Freedom of Expression in the EU?

No. But, I'm sure that isn't enough to satisfy your curiosity. :)

I find these kind of conspiracies boring, but, fortunately, some don't. If I am willing to break my Rule #2 again tonight I'll forward you some links that address it.

What makes it implausible and impossible is that the Petrine ministry, aka the Papacy aka the pope, is established in scripture and the tradition of the Church.

Scripturally, Peter begins this ministry when Jesus tells Peter that He's gonna found His church on Peter. So, it's handed directly to Peter from Jesus.

Traditionally, it has always been understood that the papal line has been unbroken from Peter to Francis. We even have a list of names.

Interesting....I know nothing...only hear things left and right...it's nice to be able to ask an expert! :)

'night all

Wait. You didn't hear from the expert on all things...
Depending on the case, the church is trying to be either a buffer or a link. What they won't tell you is that you can have a very happy relationship with God with nobody in between. That simple truth would be bad for the cash flow, though. And that is where my sermon ends.

Considering that two years ago he blamed the abuse on the bad influence of the Vatican Concil and the "decay of morals", I would argue that his answer was worse than "imperfect".


The church has changed quite drastically over the years. It once was a staunch defender of the death penalty, than its' opponent. They don't sell indulgences anymore and do not believe in limbo for unbaptized children. They used to defend quite a lot of awful stuff, and as pointed out, the theological argument behind its' homophobia is very circumstancial. The problem is that those up in the hierarchy grew up in a world which criminalized LBGT people, and were thus shaped by this bigotry. They are a relic of the past, and in this case, dragging the church down.


Honestly, I have more sympathy with the many gay Christians who do not wish to be condemned on flimsy theological reasoning then those bigoted scumbags who apply Jesus teaching very selectively at best, yet seem to make this a core tenet of their believes.


Well, that is what the bishop of Rome claims, but it is worth noting that those claims of supremacy were not taken seriously by the other bishops for centuries. The bishops of Alexandria, Constantinople and Antiocha were at some point considered the bishop of Rome's equal or even superior. It took a lot of clever politics by several popes (like pope Gregor) to establish this idea, because the theological argument behind the papal institution is a bit lacking (as someone said, just where does Jesus claim that the leader of his church has to be in Rome?).

When did he do that? He has been a champion of V2.

You are confusing doctrine with practices/rituals/policies. Doctrine is a teaching or belief based on the Church's understanding of an objective truth--the very nature of doctrine makes unchangeable as it is objective truth--you may disagree with that, but that's what the Church believes. Wheras, practices, rituals, and policies are not beliefs. Then, you have things like limbo, which is a theological theory that has neither been rejected or accepted as objectively true, they are theological developments that may never be accepted as true.


And, you have that right, but that only tells us something about you and your beliefs and attitudes.

If these teachings are taken selectively, I also then must suppose that Paul got it wrong and his writings should be stricken from the canon of scripture?


Not only him, but the Church Fathers, as well as a plain reading of scripture.


I find that lacking. It being in Rome is incidental, it could have been anywhere. That's not the theological argument. The theological argument is in the person of Peter who, according to scripture, was told by Jesus that He would build His Church on Peter and to whom the "keys" to kingdom of God were given. In scripture, we also see how the early Church defers to Peter when conflict arises.


I'll see if I can get you in touch with one :) .

Well, the Church can have a problem with this or that but the Church is not the problem.
I don't know about hallucinations but I know about bias..


why when talking about facts backed by a scientific research you need to add what basically is a disclaimer.. If your very easily to understand post gonna be misunderstood, that's on them. Those people who would misunderstood your words must have be either morons or ideologically crazed fanatics.

In other words a waste of space..

Right some more news - there are two priests, Polish professor rev. Dariusz Oko and the ninety-year-old German professor rev. Johannes Stöhr that are trouble with German 'justice'.

Seems to me he has been working with "Theologisches" for some time now. October 2012 and his article - Dariusz Oko
"Mit dem Papst gegen Homohäresie"
It is not the article in question but you BB can work from here..

The problem with understanding the Bible (same as reading the other old sources) is the world they lived in was so fundamentally different from others that even superficially similar concepts had different meanings. What he was most likely talking about was either the socially acceptable relationship between men among Romans - Paul was Roman after all - which included a powerful older man and a young man below his station - a relationship we would consider unhealthy as well, or it refered to selling sexual services at the temple, in any case it is completely unsuitable for modern relationships between consenting people.


And where does the Bible state that Bishop of Rome is gods' mouth piece? The Bible does not even state that Peter lived (and died) in Rome, there is in fact no evidence that he ever lived there. Even the famous part of Peter being the "rock" of the church could be interpreted in many different ways. The pope is so powerful because of centuries of politics and church traditions, not because it was said so in the Bible. And let us not get into the Church fathers and their many, many failings, especially Augustinus has a lot to answer for... .


When he was young, as pope he did a lot to water down a lot of its' achievements. Not to mention how he seems to have resented anything happening after 1960.

google.com/amp/s/nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna993416

Btw. I managed to get a summary of the article, and the reactions it. It seems to be even worse than expected. Not only is he painting all homosexuals as potential pedophile rapists, he also uses a language that you would expect in an article of Der Stürmer, not a theological magazine (e.g. calling homosexual "cancersous' who need to be ripped off).

Yeah....a trace at least!

Thanks Iron...

I found that now online....the whole monthly with that article by Oko as a pdf....all in German....just scroll down till either page 403 on the paper or page 14 in the pdf file

theologisches.net/files/2012%20-%20Theolog%20-%2009%20+%2010.pdf

*phew* :)

Google translate has a character limit....but its easy to copy/paste into the translator...


....give! :)

So he has a history of this behaviour.


Basically, a hater that is being prosecuted for the latest of his deliberately offensive communications.

He and the publishers of the magazine knew the law (and if they didn't, ignorance is no excuse at all).

It's sad that the Polish government has got involved. He doesn't work for them and the offence was not committed in Poland.

Yes, theology and philosophy is his job it would be weird if he was fixing cars instead. The fact you think his views are 'incorrect' and 'wrong' has nothing to do with the truth.

Why are act all surprised if I call you a commie, that is what you basically are. I can call you totalitarian if you prefer.


yes the law of taboo ...

Actually the biggest taboo in this discussion is Oko's taboo of homosexuality in the Church....

Maybe...just maybe....if the RCC opened up to homos there wouldn't be a need for lobby groups and secret networks and all that he fights against...I mean everything else like bans and forbiddance and such only drove them into the "underground", forced them to lie and to deny...all that Oko laments. And in the end didn't work at all! There are masses of homos in the Church, only hidden...

What third option could there be?

OKO not OKA - an eye..
Don't know what you mean..

Thanks...what would I do without you...


You accuse Germany indirectly the "big government" of having lotsa taboos...don't you...

well they did opened to homos in the 60' but it doesn't mean they opened to their sexual activities and seems to me all that hiding, secret groups and lobbing inside the Church is about, not about their sexual drive which would be immaterial if they wouldn't include it as a priest who voluntarily committed to the live of celibacy.


Well for priests to marry as they do the eastern church with an exception of monks. Celibacy is not a dogma anyway..


Hmm don't know about that ..maybe they do but I'm certain that some laws are operating like taboo laws, ie. such and such expression is forbidden or such and such word is forbidden, I mean is that really difficult to discern between mad ravings of a hate obsessed maniak and an inteacuall dissertations or an article focusing on describing a problem or an issue.

It obvious that German law has been triggered because you choose to take on some homosexual. Evidently - logically thinking - if you are a homosexual you cannot commit a crime and even if you do, nobody should be bold enough to openly talk about it. It is even worse if you SUSPECT (or know) that there is a group of homosexual banded together to support each other in their not so kosher activities. You are branded as a hater and a homophobe. What if you are right eh? Ah who cares!!!

Why not cover it up? eh?
That what I mean by taboo.
And then same German politician waffle easily about danger of authoritarian right in eastern Europe or about the church and pedofilia. LMAF

let me rewrite it:
They did open to homos in the 60' . They did not open to their sexual activities. Seems to me all that hiding, secret groups and lobbing inside the Church is about indulging their sexual drive. Their sexual drive which would be immaterial if they wouldn't act on it. A priest who voluntarily chosen the live of celibacy breaking his promise . Nah!

Engaging in aggressive infighting by publishing deliberately inflammatory polemics about "cliques" and "lobbies" is however a "job" he chose and a course of action he took, in full knowledge of the law.


No, just the law.

Let me help you, guys. A church is just like a comedy club. Both are in the business of telling fictional feel-good stories except that comedy clubs are honest and never claim that what you hear there is true. Where it's no longer funny is that Germans have to pay taxes to support the lies about the imaginary God, Satan, Angels, Heaven, Hell, and all the rest. Two gays banging each other is a lesser problem.

Ya, but youre not going to catch a STD at a Church.


It depends on what kind of Church and its members. If theyre are a bunch of born again weirdos like Johnny, then run!!

They don't have to....they can leave....and that they do in masses...

...In 2020 it was reported that the Catholic church in Germany had a 402,000 loss in membership, the largest ever single year decrease up to that point. The Protestant churches in Germany also had a large drop in membership of about 440,000.[41]....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany#Demographics

@Tacitus

I think we can be very confident that Paul is talking about cultic prostitution during the part of his letter to the Corinthians when he is explaining away the Greek theory that there is a kind of separation between the body and the spirit and how what one does with one's body doesn't necessarily effect the spirit by extolling the body as being made for the Lord and morality. But, the part right before that when he's talking about lawsuits among Christians in the Roman court and admonishing them for being unable resolve their conflicts and causing scandal among the faithful. It's here when he lists the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God, in that list he includes homosexuals. My greek is very rudimentary but in a conversation I had with a couple of trained classicists they explained that the term used in the bible is not about men who are attracted to other men, but men who engage in sexual activity with other men. Which, is consistent with Paul's letter to Timothy when he uses the term sodomites as contrary to the Levitical law and sound doctrine.

As far as having absolutely no shred of evidence of Peter, that's not true. Early Church Fathers have placed him there. Clement of Rome, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Hermas to name a few. But, again, whether Peter is in Rome or not is immaterial to the Petrine ministry. The Petrine ministry is established in scripture and has continued throughout the millenia. No doubt the temporal power of the Pope was strengthened through politics, diplomacy, and the sort--it was essential for the Church to survive; but, the essence of the Papacy isn't temporal power, but the promotion and defense of the Gospel (which happens through doctrine of faith) and bringing people to Christ.


Well if we're only to rely on the perfect then we'll have no one or no thing to rely on.


I beg to differ. He was unwilling to go the way of Kung, Schillebeckx and those guys and chart a course separated from Tradition, a course that was never meant or inherent in V2.

In the article that the article you link to that "discusses" B16's article, he does expound on the harm the sexual revolution has caused, but to say he resented anything happening after 1960 is hard to square with what he has said or written since 1960. I've read enough of his work to know he is not the ogre people like to betray him as. Read Salt of the Earth.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/41013/full-text-of-benedict-xvi-essay-the-church-and-the-scandal-of-sexual-abuse

Did they discover that they can just dial 666 and chat with the Man? Then 1 for God, 2 for Satan?

Honestly, I think many (if not most) have only been members out of tradition, not real believers anymore...but then the abuse scandals started....and in this technological world spiritualism gets often mocked...maybe even the experiences with islamists put the whole concept of religions and their commandments into a spotlight....it's a plethora of reasons to actually do the step and terminate the membership.

I would call myself spiritual...I don't think god is a white man with a long white beard and I don't really believe in heaven and hell (and Satan:), that's all man made concepts, but I do think there is alot more to this life and this world than our actual knowledge and our limited brain can know or comprehend.

I'm open to a form of afterlife, of re-incarnation...that there is more to each of us than only our rotting flesh...that there is some thing...call it soul....that lives on...somehow, somewhere.

I totally reject all those human concepts, with these human made rules in these holy books written by humans and these commandments and promises and threats...aka religion/church...to often they are just wrong!

I too think I don't need a "middle man" I have to pay for his services to connect me....

There are alot like me out there....wonderers....wanderers....not non-believers....maybe if the Churches can't give any better answers anymore, their time is truly running out?

Aka mindless followers?


Brilliant people like me don't have to lift rocks. We know by extrapolation that it's always ten times worse than we suspect.


BB, you were doing so well up to this moment...and then this disappointment...


According to THEM, it's just another form of religion. Like atheism...You just can't escape God - just like you can't escape the gravity of the universe so may want to reconsider your blasphemies before it's too late.

Summarizing...You are bad, BB, and like me - except for that "soul" thing.

Why should you fare better than me? I get disappointed all the time...suck it up! ;)

Even the word "soul" is christian/religious....I'm still looking for something better for that..."thing"....

That what a debate is all about. Especially intellectual debate, It is not there to appease politicians and interest groups. is not there to pander to those who are stronger or in power. Is there to challenge, question and probe!

If that is inflammatory to some - that is too bad. Suck it up and man up!

I guess you don't get it as a totalitarian to the core..
Oh let me give you an example:
Let say that censorship and taboos are imbedded in law and you can make only such argument or pass such a law as the Church will allow you. Those who dare to change that principle are going to be punished and silenced. Do you like it? Do you think is fine?

No, so why are you trying to do the same. The only difference between my exmaple and your prefect world is that that is your church and your dogmas and your views that are in charge.


Don't hide behind the law. German Nuremberg laws were fully legal - that was the law!


F...off clown!
If i want a comedy relive I don't need you.. Why are you badgering in here/ seeking attention again? Get lost!

You need a new word - "relief".


Barging, not badgering. Just like you - for attention.


Funny. How about it, Mr. Openminded?

Good point (as are many of your points), so point taken!