My brain hurts. Alright...I'll bite. 1. Should we consider Cardinal Ratzinger an expert on matters relating to war? 2. Does anything of what he said with regards to gender roles seem a little...outdated? As in, does it sound like something a man in the U.S. would say back in, oh, 1950 or so? Edit: We should also probably be calling him "Pope Benedict" now. This is THAT Cardinal Ratzinger right?nocoolnamejimYes, Mike Tyson, this Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict, I used the name Ratzinger here because he said this while he was still a Cardinal. Anyway maybe we can consider him an expert on war, he was a soldier (drafted) in WWII (although he never learned how to fire a gun due to an infected trigger finger, which I guess is a good thing, you wouldn't want the future Pope to go around shooting at people. And as for outdated, maybe people might not say such a thing now, but just because they did in the past doesn't mean they won't in the future, so then is it outdated or futuristic?
JoeRatz16's forum posts
Are you whipassmt?SpaceMooseDo I look like him?
I never thought about this issue in this life, but this little quote by Cardinal Ratzinger makes me question my previous support of women soldiers.
"Personally it still horrifies me when people want women to be soldiers just like men, when they, who have always been the keepers of the peace and in whom we have always seen a counter-impulse working against the male impulse to stand up and fight, now likewise run around with submachine guns, showing that they can be just as warlike as the men. Or that women now have the 'right' to work as garbage collectors or miners, to do all those things that, out of respect for their status, for their different nature, their own dignity, we ought not to inflict on them and that are now imposed on them in the name of equality. That, in my opinion, is a Manichaean ideology that is opposed to the body" (p.82).
denial that "persons are their bodies," Ratzinger comments, is "a kind of egalitarianism that does not exalt women but diminishes their status. By being treated as male, [women] are dragged down to being undistinguished and ordinary" (p.83).
What are your thoughts on the issue and on the quotes?
[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]Or can't we say to the groups, we'll give you the money but only if you don't perform the abortions?Engrish_MajorThat's what it used to say. That's exactly the part that's being taken out.but why? shouldn't the government not spend taxpayer money on things that a great many citizens find to be intrisically evil? And why should the U.S. during an economic crisis and a trillion dollar deficit and a super high national debt waste money for family planning in countries where it is considered prestigious to have many children, where most citizens oppose abortion, and where it is economically better to have more children to work on the farm?
I'm against his stimulus package, but I agree with allowing the US to fund overseas family-planning clinics that happen to provide abortions.helium_flashbut why should we waste money promoting abortion in foreign countries when we got our own problems at home, plus since many of the countries of the third world like Africa and Latin America ban abortion then isn't the U.S. being imperialistic by funding groups that perform illegal abortions there? Or can't we say to the groups, we'll give you the money but only if you don't perform the abortions?
I agree with all of those decisions.Engrish_MajorNow, you sound like a follower.May I recommend some independent thinking.
hopefully not many.I wonder how many of the 76 percent who approved of the second item approve of Obama breaking that rule days after taking office.
mysterylobster
A Gallup poll found the following results:
to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
out of 7 Decisions made so far, the majority of Americans agree with 5. They disagree with Obama's decisions to shut down Guantanamo and to fund groups that promote and provide abortions in foreign countries.
Former Judge Robert Bork has warned that a terrible legal conflict may ensue over Religious Freedom. He points to two scenarios. Scenario one is that Catholic Hospitals would be forced to perform abortions (Legal Advisers to the US bishops have warned that the Freedom of Choice Act could do such a thing if it passes, many bishops have said they would be forced to shut down their hospitals if that is the case). Scenario two is that Catholic Adoption agencies may be forced to give kids to gay couples (this has happened in England, some adoption centers have shut down as a result).
He said however that the "free exercise of Religion clause" may make such things unconstitutional, but how will the Supreme Court Rule on this? He thinks it will be 5-4, but he's not sure what they will rule, saying it all depends on Kennedy the one moderate on the Supreme Court.
On a side note I've been getting bad vibes recently about the Obama Adminstrations relationship with the Church: Cardinal Pio Laghi, the first Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S recently died, Obama was Inaugurated on the Feast day Of St. Sebastian the Martyr, and Today is the Feast of St. Agnes, Patroness of "Christian Virtue in a hostile political and social environment".
Log in to comment