The Pope Has Entered the Building

The Vicar of Christ on Earth, also known as Pope Benedict XVI, is in the U.S. and just had a big meeting with President Bush. Thus sayeth

"From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the creator."

More here.

Is Benedict the anti-pope or an anti-climax?

Benedict condemns just about everything.

But especially "the dictatorship of relativism."

I think the former Hitler Youth member is wrong about U.S. history.

Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?

Comments

B | April 16, 2008, 11:58am | #

No

Warren | April 16, 2008, 12:00pm | #

not so much, nah

classwarrior | April 16, 2008, 12:02pm | #

Not really, but your reference to his Hitler Youth membership is a really cheap shot, as if someone of his age could really say no in the worst totalitarian state in history.

lunchstealer | April 16, 2008, 12:04pm | #

"From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the creator."

The pope then continued, "It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. The powers you give me I will lay down when this crisis has be abated! My first act, with this new authority, is to create a Grand Army of the Republic, to counter the increasing threat of the Separatists."

Episiarch | April 16, 2008, 12:06pm | #

Not. At. All.

However, the Vatican is really pretty neat as a tourist attraction and it is entertaining if the pope does one of his balcony appearances while you are there.

MattXIV | April 16, 2008, 12:07pm | #

Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?

Nope.

John | April 16, 2008, 12:07pm | #

The wikipedia entry regarding the Pope's youth,

Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth — membership being legally required after December 1939[5] (though 10-20% did disobey the rule)[6] — but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings.[7] His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith.[citation needed] In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics.[8] In 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the War in summer 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

It sounds to me like he was an innocent child caught up in Nazi Germany and did at least a credible job of keeping his moral bearing in a pretty insane situation. I guess he could have at 14 disobeyed the law and not joined the organization or refused entry in the service and gotten himself shot. As Richard Pryor once said about the Nazis, "those boys didn't play."

Nick, I think given the actual circumstances surrounding his membership calling the Pope "former Hitler Youth Member" while technically accurate, is a pretty cheap shot and one that ought to be beneath you. That is all and all pretty disappointing on your part.

Episiarch | April 16, 2008, 12:10pm | #

You a Catholic, John?

BakedPenguin | April 16, 2008, 12:11pm | #

...as if someone of his age could really say no in the worst totalitarian state in history.

What do you mean? Membership in the Catholic church has been voluntary for a while now.

Neil | April 16, 2008, 12:13pm | #

The Pope may be wrong about the Iraq War but hes right about American history.

The Founding Fathers were all Christian men, who based this nation on strict Judeo-Christian values and morality.

John | April 16, 2008, 12:13pm | #

No Epi I am not. My wife is but I have too many problems with the pope and with women not being Priests to ever join the church. I am actually a pretty militant Protestant when it comes to the authority of the Bishop of Rome over Christendom. But I know a cheap shot when I see one.

lunchstealer | April 16, 2008, 12:13pm | #

More seriously, insofar as he has a great deal of influence over a fairly large portion of the population, I'd certainly be happy if he'd alter a few of his views to match up more with mine. I wouldn't mind a few speeches on the right of an individual to make choices about their own reproduction. I wouldn't mind a few speeches on how imposing our will on others is not really what Jesus was all about.

But ultimately, except insofar as his actions have effects on others, I don't much care about him. I certainly don't revere him specifically.

And damn if he doesn't look like Emperor Palpatine, although I see he's taken to putting some makeup over those bags, which helps considerably.

rana | April 16, 2008, 12:16pm | #

The Pope? Nope. Never have.

John | April 16, 2008, 12:17pm | #

"I wouldn't mind a few speeches on how imposing our will on others is not really what Jesus was all about."

I don't think he has ever said that. He was right not to endorse the Iraq war. No pope should ever endorse a war no matter how justified. That is not his job and the times Popes have gotten into that arena it has only served to cheapen the office and the religion in general. He calls for a set of universal human rights and calls on people to convert to Christianity. He is the Pope. I wouldn't expect him to call on people to do their own thing. As far as Jesus goes, he called on people to follow him, not follow whatever their local culture told them to.

R C Dean | April 16, 2008, 12:18pm | #

I wouldn't mind a few speeches on how imposing our will on others is not really what Jesus was all about.

He's actually said some pretty libertarian things about how the state is not really the answer to most of our problems, and how what we need is more civil society, people voluntarily looking after each other, that kind of thing.

ed | April 16, 2008, 12:19pm | #

I for one care that he exists...
to poop on!

Abdul | April 16, 2008, 12:24pm | #

Yes, I care.

J sub D | April 16, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?

I'm a former alter boy, confimed Roman Catholic at ~age 12. In that what he says affects many peoples thinking and behaviour, I care about the pope. For MY moral and spirituasl guidance I could not give a rat's ass about his "infallible" opinions.

Rebop | April 16, 2008, 12:30pm | #

What does "infallible" mean in the context of the Pope? Does anyone here know?

Drew | April 16, 2008, 12:31pm | #

The Founding Fathers were all Christian men, who based this nation on strict Judeo-Christian values and morality.

Oh really?

Thomas Jefferson was an atheist
John Adams was a wishy-washy Unitarian
I could go on, but I'm at work.

Only 2 of the 10 Commandments are law in the United States.

A Judeo-Christian foundation indeed.

Neil | April 16, 2008, 12:32pm | #

Repop Im not a Catholic but I beleive it means that he can never be wrong about matters relating to religion.

Dr Strangelove | April 16, 2008, 12:32pm | #

Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?

Nein, mein Fuehrer.

I mean, no, no I don't.

Neil | April 16, 2008, 12:33pm | #

"Thomas Jefferson was an atheist"

Yeah but he converted on his deathbed.

"John Adams was a wishy-washy Unitarian"

He still belived in Christ and Judeo-Christian foundations, he was an avid reader of the Bible.

Washington proclaimed national days of prayer.

Neil | April 16, 2008, 12:34pm | #

I dunno if Jefferson was ever actually an atheist, either, I think he always believed in the Judeo-Christian God if not in Jesus (his works are often replete with references to God).

Olga | April 16, 2008, 12:36pm | #

He's a vicar, you know.
Lives in a church!

John | April 16, 2008, 12:36pm | #

Rebop,

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

It is pretty much why I am not a Catholic. It is basiclly the idea that God spoke to Peter, Peter was the Bishop of Rome and Peter was since God was speaking through him infallable, therefore all future Bishops of Rome are infalable as well. No one but the Catholic Church buys it. The Orthadox and Syrians and Eastern Right and Armenian Churches never bought it. Later of course the Protestants didn't buy it.

John | April 16, 2008, 12:37pm | #

I always read that Jefferson was a diest who beleived in a universal God somewhat similiar to Aristotle's "prime mover". I have never heard that he was an athiest.

Rebop | April 16, 2008, 12:40pm | #

Ok. I get it. But why should so many of these comments be so rude simply because this guy believes what his religion teaches. It would seem kind of silly to to choose a religion you didn't think was right? So if he believes it and proclaims it, let him.

Drew | April 16, 2008, 12:40pm | #

Neil,

Your personal religious beliefs aside, our country was founded on principles of the Enlightenment, not the Bible. Those principles are almost entirely contradictory to those espoused in the Bible. We don't stone adulterers and gays, and neither did the Founders.

D.A. Ridgely | April 16, 2008, 12:41pm | #

Benedict condemns just about everything.

I need new glasses. I first read that as "Benedict condoms just about everything" and thought "Wow, that is news!"

javier | April 16, 2008, 12:41pm | #

fuck the pope.

the pope, monarchs and emperors are all relics of a world gone by. they should just not exist for the betterment of mankind.

John | April 16, 2008, 12:43pm | #

"Ok. I get it. But why should so many of these comments be so rude simply because this guy believes what his religion teaches. It would seem kind of silly to to choose a religion you didn't think was right? So if he believes it and proclaims it, let him."

Because Gillespie is kind of jerk that is why. I don't agree with the Pope about a lot of things and do not think he is infallible but referring to him as a "former Hitler Youth member" is just juvenile and chickenshit.

John | April 16, 2008, 12:47pm | #

"We don't stone adulterers and gays, and neither did the Founders."

Neither does Christianity nor any Jew living more recently than the 1st Century AD.

D.A. Ridgely | April 16, 2008, 12:48pm | #

I don't agree with the Pope about a lot of things and do not think he is infallible but referring to him as a "former Hitler Youth member" is just juvenile and chickenshit.

True. In fairness, the man is really too old to still be a member of the Hitler Youth, isn't he?

John | April 16, 2008, 12:53pm | #

DA,

See the wikipedia entry I cited above. He was a member at 14 in 1940 because he was required by law to be a member but he refused to go to any meetings. He later was drafted but was too physically weak to do much and ended up deserting and being a allied POW at the end of the war. To have not joined the organization would have resulted in him being arrested. To have refused entry into the military that late in the war would have resulted in his being shot. The Nazis shot lots of young men for refusing entry into the service. I guess you can fault the guy for not being a hero and standing up to the Nazis at 14 and risking certain death, but I certainly can't say I would have had those kind of stones and I doubt Gillespie can either.

Franklin Harris | April 16, 2008, 12:54pm | #

Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?

I like to Photoshop him into Emperor Palpatine.

Kwix | April 16, 2008, 12:55pm | #

The only good thing that Pope Benedict has given me was a chuckle whilst wearing this getup. Like the Grinch who stole Christmas.

Ali | April 16, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?

The pope will go to hell. I think.

Qbryzan | April 16, 2008, 12:57pm | #

Only 2 of the 10 Commandments are law in the United States.

3, actually - (thou shalt not) kill, steal, and bear false witness

Happy Jack | April 16, 2008, 12:57pm | #

The Pope may be wrong about the Iraq War

Sounds like an Islamofascist appeaser to me.

Warty | April 16, 2008, 12:58pm | #

The pope? Is that the dude who shits in the woods?

ed | April 16, 2008, 1:02pm | #

Progress: hang last king with entrails of last priest (or vice versa), rinse, repeat.

Chris Potter | April 16, 2008, 1:07pm | #

A statement by the pope has to meet several criteria before the infallibility doctrine may be applicable. It has to be a statement solely regarding faith and/or morals, it has to be intended for dissemination to the whole Church, and it has to satisfy other criteria. The great majority of religious statements by the pope are NOT infallible according to the doctrine.

Elemenope | April 16, 2008, 1:07pm | #

What does "infallible" mean in the context of the Pope? Does anyone here know?

Yes.

Oh! I though there was a point attached. I suppose not.

Elemenope | April 16, 2008, 1:08pm | #

hang last king with entrails of last priest (or vice versa), rinse, repeat.

Given the beginning of the text, I'm a little fuzzy on the meaning of the terms in bold.

Chris Potter | April 16, 2008, 1:11pm | #

"From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the creator."

Heh, typical Roman statement...he says nothing really, but it sounds like he's saying something he's not. He's not saying that the political system is based on religion, but rather that it's based on moral principles that were originally linked to religious beliefs. I don't think one could seriously argue against that idea.

Chris Potter | April 16, 2008, 1:14pm | #

So, when JP2 said that the death penalty is outdated and not really necessary for governments to use, he was NOT making a faith or morals statement, but an economic and sociological statement. Thus he was NOT infallible in his teaching on the death penalty, contrary to what many selectively-pious Catholic liberals argue.

lunchstealer | April 16, 2008, 1:16pm | #

John, I wasn't necessarily offering my interpretation of Jesus' teachings, so much as 'hey, if I say anything as Pope, what would I say to have a positive influence in the world?" And from my perspective, telling people to lay off with the "You aren't living your life well enough so you need to live the way I tell you to live" would be a good thing.

My understanding of what's actually in the bible has been so confunded by contradictory statements between my own Presbyterian upbringing, the dominant Baptists around me as I grew up, the crazed ramblings of Dr. Gene Scott at 3AM ("Urhmumblemumble - Look at the horses!") and the 'Understanding Christian Faith" course I took in college (which I was able to determine was an excuse for the prof to say that everything but Christianity was a primitive religion, but should otherwise have been called "Obfuscating Christian Faith - (non-Perl curriculum"), so I've more-or-less given up having a clear understanding of what actually is Jesus' teachings, and what are insane ramblings. The original text is awfully dense, and ends up sounding like it was written especially for Jacques Derrida or Stanley Fish.

Regarding the commandments currently enacted in law, a couple (respect your parents, bear false witness, and adultery) have some standing in certain official circumstances, such as parental custody, perjury, slander/libel, and obstruction of justice, and divorce, but the only ones which are basically written into law, wholesale, are kill and steal.

Unless you're under oath or talking to police/FBI, lying will only get you a civil suit. Cheating on your spouse only gets you into trouble if they file for divorce, and then only sometimes. Not obeying your mother and father has no specific criminal or civil penalties, but they have legal authority over you until you reach the age of majority.

So yeah, 2 fully implemented, 3 more partly implemented, I'd say this is about a 40% Judeo-Christian nation, tops.

Alan Vanneman | April 16, 2008, 1:20pm | #

By and large, the founding fathers were deists, accepting the "philosophy" of Christ. When George Washington attended an Episcopalian Church, he left before communion. When the minister criticised him for doing so, he stopped coming to church. Jefferson edited the Bible, taking out the parts that were "wrong."

At the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin suggested that they start each session with a prayer. They decided they didn't need divine guidance. The Constitution itself makes no mention of God. When people asked Alexander Hamilton about it, he said "We forgot Him."

The only mention of religion in Madison's "Notes on the Constitution," the diary he kept during the sessions, refers to the statement saying that no religious test for office could be applied. Some people felt the prohibition was unnecessary, because no one would ever propose such a thing.

One thing the Founding Fathers did agree on was the wickedness of the Catholic Church. Calling someone a Jesuit was the biggest insult John Adams could come up with. Jefferson said the Catholic Church had made half the world knaves (the priests) and half the world fools (the "flock").

As for the Pope, his warmed-over neo-Barthianism makes me gag.

J sub D | April 16, 2008, 1:21pm | #

"We don't stone adulterers and gays, and neither did the Founders."

Neither does Christianity nor any Jew living more recently than the 1st Century AD.

Xians still doo the witch thingy in parts of the world. Some traditions are just too good to let go.

John | April 16, 2008, 1:25pm | #

"Xians still doo the witch thingy in parts of the world. Some traditions are just too good to let go."

Where? The only place I can think of where witches are still believed in is Haiti among practitioners of Voodoo and in Africa among Animists and ding Western Pegans.

Chris Potter | April 16, 2008, 1:27pm | #

The pope will go to hell. I think.

That's low-class, Ali. Sure you have a right to say it, but some freedoms are better honored by self-restraint than exercise.

Chris Potter | April 16, 2008, 1:29pm | #

Xians still doo the witch thingy in parts of the world. Some traditions are just too good to let go.

So do some pagans, Moslems, Hindus, etc. Poorly educated people living hard lives tend to do such things.

Plus, given our treatment of "sex offenders" despite much better socioeconomic conditions here, I don't think we should be pointing fingers at the rest of the world.

Calidore | April 16, 2008, 1:35pm | #

Neil,

If that is the case then why is there not a single mention of the words God, Jesus, etc. in the American Constitution?

Got any actual evidence for this deathbed conversion?

To be rather blunt, there were a multiplicity or a diversity of views on the nature of religion and its role in society exposed by the Founders, and this is born out in the disagreements these folks had with one another over this issue.

James | April 16, 2008, 1:35pm | #

The one question I want answed is, "Does he crap in the woods?"

Ali | April 16, 2008, 1:35pm | #

Chris,

I was asked what I think, and I gave my answer. But I see what you're getting at given previous discussions where I essentially came out and said the same thing except not as eloquently. Sorry to my Catholic friends if I have offended, but I really have to say that I dislike popes (but do not hate them, though).

James | April 16, 2008, 1:36pm | #

ZinG!

James | April 16, 2008, 1:37pm | #

I win LOL

Calidore | April 16, 2008, 1:39pm | #

Chris Potter,

...but rather that it's based on moral principles that were originally linked to religious beliefs.

That seems to even require qualification however.

Calidore | April 16, 2008, 1:42pm | #

Alan Vanneman,

It is fair to say that Jefferson's views on Catholicism were formed and sculpted by his experience with the Church in France.

Chris Potter | April 16, 2008, 1:45pm | #

Ali,

There are plenty of things I dislike about Islam, but I would never come right out and speculate about such eternal destinations for specific people or groups thereof.

The Democratic Republican | April 16, 2008, 1:49pm | #

1) Infallibility has only been declared twice: about the Immaculate Conception (which was about how Mary was ALSO conceived in a virgin birth), and another one I can't remember. Everything else from the popes is kind of like the Supreme Court: a general respect for precedent but leeway to revise if necessary.

2) Adultery also used to be against the law, in the sense that it was one of the few legitimate causes for divorce (per the New Tesatment). So that makes 4 commandments.

3) Disparage religion if you want, but a free society needs a core set of common moral values.

Jim Bob | April 16, 2008, 1:52pm | #

Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?

I do not.

The Democratic Republican | April 16, 2008, 1:52pm | #

I agree with Calidore: the religious diversity in this country was a GREAT thing. Even though they might seem like trivial doctrinal disputes now, they were just as important then as are the current tensions between Christianity/Islam/Atheism, for example.

Jefferson might have been considered an "atheist," but historically that term was thrown around even when people believed in God but not in the right way. So, circa 1776, Congregationalists considered Baptists "atheists."

Calidore | April 16, 2008, 1:54pm | #

The Democratic-Republican,

From what I have read there is some difference of view on the exact instances of such.

Ali | April 16, 2008, 1:55pm | #

Chris,

Certainly not groups of people, but one can state specific reasons as to why specific people are not good.

Regarding likes and dislikes about religions and philosophies, etc, we spend most of the time discussing these on h+r. And I have certainly engaged people regarding their dislikes about Islam and have rarely used the "this is offensive" statement. The only time I voiced concern about (some) people exercising their freedom of speech was not because they exercise said right, but in regards to smartness/stupidity of using said right in a given context. Using the right to make a point sometimes just defeats the purpose or may not be the past way to do so.

So I can give you reasons as to why I think the idea of the papacy offensive and we could have an interesting discussion about it as much as we do if we had been discussing why you find some aspects of Islam offensive.

Ali | April 16, 2008, 1:56pm | #

"past way"--> "best way" (what was I thinking?)

Calidore | April 16, 2008, 1:58pm | #

The Democratic-Republican,

Yes, it was used as a dirty word to label atheists and non-atheists alike. d'Holbach was the first modern avowed atheists that I know of. Anyway, many people labelled with the term were theists who were interested in the use of reason to reform, etc. religious belief; to make it more rational, etc. Indeed, that was in significant part what the project of the Deists was about (though some of them might have been actual atheists).

Danny | April 16, 2008, 1:59pm | #

3) Disparage religion if you want, but a free society needs a core set of common moral values.

Okay, so here's my beef. Ethics do not require morals. And ethics can govern our behavior such that we create laws to protect the rights of the people. Morals are absolutely not necessary, IMO.

Calvin | April 16, 2008, 2:00pm | #

James - Whoa - that is sooooo crude. I don't even get your question.

C L | April 16, 2008, 2:15pm | #

I care only because Brookland, my neighborhood in DC, (where the archdioses is located) is a disaster. Police tape everywhere, security guards, big vatican flags, and traffic everywhere. I can't wait for him to go home.

Stalin | April 16, 2008, 2:21pm | #

I am not sure: How many divisions does he have?

PC | April 16, 2008, 2:30pm | #

The Pope-ah he's a coming and you all got your nice white suits on.

Warty | April 16, 2008, 2:42pm | #

What the fuck, my lame joke gets stolen and made even more lame? Shenanigans.

LT Nixon | April 16, 2008, 2:47pm | #

The Sniper has got pics of Robo-Pope, pretty funny. I wish I could get a pope-mobile.

bob | April 16, 2008, 2:47pm | #

Do Hit & Runners care about the pope?

I do, but as a Catholic I care a lot more about the Magisterium.

But was that really the question? Or does it mean that if I am Catholic, I can't be a Hit & Runner? If the latter, fook off u eejit.

Sam Grove | April 16, 2008, 2:58pm | #

"From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the creator."

That's because the church inculcated the idea that moral order is a product of theist fiat, that is, that what we consider as morality is purely arbitrary and having no basis in reason or philosophy.

Has the church ever produced a moral sentiment that was not thought of by pre-Christ Greek philosphers?


Danny, moral are necessary, but are not the same thing as morés, which while often useful, are not necessary. Religious orders usually conflate morals and morés.

What I'm saying is that what are often thought of as morals are actually morés.

atrevete | April 16, 2008, 3:05pm | #

"Infallibility has only been declared twice: about the Immaculate Conception (which was about how Mary was ALSO conceived in a virgin birth"

Uhm, wrong. Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived without ORIGINAL sin - meaning, I supposed, even as a zygote, she bore none of the consequences of Adam and Eve's "sin", so she didn't have to die, age, or have "concupisence" - that is an inclination towards sin.

Whew, and no I'm not a Catholic or even a Christian, just went to a Catholic high school.

John | April 16, 2008, 3:19pm | #

You are correct atrevete. The whole immaculate conception thing causes a lot of people to accuse the Catholics of being Mary worshipers. Why exactly does Mary have to be free of sin?

Lurker Kurt | April 16, 2008, 3:20pm | #

1) Infallibility has only been declared twice: about the Immaculate Conception (which was about how Mary was ALSO conceived in a virgin birth), and another one I can't remember.

According to Wikipedia, it has only been used once when it defined the Assumption of Mary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Only one time in 140 years is infallibility used? What's the point in having it if you don't use it??

Lurker Kurt | April 16, 2008, 3:22pm | #

Why exactly does Mary have to be free of sin?

Would you want your savior to be born of a sinful woman?

John | April 16, 2008, 3:36pm | #

"Would you want your savior to be born of a sinful woman?"

He is half human. Isn't the point that Jesus by being born of God and thus free from sin, raises the state of man to its ideal and thus heals the riff between man and God created by Adam's fall? Why does the sin half to be eliminated in Mary and not just in Jesus? Why not Mary's mother? Do you want the mother of God to be born from a sinful women? The whole thing seems like an unneeded step and the Catholics saying that we really like Mary so lets make her sinless as well. Mary worship if you ask me.

Richard | April 16, 2008, 4:14pm | #

Papal infallibility:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

The Immaculate Conception (not to be confused with the Virgin Birth):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

atrevete | April 16, 2008, 4:15pm | #

I do agree, John, although I have a beef with the idea of original sin to begin with. It seems obvious that each human being has the capacity for good or evil. Sometimes in the same day.

At any rate, over a billion Catholics, and not a few non-Catholics, are influenced by what the pope thinks, although I doubt each of them really accepts what he says as infallible.

You do the math | April 16, 2008, 4:31pm | #

A Clear Difference

• "Bush Embraces Pope Benedict XVI"--headline, ABCNews.com, April 15

• "Carter Embraces Hamas Official"--headline, Associated Press, April 16

Chris Potter | April 16, 2008, 4:47pm | #

The Imm Con and Assumption were the two times when the Pope explicitly said he was invoking the Infallibility doctrine. In theory, there can be situations in which the Pope teaches infallibly while not explicitly mentioning the infallibility doctrine.

Yes, it almost seems like they're trying to make the waters as murky as possible to give the theologians something to argue about, doesn't it?

joshua corning | April 16, 2008, 4:56pm | #

This article is awesome:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03162008/postopinion/postopbooks/faith_of_our_fathers_102127.htm?page=0

joshua corning | April 16, 2008, 4:57pm | #

Would you want your savior to be born of a sinful woman?

Yes.

TrickyVic | April 16, 2008, 5:08pm | #

""""From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the creator.""""

Now days our freedom is guided by the moral order of the Department of Homeland Security.

Jefferson was not an athiest. He believed in God as the creator. He did not belive in mystisim such as water to wine, parting the red sea, immaculate conceptions, or coming back from the dead. He carried a bible with those parts edited. Since he didn't believe in some of the required believing for christianity, I say he wasn't a christian.

joshua corning | April 16, 2008, 5:10pm | #

Not really, but your reference to his Hitler Youth membership is a really cheap shot, as if someone of his age could really say no in the worst totalitarian state in history.

Classwarrior,

The Soviet Union called and they want their place in history back.

TrickyVic | April 16, 2008, 5:11pm | #

"""It seems obvious that each human being has the capacity for good or evil."""

Replace or with and, I'm with ya.

Danny | April 16, 2008, 5:11pm | #

Why exactly does Mary have to be free of sin?

Because god cannot touch sin. That's what I was taught. Just as nobody (with sin) could touch the ark of the covenant, nobody (with sin) could touch the (son of) god. Catholics like to draw a lot of parallels between Mary as the ark of the covenant Jesus as the priest, prophet, and king. Just do a simple google search of "mary ark of the covenant", and you should be able to find some information.

/*Used* to be catholic.

Danny | April 16, 2008, 5:16pm | #

Oh, and Catholics really really don't worship Mary. They liken praying to Mary and the saints to asking a friend for help, since Mary and the saints are already supposedly in heaven, they can ask the big guy for you. It makes sense on a human level, but not if you don't believe in heaven. Besides, praying to somebody is making a request to them. When they say that they pray to them, they mean they pray. They only worship god, or at least their personification of "him".

Danny | April 16, 2008, 5:23pm | #

I would guess that you don't believe me anyways about Mary, since most Christians simply deny it and then say, "Oh no... I know... You guys worship Mary."

I'm not catholic anymore, nor am I christian. Too many rules against things that hurt nobody.

Marc | April 16, 2008, 5:46pm | #

I read at Hit and Run fairly regularly. Does that make me a "Hit & Runner"? I suppose not--one has to profess the 'liberterian project' in some form or another, I guess, however that may be defined. But I do read here.

I don't care that commenters don't refer to Benedict XVI the way we Catholics do but, really, gentlemen and ladies, when profanities and other vulgarities are indulged in to refer to distinguished persons, as if to be libertarian one needs to speak and write in such a way, well, I doubt that is a very persuasive advertisement for the cause, except amongst 16 year old skater punks who imagine that they are recreating the world by wearing black and pronouncing every other word 'fuck'. I find it offputting.

And yet I read here.

J sub D | April 16, 2008, 5:59pm | #

You are correct atrevete. The whole immaculate conception thing causes a lot of people to accuse the Catholics of being Mary worshipers. Why exactly does Mary have to be free of sin?

I've nothing against papists, some of my best relatives are Mackerel Snappers. :-) But if you pray to something it appears to this apostate catholic that you are elevating said thing to god status.

Forget it. It'll just piss people off. Other religions always look weird to the uninitiated.

joshua corning | April 16, 2008, 6:15pm | #

I read at Hit and Run fairly regularly. Does that make me a "Hit & Runner"? I suppose not--one has to profess the 'liberterian project' in some form or another, I guess, however that may be defined. But I do read here.

Nah, joe is a "Hit & Runner" and he is a full blown pinko commi having the same relation with being libertarian as duck has with a baby carriage.

But i guess a you could make the definition of a Hit & Runner as someone who actually works for Reason and posts articles on its blog as opposed to us who only read it and may or may not comment.

joshua corning | April 16, 2008, 6:21pm | #

I don't care that commenters don't refer to Benedict XVI the way we Catholics do but, really, gentlemen and ladies, when profanities and other vulgarities are indulged in to refer to distinguished persons, as if to be libertarian one needs to speak and write in such a way, well, I doubt that is a very persuasive advertisement for the cause, except amongst 16 year old skater punks who imagine that they are recreating the world by wearing black and pronouncing every other word 'fuck'. I find it offputting.

I don't think using vulgarities to disparage the Pope makes one a libertarian and is in any way necessary to do so in order to be a libertarian.

My profuse use of the word Fuck also in no way makes me a libertarian or is necessary for me to be a libertarian. I just have a foul mouth and happen to be a libertarian.

Bill Donahoe | April 16, 2008, 6:40pm | #

INFIDELS!!

Pro Libertate | April 16, 2008, 9:38pm | #

I'd like to be pope. Can I apply after this one dies? You don't have to be Catholic or anything, right?

Gene Trosper | April 16, 2008, 9:48pm | #

Do I care? Not really. However, I'd start to care if he can put an end to his pedophile priests.

atrevete | April 17, 2008, 12:36am | #

PL - No, but you DO have to be male.

William R | April 17, 2008, 3:11am | #

In my 54 years around, I suspect Nick Gillespie is one of the bigger punks. No matter how hard Nick tries, he ain't getting on Butt Boy Bill Maher's show.

Ammonium | April 17, 2008, 11:21am | #

You'd think Christ's representative on Earth would have avoided joining the Hitler youth, or at least subverted it.

Are we supposed to believe that a modern day Christ would have cooperated with the Nazis? Why didn't Jesus cooperate with the Romans?

Ammonium | April 17, 2008, 11:27am | #

By the way, Christ's previous representative on Earth helped hide Jews from the Nazis and was in an underground seminary. Seems a bit risky to me, but you'd expect that type of behavior from Christ's representative on Earth.

Nancy Sellers | April 17, 2008, 3:06pm | #

Let me get this straight....Who is paying for all of this extra police protection security for the Pope? Having just taken a MARC train ride to Baltimore this morning, I witnessed a police person with what possibly looked to me to be an AK-47 on the Bowie State train platform. Upon returning to Union Station this afternoon, the food court convenience won me over and I found myself competing for counter space with too many police and their sniffing dogs to count, along with numerous nuns. Hmmmm. Could it be possible that the non-Catholic taxpayers are getting stuck with the cost of this extra Pope security bill?

Jim Walsh | April 18, 2008, 8:03pm | #

Now that the Pope has expressed regret over the pedophile priest issue, how long is it before Bill Donahoe demands an apology from the pontiff...

Jim Walsh redux | April 18, 2008, 8:05pm | #

...not for the pedophile priests, mind you; for daring to suggest that priests could be pedophiles...

Mad Max | April 19, 2008, 11:30am | #

I imagine that the Pope will survive somehow despite the eloquent and well-reasoned attacks of H&R posters.

Bill Donohue doesn't need any defense from me, either, but still I'd like to reply to Jim Walsh's comments.

Donohue has endorsed strict laws against sex abuse, provided that the laws aren't discriminatory. For example, he supports law which apply the same standards of strict legal accountability to both the Church and to the government schools. Where he draws the line is at measures which single out the Church while having more lenient standards for the government schools.