Viewing Thread:
"The Pope and Natural Law"

As you may have seen, the current Pope, Benedict XVI, is taking what many see as a bit of a step backward in declaring the UK's potential law on Equality to be against the Church's best interests.

While he's not slamming the law itself, he has accused it of making the Catholic church unable to continue without accepting gay people and women into the positions it has previously maintained that they shouldn't be in.

Now it's important to understand the history of this before going straight for the throat and accusing the Pope of sexism, it's pretty important to the Church historically not to have women priests and they've only really just come around to accepting gay people.

Not that it comes from the bible anyway, but then a lot of the things in the bible have been mis-translated (having 3 kings at the crib for instance, there is no mention of number or of royalty) including gay relationships (which were around at the time and no-where in the bible explicitly says anything against them).

Does it surprise me? No. The current Pope (and most of the Vatican it seems) is very old fashioned and believes that this point of view will save the church rather than anything more forward thinking.

So, thoughts, comments? Does he have any point at all or is Pope Benedict just going with the current consensus of the Vatican?

As you may have seen, the current Pope, Benedict XVI, is taking what many see as a bit of a step backward in declaring the UK's potential law on Equality to be against the Church's best interests.

While he's not slamming the law itself, he has accused it of making the Catholic church unable to continue without accepting gay people and women into the positions it has previously maintained that they shouldn't be in.

Now it's important to understand the history of this before going straight for the throat and accusing the Pope of sexism, it's pretty important to the Church historically not to have women priests and they've only really just come around to accepting gay people.

Not that it comes from the bible anyway, but then a lot of the things in the bible have been mis-translated (having 3 kings at the crib for instance, there is no mention of number or of royalty) including gay relationships (which were around at the time and no-where in the bible explicitly says anything against them).

Does it surprise me? No. The current Pope (and most of the Vatican it seems) is very old fashioned and believes that this point of view will save the church rather than anything more forward thinking.

So, thoughts, comments? Does he have any point at all or is Pope Benedict just going with the current consensus of the Vatican?

Just as a pedantic sub note, there was never any mention of the number of "kings" at the crib. It just said a "number of". It was one of the questions on the quiz after all :D

And to me I think this is a bigger thing than many are making it out to be (not the church). I believe that this may be the beginning of the "real" end for the churces.

They haven't played a massive part in society for a long time now (mainstream), but they have pretty much been left alone too. Now it appears they are being bullied about, and forced to change their ways.

The church has always existed as semi-one foot out the door kind of culture, but the last 10 years have thoroughly changed that. Now it's going to go downhill a lot faster.

I think the Church itself won't be too affected, there are many people unhappy with society at the moment across the world and it tends to push people towards the Church rather than away from it. As a ideal the Church has been through much tougher things than this.

The Pope obviously just reflects the Catholic Church, which is the one everyone looks at for these sort of things due to Rome and The Vatican, but there are far more hardline Churches out there.

My own view is that over time the 'heads' of the Church have become increasingly detached from the members of the Church and they're trying to pull in their power more by becoming more hardline. I could see some Catholic Churches pulling away from this, even though they are supposed to be intrinsically linked to the Pope.

Then, of course, we have to seperate this country from the World. If you're talking about religion and 'church' (place of worship) then there are many countries where it would be unfathomable to see the people moving away from their church. The UK has become more secular though over time and scandals haven't helped, as with any other body where a responsibility rests such as The Police Force, but any entity can move on from their past as long as they show that something has been done to correct it.

But reports show that people are returning to religion for various reasons, even if it's to pray that Labour don't get back into power (or, give it another 4 years, The Conservatives).

Warhunt wrote:
> Just as a pedantic sub note, there was never any mention of the
> number of "kings" at the crib. It just said a
> "number of". It was one of the questions on the quiz
> after all :D
>

Pretty much what I said :) Generally accepted, to the extent of advent scenes in churches, but not written in the Bible.

I myself am steering back to the church a bit by the way. I want to believe, and feel (slightly) that I have been forced away from it by education and society.

We are taught to be dubious of it, to be more intelligent than to need it. And now I'm almost embarrased to say I want to go back with my tail between my legs :D

"You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination."

I am happy to agree with that rule myself 0_o

Joking aside, it's true. The church has to accept differences that they do not agree with religiously but other religions are allowed to flaunt rules because of their religion. Random eh?

Do you think the governent would dare do the same with the other religions in England?

Alfonse wrote:
> "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an
> abomination."

This comes from a passage about the laws laid down by man, including not having sex with a woman during certain times of the month and other things that were frowned upon by the society at the time, as with lines like 'suffer a witch to live..' etc.

Whatever. I'm still pretty sure it's supposed to be the word of God.

The way I can see it, people can either take the book seriously, or twist it to meet their own moral values.

And they do don't they?

Still pb made a valid point to the discussion. So it's not whatever :) It really is confused in general with the word of god, to the word of man.