Sancho, you are of course correct, South America is very
much Catholic and in recent years they were still fighting in places
like Peru and Chile, to deny people the right to a divorce, for in
those countries, divorce was not legal, due to past Catholic influence.

I let Kenny's comment pass, for I think he really does not know much
about the subject, prefering to have a general rant as anything that
he considers "left wing" on OLO.

In fact most people arn't aware of the huge army employed by the
Vatican, to affect politics globally and do their lobbying.

http://www.population-security.org/cffc-97-02.htm

gives a bit of an insight, as to how complex that lobbying really
is, far greater then most people would imagine.

RobP, I gather that the infallibility claim does not apply to the
everyday life of the popes, but just to certain proclamations that
they make "ex cathedra" IIRC, they call it. That is when they
are meant to be in touch with the Almighty himself, so cannot
apparently be wrong.

On a more realistic note, the way I've read it, the last pope
was around for a long time and had a particular chip on his
shoulder about sexual matters, right back to the days when Vatican
advisors were advising Paul-6th to approve the pill.

JP led the conservative battle going on at the Vatican and was
made the next pope, so all this conservative dogma about sex was
made Catholic law. The price paid by third world women is of
course enormous. Never mind their suffering for of course according
to Catholic dogma, suffering is noble. Thats why those Opus Dei
people have little whips and whip themselves.

Its really quite freaky stuff, when you start to explore it a bit.

I don't care what they do, its imposing their beliefs on others,
via the law, that I object to.

Aaah, Indonesia morns today, and as some of you are no doubt aware,

*Abdur Rahman Wahid (#1)
a.k.a. Gus Dur

passed away last night.

"Selamat Jalan Gus Dur"
(Good/Safe travel Gus Dur)

He was according to some of the people that I have spoken to popular with the local people for not taking himself too seriously, as evidenced by the fact he congratulated and supported the activities of a very famous Indonesian comedian who (who died quite some time ago after been hit by a car) who brought much joy and comic relief to Indonesian politics, as opposed to others we could mention who had a habit of locking comedians and satirists up.

He was Islam NU, known for not having an excessive amount of "regulations" but who hold to the importance of basic precepts, like being kind to others and not unnecessarily causing others to have pain in their Hearts.

My wife is non-practising NU ...

>>RobP, I gather that the infallibility claim does not apply to the everyday life of the popes, but just to certain proclamations that they make "ex cathedra" IIRC, they call it. That is when they are meant to be in touch with the Almighty himself, so cannot apparently be wrong.<<

Yabby,

Strictly speaking, you could well be right.

I was, I'd say, using the term papal infallibility in a sense as a euphemism for the way the Church hierarchy lords it over the majority of the population, whether that be by way of the Pope riding around in the popemobile or the Church hiding its manipulating ways behind arcane encyclicals written in heavy and nigh-on-impossible to understand Latin, thus keeping eveyone else in the dark or "in their place". It's the way they've always done this - thereby keeping ordinary people down or locked out - that I object to. Hardly a Christian value if you compare their deeds with Christ's.

I don't think anyone has mentioned that the Vatican owns 50% of Mistral Air (a freight airline) and that it leases two 737s from MA to operate Pilgrim Air. When the Pope sells 'his' shares in all environmentally dodgy enterprises, and shuts down Pilgrim Air, I'd give him a few more points of credibility. When he instructs his Bishops worldwide to implement his claimed environmentalism as operational policy, I'll be impressed. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church operates a range of commercial enterprises that have significant environmental impacts and most of those enterprises (if not all of them) operate primarily on the basis of maximising returns to the Church. When I see the Church make Canon Law that prevents their selling bushland to 'developers', I'll be impressed; likewise if they ban the destruction of habitat for Catholic enterprises (e.g. schools, retirement complexes, etc.), and if they sacrifice economic gains by formally conserving important areas of bushland that they own, rather than flattening it themselves or selling it to the highest bidder.

But despite some decades of environmentalist rhetoric and symbolic policy, some of it fairly impressive, if flawed, the Catholic Church (as an institution and organisation) largely continues with business as usual. Sure, there are some relatively sound 'green' teachings in their school curricula, and there are some Catholics and Catholic organisations that do good work and promote eco-justice, but overall, the Church remains deeply hypocritical on this issue, much like the rest of society and its flawed institutions.

>>But despite some decades of environmentalist rhetoric and symbolic policy, some of it fairly impressive, if flawed, the Catholic Church (as an institution and organisation) largely continues with business as usual.<<

That sums it up pretty well, Samara. What you show is that the Church is now primarily a political organisation that is trying to put its spin on public discourse for its own benefit. They are really no different to anyone else that's in power. Their's is just an exercise in taking the path of least resistance in order to meet their earthly ends. They've got a long way to go, and a lot of atoning to do, to truly earn the epithet of being called Christian.

If anyone doubts the political power of the Church, consider this. What other movement on the planet has the clout to own its own sovereign City-state? This didn't come about because they humbly made a plea for it.

RobP,
Did you read my original post, 27 December 2009 2:54:23 PM?

It was very specific. The original comments on this topic made no sense. The arithmetic did not work.

Several commenters since then have tried to fudge the issue, claiming that well, no, the Pope's comments would have little or no effect on GLOBAL population increase, but might on local populations from here or there.

That's the sort of fundamental, bigotted dishonesty against which I have argued.

I have no interest in defending the Catholic Church against anything but the stupidly bigotted comments of people who try to attribute vast, conspiratorial power to the Pope and the Church with nary a fact to declare. Just loopy conspiracy theory. If you or anyone else wants to make an allegation, back it up with logic and evidence, not cant and posturing.