As I said in the previous thread, the Pope actually went against the current Church teachings about homosexuality with this speech, so I’m not surprised he’s having to backpedal.

He also said that Pope Benedict’s comments were “quite difficult to interpret”

Premise: the Pope would never say anything hateful.

Evidence: the Pope just said something hateful.

Aye, Cardinal Cormac, cognitive dissonance can be quite difficult on ya.

Well fuck knows, if there is any greater danger to the human species than our dying out from lack of procreation, I don’t know what it is!  There are only 6-1/2 billion people on the planet!  Get fucking people!  I screwed God all up cuz my GRS rendered me infertile, but you gays and lesbians have no excuse!  Take one for the team!  Make sure that humanity does not perish from the Earth!  But don’t raise them because you are scientifically* proven to be bad parents.  Give the kids to some straight people.

*scientifically=in their imagination

Can’t really say that this is surprising given the reaction to his grossly homophobic (and, as an anthropologist, historically and ethnographically “factually challenged”) rant.  Sort of shreds the whole notion of “papal infallibility,” but then I was raised sorta fundie and am currently a nonbeliever.

On a related note, why do I always think of Nosferatu when I see the Pope’s picture?

Premise: the Pope would never say anything hateful.

Evidence: the Pope just said something hateful.

“Are you saying you didn’t say anything hateful?”

“When the pope says it, it isn’t hateful!”

What the Pope meant to say was that the world needs more people and more environment.  So I’m sure all the Catholic churches will be razed and replaced by gardens which will allow for married couples to couple together in the manner of Adam and Eve, provide for the feeding of the poor, and help make a cooler planet.  At least, that’s what I think his clarification calls for.  Or I’m mistaking it for something I read on treehugger.com.

And if that’s not his plan, I still intend to be naked more often, and I must attempt to procreate even though I got a vasectomy.  If it worked for the Virgin Mary—and she was a freakin virgin—are you doubting God couldn’t do just as much of a miracle to/for me?  It’s my responsibility to keep trying to allow God His miracle, at least that’s going to be my motivation the next time I have sex.  My Kingdom Come, His will be done, and all that.  I doubt my girlfriend will go for it, but I will keep my higher goals a secret between me, the Holy Ghost, and the Father/Son combo.

I’m starting to like having this Ratzo Rizzo guy as Pope.  He’s into trees, is putting solar panels on the Vatican rooftops, believes in evolution and (hard) science, and his face reminds me of a toothy combo of Gollum and Billy Barty.  Sure, he’s a total dickwad when it comes to gays, but he’s surrounded by men in dresses and he and they are forbidden from marrying.  And it’s not as if his beard is going to be on his chin, after all.

But it’s still nice to see a Pope responding to image problems.  Sure it’s a panicky, off-balance response.  And sure it’s bordering on incoherence.  But at least he has a clue about how stupid he sounds.  As an atheist, I welcome all the doubt a Pope can muster.  It’s my hope that all religious leaders can be so incoherent and rambling.  Your move next, Rick Warren.

Even if the backpedaling is patently bull****, I’m impressed that they felt the need to backpedal.  That’s miles better than the “The Pope is always right and everybody else should just shut up” or the “The Church is holding the line on morality even if the rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket” responses, which is what you get from a lot of Bishops.  IOW, everybody made one of the most reactionary churches on the face of the earth “clarify” its stance! Woot!

The Pope was just emphasizing “the responsibility on humans to procreate”?

When is he going to start? When is he going to tell his priests and nuns it’s their turn?

Gay couples with children resemble “traditional families” - and, statistically speaking, add more new humans to the planet - a Hell of a lot more than the Pope and his fellow leaders of the Church. (At least, those leaders who actually follow the rules the Church sets out.)

He’s not just an anti-gay bigot. He’s also contradicting himself with every word. I thought the Jesuits taught these boys better.

The Pope was just emphasizing “the responsibility on humans to procreate”?

There is a rather bitter irony in that coming from a nominal celibate.

believes in evolution

Ratzinger pushes the “no evidence for macro-evolution” line like every other Old Earth Creationist. http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2509

I’ve also read him claiming that human brains and/or sociality could not have evolved from other apes without divine intervention, which puts him firmly in the Intelligent Design Creationism camp.

He does not believe in evolution. He just says the word so the kids will think he’s hip.

I’ll consider listening to Vatican-speak about procreating when the Pope has a womb.

This is Pandagon, so here’s my two fucking cents, Pandagon-style:

Who gives a bloody shit what this Chrito-Fascist bigot motherfucker thinks of human sexulaity? The myoginistic bullshit from these fascist rightwing God-loving bigots is nauseating.

Don’t be fooled by Ratzi’s “backpeddling,” he is a chuavanistic motherfucker who wants all women (particularly feminists and womyn of colour) barefoot and fucking pregnant. Ratzi - like all motherfucking Christian fascist authority figures - hate women and gays.

This is why i hate the motherfucking church and all Christo-fascist motherfuckers like the Pope, dobson and Falwell…And don’t even get me started on that Christ-worshipping asshole Rick Warren, that fascist motherfucker from Orange Fucking County.

...So, now will John Edwards give me a job?

You’ll note, UglyFace, that you are the only commenter to have used the word “motherfucker” in comments, or in posts.  Since it’s a nasty, misogynistic phrase, this is not surprising.

Attempt at satire FAIL.

Why are our worst enemies always gay homophobes? Everyone knows Papa Ratzi is really really close with his handsome personal assistant, Cardinal Ganswein.

I guess so long as he has his, he doesn’t want us to have any.

Ratzi - like all motherfucking Christian fascist authority figures - hate women and gays.

Well, yeah.

The Pope isn’t anti-gay, he just thinks gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry or hold any of the jobs he himself has held, he thinks discrimination against gays shouldn’t be illegal, and he thinks gays are destroying the world?  Okay, glad we cleared that up.

asdf,

You’re right about “believes in evolution”.  I think the official Vatican line is somewhere along the Intelligent Design front, which is where Christians who believe in scientific evidence (here comes a football analogy) punt rather than continue their offensive drive (which would be the Creation Story) and say “Yeah, evolution happened.  But it was God’s playbook that allowed it to occur.”  The other side is then put on offense, forced to prove the inexistence of God, and flat-out can’t do so, because they’re scientists and tend to look at real evidence rather than silly skygod mythology*.

I should have said this Pope “cops to the overwhelming truth of evolution but refuses to see it outside of a God-centered viewpoint”.

*Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulhu, Baal, and Andy Dick The Peon of Destruction worshippers: sorry for the slight.

Religion is a fraud.  It is the use of an imaginary sky daddy to enforce the patriarchy as well as to keep the majority of followers under the thumb of kings and the princes of religion.

There is no god.  religion is nothing but a hateful con game.  Women as well as LGBT/T folk are oppressed and harmed by these pious frauds.

No gods, No Masters

“I’ll consider listening to Vatican-speak about procreating when the Pope has a womb. “

Here, here! 

“Women as well as LGBT/T folk are oppressed and harmed by these pious frauds. “

Agreed.  Religion is clearly the male ego deifying itself.  It was manufactured by men, is comprised of men and benefits only men. 

No gods, No Masters <———my life’s motto.

Pope = bad. Gay = good. There! QED; pope refuted. There are lots of arguments why of course, but I don’t need to make them now do I, since all this guy did was put on a fussy looking robe and hat and claim morals by fiat.

“Well fuck knows, if there is any greater danger to the human species than our dying out from lack of procreation, I don’t know what it is!  There are only 6-1/2 billion people on the planet!  Get fucking people!  I screwed God all up cuz my GRS rendered me infertile, but you gays and lesbians have no excuse!  Take one for the team!  Make sure that humanity does not perish from the Earth!”

Such things can be taken too far, but am I the only one who thinks it relevant that if everyone was to become Catholic tomorrow and follow the church’s teachings, it would mean the frickin’ end of the human race?

Jon,

I should have said this Pope “cops to the overwhelming truth of evolution but refuses to see it outside of a God-centered viewpoint”.

In all fairness, he’s the Pope—do you really expect him to see ANYTHING outside of a God-centered viewpoint?

I’ll consider listening to Vatican-speak about procreating when the Pope has a womb.

It’s rumored that she once did - however, it’s historically discredited for the most part.  It was an interesting book, though, and is an interesting idea.

On a related note, why do I always think of Nosferatu when I see the Pope’s picture?

Because you’re a discerning and sensitive individual, DrDick.

If everyone keeps listening to the Pope, we are going to pro-create ourselves out of existence.

I usually try to avoid judging people by appearances, but I’ve never liked the looks of any public figure less than I like this guy’s. He’s the most evil-looking SOB since Joe McCarthy.

I think the official Vatican line is somewhere along the Intelligent Design front

No, the Vatican’s official position is theistic evolution. Your own confusion of this with Intelligent Design is exactly what the creationists want. But the stances are philosophically distinct in important ways.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/design.html

(Others have said it but my teeth are gnashing too much to sit mum.)

Responsibility to procreate?  RESPONSIBILITY????  When the human species is in danger of extinction, call me, Benny boy.

I don’t know what it means that Benedict is favoring Intelligent Design Creationism over the Vatican’s own teachings. Perhaps the ID movement is infecting Catholicism, or perhaps he is too lazy to understand the difference.

“Yeah, evolution happened.  But it was God’s playbook that allowed it to occur.”

This, for example, is an assertion of theistic evolution. The Discovery Institute wants you to misunderstand the distinction so that you will buy their books and support “teaching the controversy” in public schools.

The difference is that in theistic evolution, there is no controversy. Evolution happened just like the scientists say it did. God may have fiddled with the fundamental constants of the universe, or whatever, but that’s in the realm of cosmology rather than biology, and biological evolution is accepted.

The Disco Institute instead pushes “irreducible complexity” to claim that biological evolution did not and could not occur without multiple divine interventions throughout the epochs. It’s a Watchmaker Argument where God needs to constantly keep winding the watch. Incompetent.

“responsibility on humans to procreate”

What in the name of sweet shiznit FOR?? Aren’t there already freakin’ enough of us?

Once again, Fred Clark at Slacktivist reminds me how few genuine Christians there are in the world, and how glad I am that he is one and that he can write so well: 

Clean Shoes

It really highlights out just how un-Biblical the Pope’s statements were, and the Pope is supposed to be a guy who knows the Bible inside and out.

The cardinal went on to say that the pope was only trying to emphasise the importance of the family, and the responsibility on humans to procreate.

So how often has Benedict “gone forth and multiplied????? I have been watching the gay rights debate for 30 years now. I have often heard people claim to have moral objections to gay equality, but I’ve never heard them enunciate a moral principle, <u>applied consistently,</u> that gays violate. This comes close, but Benedict clearly doesn’t acknowledge that it applies just as much to the celibate as it does to the gays.

He’s the most evil-looking SOB since Joe McCarthy.

Agreed. I flinch with terror every time I see his picture. It’s those horrible sunken skull-eyes.

...and the teeth. And the ears. Damn, he’s scary.

Come on, people.
For so many crying foul about the mean ol’ Pope’s view on homosexuality it’s kind of odd seeing these same people make fun of the way he looks.

Is that reactionary feminism?  “Oh, so you aren’t as feminist as me.  Well that figures because you’re a braindead, male, misongynist bastard!  And you’re ugly too!!”
Just seems silly.  I mean if it’s simply us vs them, then why not concede that “them” is different from “us” and they will always be.  Making what you’re doing little more than preaching to the choir.

Also, I’ve read a few slams about Papal infallibility and how this supposed backpedalling as a contradiction to that notion.  1st, not everything the Pope says is infallible.  This should be pretty obvious to a mass of atheists hyper-concerned with the happenings in the Catholic Church, who are rationalists, highly-intelligent and well informed…...... Well, I guess that just makes you as infallible.

The Pope only speaks infallibly on matters of morals and faith.  But that’s not the whole of it.  The Pope does not develop any new doctrines.  He only formalizes extant doctrines and expresses logical consequences that are entailed by those existing doctrines.

Also, Mnemosyne quoted:

“It really highlights out just how un-Biblical the Pope’s statements were, and the Pope is supposed to be a guy who knows the Bible inside and out.”

No, the Pope isn’t the guy who is supposed to know the Bible inside and out.  For Catholics Scripture is one element.  There is also sacred Tradition. 

No on to his comments….. so?  He disagrees with you.  Big deal.  At least he’s not expressing himself as disgustingly as the majority of you are.

Atheist/Feminist/Whatever: “I hate Christianity, it’s comprised of moronic faith-heads that couldn’t chew gum and walk at the same time.  Fuck them all!”

Friend of A/F/W: “did you hear that the Pope disagrees with homosexuality?”

Atheist/Feminist/Whatever: “WHAT?!?!?!?!?  How fucking dare he!  I’m going to make a blog posting about how terrible this is.”

You already had hate for this guy and everything he stands for.  Like preaching to the choir is going to change anything?  Well, it might.  It spurred me to post.  And further helped me understand how truly rational, reasonable and intelligent alot of outspoken atheistic, feministic progressives are.  Thanks!!

Also, I’ve read a few slams about Papal infallibility and how this supposed backpedalling as a contradiction to that notion.

The Pope’s original comments were a contradiction to currently established Catholic dogma.  His backpedaling is taking him back to what current dogma actually says.  Basically, the Pope publicly contradicted the current teachings of the Church about homosexuality and is now having to retreat like mad because he has not, as you pointed out, established a new doctrine to override the current one.

No, the Pope isn’t the guy who is supposed to know the Bible inside and out.  For Catholics Scripture is one element.  There is also sacred Tradition.

Look, I know we Catholics aren’t really big on reading the Bible for ourselves, but I sure as hell expect my priest to be able to read and interpret the book, what with that seminary education and all. 

If the tradition is in direct conflict with the words in the Bible as it seems to be here, are you arguing that tradition always takes precedence over the Bible?

Oh noes, Tipsy, gay people criticizing the Pope for being anti-gay! Will the insanity never cease!

“Oh noes, Tipsy, gay people criticizing the Pope for being anti-gay! Will the insanity never cease!”

What does that mean?  Anti-gay? 
If looked at from another perspective, maybe he’s very concerned about the individual and he disagrees with actions that the person performs.

But regardless.  Gay is merely an adjective to describe the person.  It’s a trait/characteristic of some people.  So, what you’re saying is that he’s anti their behavior or a trait about them.  Okay.  Sounds simple enough.  Are there any traits or characteristic behavior of any other group of people that you’re “anti” towards?  Can you be “anti” that behavior and still not hate the person, wish the worst for the person, want that person to suffer?  Sure you can. 
It’s called caring about someone.

Dude, the Pope is anti-gay, as apparently are you. Revel in it. Own it. He certainly does.

“The Pope’s original comments were a contradiction to currently established Catholic dogma.  His backpedaling is taking him back to what current dogma actually says. “

Contradiction of currently established Catholic dogma doesn’t make sense.  Because if what he was doing was expressing a logical consequence or formalizing a previously non-formalized bit of dogmatic teaching…. then there would be no need to back pedal.  He would be in the right to make such declarations.
But there is no “currently established dogma”.  In any case it would be the same historic dogma, simply reiterated to possibly envelope more modern trends.

” Basically, the Pope publicly contradicted the current teachings of the Church about homosexuality and is now having to retreat like mad because he has not, as you pointed out, established a new doctrine to override the current one. .”

Even if he did, he can do that.  Not all teachings are a matter of orthodoxy.  Not all teachings are a matter of established Catholic doctrine (Limbo).
But you should read what you wrote (maybe you did).  Why would the pope backpedal (if he even is)?  Because of a corrective feature within the Catholic Church?  Seems like a pretty nice set up if the man who is the main representative felt compelled to adjust his views when they didn’t mesh with the established approach of that religious body.  Again, assuming that all of this correct.

“Dude, the Pope is anti-gay, as apparently are you. Revel in it. Own it. He certainly does. “

As apparently I am?  You don’t even know me.  Nice to have you jump to such bold conclusions.  Maybe you did the same thing with the Pope.  Maybe your views really aren’t that well informed.  If you could do it with me you could do it with anyone.

But again, what is anti-gay?

What does that mean?  Anti-gay?
If looked at from another perspective, maybe he’s very concerned about the individual and he disagrees with actions that the person performs.

Disagreement? It’s none of his business. There’s nothing wrong with being gay. It’s wrong to tell people that it’s wrong. It’s wrong to spread lies about gay people, and that makes him anti-gay. “Anti-gay” means “anti-gay-people.”

It’s wrong to spread fear of gay people by suggesting, as the Pope has, that gay people are a threat to civilization. His comments will lead to gay bashings. It is a homophobic thing to say. He is spreading hatred of gay people.

The closet kills. The Pope wants gay people to go back into the closet. Ergo, he wants them to die. You support him. You want gay people back in the closet. Ergo, you want them to die. That’s what it means to be anti-gay.