Fujitsu Lifebook P727 laptop review
Re Bingalau's plea on forumites and FE suggesting ethical discussions. I see that the only UK Cardinal due to go to the Papal elections has resigned.
It amazes me how much hypocrisy there is - I think this guy recently suggested that priests should be allowed to marry. It seems odd that there are so many Catholics who accept the lack of married priests,are unwilling to accept gay priests, Who ignore Papal edicts (such as birth control) when it suits them but accept teaching that women priests are not permitted. I suppose most religions are equally hypocritical but the Papal elections have been on here before and most felt there was no chance of a change of direction.There will be no UK rep at the conclave as O'Connor is too old. I am a non Catholic so am not bothered either way.
Quickbeam I think you mean wearing frocks, but he is allowed to he is Scottish and its call a kilt. grin
john bunyan - I think that you'll find that it is celibacy that is required (I was going to state issue but there is no issue from celibacy). Therefore married or gays in a sexual relationship are not regarded as being acceptable. I'm not a Roman Catholic so may be wrong. I think that they are wrong about women and many other things.
The problem with this thread is that it will re-open homophobic matters, anti-religion, etc which have been rather over done recently.
These allegations aren't going to disappear under the mosaic with a new Pope, the Church of Rome is going to have to address things openly and consider some unthinkable changes for the 21st century or become increasingly irrelevant to all except the unquestioningly loyal and superstitiously devout.
Yesterday they were saying on the radio that the resignation of O'Brien should signal to some American Cardinals to consider the same action. It looks like some more high ranking clerics will have to fall yet.
'The problem with this thread is that it will re-open homophobic matters, anti-religion, etc which have been rather over done recently.'
That could be read as suggesting that, since we know there are bad catholics, we should just ignore them and move on.
Let's stop complaining about politicians; it's been done. Why is there another news story about murder? Murders have happened before.
And all this stuff about horsemeat just keeps proving that the situation is much worse than we thought. Who wants that?
"The problem with this thread is that it will re-open homophobic matters, anti-religion, etc which have been rather over done recently."
How can such subjects be "rather over done", they're pretty big issues, aren't they? I would have thought that things like homophobia were the very subjects that are worth re-opening time and again, in the hope that in-depth discussions might alter the way some people think about them.
A debate is a discussion in which opposing arguments are put forward and examined - it's what we're here for.
Thanks. This was a response to the remark that there have been a slight reduction in threads lately.
Of course the vast majority of Catholics (and Jews, Muslims and other "people of the book") are good people who sincerely believe in their faith. All I was pointing out that a good deal of hypocrisy abounds in all of these. I have noted that the Afghan police (Muslims all)have been involved in the abuse of boys - as shown in last night's Panorama; RC bishops have covered up for colleagues for years over similar behaviour. The Anglican Church still does not allow women bishops. I have seen in remote places (Borneo etc) how well meaning missionaries have on the one hand brought education and medicine to tribal communities - but have contributed to the destruction of wonderful traditional cultures, and I resent the idea that "our" culture is always better.I just thought it a pity that the Papal election is likely to result in a continuation of the status quo,ie a domination of old men thinking they know more than women (this is, regrettably, true of most of the other religions above). I suppose that on balance , religion is a good thing, but I remain agnostic on that and incline to a "humanist" view.
... I just knew I shouldn't have put that knicker on the Scottish Cardinal [to be next Pope] ... I'll stick to the horses in future ;o]
Here's an interesting paradox. Benedict said he wouldn't interfere in the selection of the next pope and wouldn't try to influence his work.
But, if the news report have it right, sacking Cardinal O'Brien amounts to interfering in the election process.
And, given O'Brien's view on marriage for the clergy, it could be that the pope took advantage of the situation in order to silence a dangerous voice of reform.
Time to re-read 'The Prince', I think.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.