contradicts Natural Law).

NT verses condemning homosexuality.
Romans 1--all of it, but particularly 27
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.


1 Corinthians 6:9
[9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
[10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.


1 Timothy 1:9
[8] Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
[9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
[10] immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
[11] in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.



EDIT: Aw snap! I see that ludahai's Catechism quote has those verses listed in the footnotes! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
This whole thread is hate speech and I reported it as such.

18. Hate Messages
Hate messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as any willful wording intended to ridicule, debase, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence and/or prejudicial actions against a group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Determined violations of this rule will be subject to incur an immediate revocation of membership.
Oh please! You're trying to censor people's opinion against the Pope. What he did has caused a controversy and it is being debated around the world.

I don't see you telling us you've reported the seemingly endless amount of threads that are blatantly anti-Muslim or even anti-atheist.
 
Oh please! You're trying to censor people's opinion against the Pope. What he did has caused a controversy and it is being debated around the world.

I don't see you telling us you've reported the seemingly endless amount of threads that are blatantly anti-Muslim or even anti-atheist.

If you read Felicity's later post, it was not the opinion of the Pope, it was some of the other posts on the first page of this thread that were highly offensive, one of which was later apologized for by the person who made the statement.
 
Read the thread. It isn't the comments about the Pope. Felicity summed it up pretty well. Clear hate speech and a clear violation of the rule. Of course, since it is PC to be anti-Catholic, it will possibly be ignored.
Isn't it against the rules to publicly demand that Mods take action? Aren't complaints, by rule, supposed to be made in private and not reported to the general public?
 
So would it be fine if I said "I thought about calling you an asshole, but I hold myself to higher standards?" Yeah...right.:roll:
Not valid! Calling another poster here an asshole is inappropriate. Calling the Pope or any person in the public domain whatever is acceptable and is part of the First Amendment rights Americans should defend to the death.

Religious freedom in the US also means the ability to express one's disgust for religion or religions and to speak against religious leaders that one disagrees with.
 
Isn't it against the rules to publicly demand that Mods take action? Aren't complaints, by rule, supposed to be made in private and not reported to the general public?

My 1st amendment right says I can tell you whatever I want to about what I complain about.:2razz::mrgreen:
 
Not valid! Calling another poster here an asshole is inappropriate. Calling the Pope or any person in the public domain whatever is acceptable and is part of the First Amendment rights Americans should defend to the death.

Religious freedom in the US also means the ability to express one's disgust for religion or religions and to speak against religious leaders that one disagrees with.

It wasn't about "the pope"--read the subsequent posts as ludahai suggested.
 
If it is done out of hatred for Jews, yes.

If it is done out of legitimate historical inquiry, no.
What kind of person would consider not believing that the Holocaust existed "legitimate historical inquiry?"

That's like saying that looking into whether it was Jews or the US government who were behind 9-11 is "legitimate historical inquiry."
 
Although the Pope's decision might have been intended to forgive the individual, I believe it was a short-sighted decision. First, former bishop Richard Williamson has not repudiated his Holocaust denial. Second, a step that ignores the Holocaust denial creates a precedent under which the Church's overall messages of tolerance and justice are undermined. Third, the decision undermines the progress that has been made under Pope John Paul II in improving Catholic-Jewish relations. In my view, the decision was a bad one. The costs for the Catholic Church outweigh any benefits.
 
Although the Pope's decision might have been intended to forgive the individual, I believe it was a short-sighted decision. First, former bishop Richard Williamson has not repudiated his Holocaust denial. Second, a step that ignores the Holocaust denial creates a precedent under which the Church's overall messages of tolerance and justice are undermined. Third, the decision undermines the progress that has been made under Pope John Paul II in improving Catholic-Jewish relations. In my view, the decision was a bad one. The costs for the Catholic Church outweigh any benefits.
The Catholic Church is not in the business of molding people's political opinions despite how some view the Church's stance on some politically sensitive issues. The Church is in the business of leading its members to live in accord with Christ's teaching.

So--for instance, The Church's teaching on abortion is not about the political aspects related to abortion or abortion funding, but rather it is concerned with the moral culpability that individuals incur related to their personal actions regarding what the church deems gravely sinful matter.

So--how that relates to sedevacantists is that the reason they were excommunicated was because they rejected the authority of the Pope in matters of faith and morals. If they reverse that stance, then even though they may hold political opinions that are contrary to the stance of the Church, they do not hold a tenet contrary to the dogmatic faith itself.

The Pope does not have to agree with political positions of people, nor vice versa--merely the dogmatic faith that has been promulgated. So reinstating them would be appropriate even though they may have political differences.


It may not be a popular, but it's appropriate. The Catholic Church is anything but a slave to what is "popular."



Now....I need to read the OP news link....:2razz::cool:
 
Last edited:
Yep--the article makes the point I was making clear....
The Vatican said the excommunications had been lifted after the bishops affirmed their willingness to accept Church teachings and papal authority.

"This act regards the lifting of the excommunications, period," he told reporters.

"It has nothing to do with the personal opinions of a person, which are open to criticism, but are not pertinent to this decree."
 
The Catholic Church is not in the business of molding people's political opinions despite how some view the Church's stance on some politically sensitive issues. The Church is in the business of leading its members to live in accord with Christ's teaching.

Felicity,

From Pope John Paul II's March 23, 2000 address at Jerusalem's Yad Vashem Museum:

I have come to Yad Vashem to pay homage to the millions of Jewish people who, stripped of everything, especially of their human dignity, were murdered in the Holocaust. More than half a century has passed, but the memories remain.

Here, as at Auschwitz and many other places in Europe, we are overcome by the echo of the heart-rending laments of so many. Men, women and children cry out to us from the depths of the horror that they knew. How can we fail to heed their cry? No one can forget or ignore what happened. No one can diminish its scale.

As Bishop of Rome and Successor of the Apostle Peter, I assure the Jewish people that the Catholic Church, motivated by the Gospel law of truth and love and by no political considerations, is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place. The Church rejects racism in any form as a denial of the image of the Creator inherent in every human being...

The world must heed the warning that comes to us from the victims of the Holocaust and from the testimony of the survivors.


In my opinion, Pope John Paul II made clear the Church's position:

1. The Holocaust is fact.
2. Millions were murdered in the Holocaust.
3. No one can forget or ignore the reality of the Holocaust.
4. The world has a responsibility to heed the "warning" about human nature that comes from the Holocaust.

Former bishop Williamson rejected Pope John Paul II's message on a matter of not politics, but fundamental morality. Williamson's Holocaust denial is inconsistent to what Pope John Paul II referred as "the Gospel law of truth and love" that broadly defines the Church's teachings.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, Pope John Paul II made clear the Church's position:

1. The Holocaust is fact.
2. Millions were murdered in the Holocaust.
3. No one can forget or ignore the reality of the Holocaust.
4. The world has a responsibility to heed the "warning" about human nature that comes from the Holocaust.

Former bishop Williamson rejected Pope John Paul II's message on a matter of not politics, but fundamental morality. Williamson's Holocaust denial is inconsistent to what Pope John Paul II referred as "the Gospel law of truth and love" that broadly defines the Church's teachings.
I agree wholeheartedly that that is the Church's official stance on the matter--and rightly so. However--the specific issue is not what is called "an article of Faith" of the Catholic Church or "pure dogma."


As it relates to whether a group is in "schism" with the Church, Church Dogma is necessarily considered. This article has a section that refers to the divisions of dogma. The last three are relevant to whether a group is in schism or not. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Dogma


Basically, one (or a group) can be at odds with Church Doctrine and teaching, and not be in schism. This is the case here. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Schism

They are wrong in their opinion, but they are willing to assent to the authority of the Church. The job now is to move closer to the revealed truth by the gradual process of recognizing that which JPII already made clear is the official Church position. Sin is a horrible thing and healing takes time. These men are on a path to healing, though not fully there yet.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it against the rules to publicly demand that Mods take action? Aren't complaints, by rule, supposed to be made in private and not reported to the general public?

I don't know, is it? I have seen many people post that they had made a complaint about a post with varying degrees of specificity in the post. I have on a couple of occasions with border-line cases that I WOULD make a report if it continued or got worse. I suppose it depends on your intentions. However, at the same time, you have to admit that a couple of the posts on the first page of this thread were HIGHLY offensive and way over the line.
 
Back
Top Bottom