Fighting to build peace?

“The forthcoming encyclical on globalisation will likely deal with these issues in a more comprehensive way, though it seems that the population question may prove controversial. Hopefully, differences of view on population will not undermine current global efforts to reduce hunger and poverty.”
While a difference of view on population might be reasonable, continued coercion of women into unwanted fertility by papal decree is untenable in civilized society. Unfortunately papal intransigence is sure to continue undermining global efforts to reduce hunger and poverty

Some articles here should have health warnings on them. I nearly choked on my coffee when I read this sentence:

"Curiously the Pope’s January statement received little analysis in the media, despite the papacy being a major moral actor in international diplomacy ..."

This is the same bloke who didn't understand the diplomatic problem involved in rehabilitating a holocaust denier until the Chancellor of Germany was forced to pick up the phone and point it out to him: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAw8etaq2WFAblaExiQ31ZZuJtPQD967N3DO0

Even his cardinals are publicly stating he got that one wrong: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/why-the-pope-should-use-his-google-20090209-827y.html

The same head of state who didn't see a diplomatic issue in quoting a medieval anti-islamic text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy

Regardless of what you think of Ratzinger's motivation in these two bungles, they most definitely reveal that diplomatically he's not very sharp. Further, his diplomatic gaffs are having the effect of squandering whatever moral authority the papacy might otherwise have been able to claim.

Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae as far back as 1968 (said):
"Responsible parenthood implies therefore, that husband and wife recognise fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values (#10)."
In my view he had the order nearly completely wrong. My preference is for a hierarchy of parental duties which put society and family ahead of themselves and which leaves whichever god they claim to follow out of the picture.
I note that the Roman Catholic Church is reintroducing indulgences in some localities. If there is any money left over after paying the sexual abuse claims could it be used to compensate the unbelievers for the taxes they unwillingly paid to fund the Sydney World Youth Day (week) debacle?

Meanwhile some of the most strident supporters of the never-ending "war on terror", and of the USA military-industrial-"entertainment" complex, and the fight to the death stuggle with Islam, are right wing catholics, especially of the opus dei variety.

Opus dei was very much favoured by the previous pope, and even encouraged by the present pope in his previous function as the doctrinal enforcer of the "faith".

Plus the church has always been an integral part of the western imperial project. Even providing the ideological support to that project via the LIE of bringing "christ" and "civilisation" to the "heathen" unchurched masses.

This panel portrays in graphic starkness the role of the church in the Western imperial project.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/Orozco/panel13.html

This process of conquest is still occurring

To my knowledge the Pope has never addressed the issue of short selling.
Short selling is the fraud of selling what you do not own in the hope of buying it back at a reduced price. It is one fo the major causes of the current financial crisis and is much used by hedge funds to subvert share prices and even national currencies. Short selling has created a few billionaires and massive world poverty.
Social justice will never be with us unless this abuse is banned.

So God's Rottweiler made some sort of pronouncement about world affairs.
I completely missed it. He is irrelevant anyway because if we do come up with ways of solving the numerous problems that exist in the world the solutions won't come from that source.
Benedict also laments the “immense military expenditure” which diverts resources from development efforts. Do I see the Vatican opening its purse?
A good reason why religions are of no use in solving world problems is that religions are partisan in nature, and cannot be trusted to work for the common good.
Solving problems will take putting personal agendas aside and working together. The Pope and the Catholic Church as an organization have too much baggage to be of any use. Maybe we could use their money, but we won't get any. Not even the Tax Man sees any Catholic money

Following on from the other comments and particularly those of jpw2040 one of the distinguishing features of the right wing sect now being brought back into the fold of the "mother church" is that they promote the idea that only their "traditionalist" "religion" is true, and that ALL other religions, including liberal catholics and ALL protestants are entirely false.

Thus implying that these "traditionalists" have a "moral" duty, even a "god"-given mandate to work toward a theocratic state, using whatever means they can to achieve this outcome.

This righteous mind-set,and intention,is shared by all of the right wing "traditionalists" within the "catholic" church. They were smiled upon and their activities were encouraged by the previous pope and his rottweiler.

Such people now hold many influential positions in the church. The Sydney branch of the franchise being a case in point---it is infested with opus dei clones.

Another aspect of this mind-set is that it considers ALL attempts at ecumenical dialogue and attempts at mutual understanding to be undesirable.

ONLY WE possess the "truth" therefore what is there to enter into dialogue about.

All of you sinners, heretics and "relativists" should submit to the authority of the "magisterium" under the leadership of "christs vicar".

Such an attitude precludes even the possibility of peace and both implicitly and explicitly encourages the continuation of conflict.

Come on, lets get real here, the old papa is past it and should
be out tending the roses in his last days. This bunch of old men
in Rome, wielded far too much power for far too long. The world
is moving on.

Now they might be able to convince some third world and even first
world politicians, that they won't get their ticket to heaven,
unless they play by Catholic rules. All this seems to be achieving
is denying third world women the right to good family planning and
contraception. I note that the Vatican does not use up its own
resources to feed the masses, for the costly pomp and ceremony of
Rome continue onwards.

If anything, the pope should be charged with environmental degradation
and sent to jail, for his stance on family planning is simply not
sustainable.

He might want more little Catholics to increase his powers, but I
note that its only in the third world, where people are less educated
and more gullible, that they still believe his nonsense. Everywhere
else it seems, those church pews are emptying out, as the old
fogies who still believe his dogma, are dying off.

It's quite interesting that people are quick to dismiss the Pope and his words as irrelevant, except when it is useful to blame the Catholic Church for overpopulation and the spread of AIDS. I am sure his words are irrelevant to many, and that's fine with me. Certainly I can't recall any Popes endorsing promiscuity to accompany their anti-contraception stance. In fact, I can't think of any Pope who has actively encouraged large families OR sex with multiple partners. I come from a two-child Catholic family. My parents managed to maintain a sustainable family without angering the Pope, so I'm not sure why others can't. Of course, if you look to sociological evidence, third world families tend to have lots of kids to ensure that some survive to continue the family and to look after the parents in old age. This happens in Catholic and non-Catholic communities.

I'm also rather puzzled about how Opus Dei came to play a part in this debate. I get the feeling, Ho Hum - and correct me if I'm wrong - that Opus Dei is a much misunderstood organisation. It is not a sneaky, insidious political lobby. It is an organisation within the Catholic Church whose members commit themselves to living productive lives as members of the broader community while maintaining the fullest possible communion with God. They may be out of touch, but their existence is no threat to anyone. Dan Brown has a lot to answer for when it comes to public fear and outrage at this group. I, personally, would be much more alarmed at the apparent "infestation" (to borrow Ho Hum's term) of Freemasons in our society. Even then, having had many friends and family who are (or were) masons, I think we have much bigger issues to worry about than people seeking a bit of brotherhood and a "hand up" in society.

This guy is supposed to be Gods rep, and therefore infallible.
What a joke. At least they aren't dying of syphillus these days but the "godliness" is pretty hard to see!
Otokonoko, it is precisely the "hand up" that people worry about.
You see you can let people grow and accumulate wealth based on virtue (ability and results), or by association. They tend to be mutually exclusive. At school I was taught that ability and honor and persistence are desirable traits. Talking to catholic educated folks, they were taught they were "special" and it was more important to be faithful (and loyal) than to be correct.
People see no problems with these "old boy" networks yet there is little difference between mafia "families" who steal and catholic associations that pay no tax and work to influence politicians in secret. If they cannot work openly and honestly...what are they hiding?
The fact that creationist lies are allowed to be taught to children here with no discussion shows how pervasive the religious nuts are these days. At least in the US it went to the courts.
If they were *really* interested in God they would study His works in detail and learn from it. This is science, and they repress it. This shows that Power is the focus, not God or Good or truth.

Ozandy, that's precisely what I'm saying. Opus Dei is not a political lobby, nor is it an 'old boys club'. It's a lay organisation dedicated to living lives according to stricter than normal application of Catholic rules. That's why I said I'd be more worried about Freemasons.

As for creationist lies, I can assure you that my Catholic school taught me evolution. One thing that is often forgotten, as well, is that John Paul II was a fan of evolutionary theory.

*I can't recall any Popes endorsing promiscuity to accompany their anti-contraception stance. In fact, I can't think of any Pope who has actively encouraged large families *

Oto, of course no pope would endorse promiscuity. Fact is that
when people are married, they have sex, which is perfectly natural
and unless family planning methods are available, they will have
kids that they don't want.

Sexual urges are natural and normal, crossing your legs for Jesus
are not natural and normal, that is the reality of it.

Your parents in Australia, would have had access to all the family
planning methods available in the first world, from the pill to
having their tubes tied. My point is that people in the third
world should have the same rights and nobody has lobbied stronger
to deny them these rights, then the Vatican.

When I hear of women in places like the Philippines, who have
popped out 8 kids and plead for have a knot put in the line,
but the Catholic Church, controlling many hospitals, denies them
that choice, I become really really pissed off.

The pope himeself might not openly promote ever bigger families,
but his pro life agencies in the past, have done exactly that.

Thanks for your views, Yabby. I can understand where you are coming from. Certainly, I agree that nations have to make their own minds up about laws. And it is also certainly true that responsible nations will allow access to all of the population control facilities (sounds like a dry and unfeeling term, but in reality that is what it is) that are available today. Even in the most Catholic of countries, there are non-Catholics and people who can make up their own minds about what they do and don't want to do. In that regard, I think lobbying for banning of birth control is irresponsible and unreasonable.

The thrust of my argument, though, is more that the Catholic Church cannot should the whole blame for population problems, despite what some people may argue. If you look at the fertility rates across the world, many countries with few or no Catholics sit at the top of the table. While we can criticise the Catholic Church's stance on birth control, we cannot ignore the other reasons for high population growth rates in poorer countries.

To clear up my own stance, I am both pro choice and pro life. I think that families should have the right to choose and to access safe ways of carrying out their choice. I, however, would like to think that I would choose life every time.

A final note: my parents were not in Australia. They had very limited access to any forms of birth control in Rhodesia, not because of any religious mandate but because of economic and political sanctions.