Women Can Be Priests
Reply to post

Papal History

Page: << < ..6789 > Showing page 7 of 9 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Author
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 03:08:11 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

He presented empty platitudes to deceive women but his actions were a contradiction.


I don't agree with your assessment.

He delivered this message on an international stage. This wasn't some secret backroom pay off.  He made a statement in the public on the international stage.  It is now something that can be held against the Vatican.  They can't take it back.  Though it is not the whole journey towards the destination, it is a step in the right direction.  If we insist that it was false, half baked, etc, aren't we are simply endorsing their right to withdraw the statement.  "You didn't mean it therefore you take it back?"

 
Again, I question his sincerity, obviously not the content that shows some forward thinking.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 03:13:59 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

Trying to discuss things with extremists is impossible.

No conversation.  Just extreme reaction.

 
Just who is the extremist?
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 03:15:34 (permalink)
exerting force to restrain is violence.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 03:19:30 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

exerting force to restrain is violence.

 
We disagree on the intent of the force. It is not to hurt but to stop someone else from being hurt.
 
It is not brutality as is violence.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 03:38:43 (permalink)
Non-violence and truth are inseparable and presuppose one another.
Mahatma Gandhi
 
"However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes."
--Mahatma Gandhi
 
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 03:44:10 (permalink)
The basic operative assumption that Gandhi makes is that nonviolence constitutes a positive procedure for promoting worthwhile social change. It is not merely that one should refrain from violence, because it is wrong; sometimes violence is not wrong. There can be conditions in which one is justified in inflicting violence – for instance, if the only other choice is acting in a cowardly manner. Violence is also justified for the protection of those under one’s care, or under the care of the larger community. In Gandhi’s view, the best response was based on nonviolence; the second best was violent defense. The worst form of response was submission to a tyrant or running away out of fear of consequences. In Gandhi’s words: I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defer her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 03:51:37 (permalink)
Violence is the exertion of force with the intent to injure (psychologically or physically) or kill.
 
I would not classify self defense as violence. It is force to prevent injury not to cause injury.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 04:24:46 (permalink)

a) his reference to 'violence in the service of truth' wasn't made in reference to the holocaust or to treatment of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
b) 'violence in the service of truth' refers to the inquisition
b) for the inquisition, he wasn't defending the use of violence in the service of truth. He was condemning it.

Under the Inquisition, the practices of Judaism, Protestantism, indigenous religious traditions, and the failure to "convert" to Catholicism constituted religious  "heresy," and was declared a capital crime, punishable by death (the sentence was usually carried out by civil administrators).  The Inquisition was a powerful institution in both Europe and the Americas conquered by Spain and Portugal and its practices were designed to inspire terror and absolute obedience to Church and state.
 
The Inquisition was not comprised of a few individuals or even "more than a few" individuals, but was a large powerful institution established and maintained by the Church, and dating from the Church-mandated holocaust of the Cathars, its activities carried out in service of Church authority.
 
To arrest an individual accused of a crime is to physically restrain an individual accused of a crime.
To arrest an individual is not the equivalent of doing violence to an individual. 
 
Doing violence to anyone does not serve truth.  You may think that it serves your society, your cause, your nation, your church, your sense of fair play, your sense of vengeance, your sense of justice, your holy war, or whatever else you may think it might serve, but
violence does not serve truth. 
Even to condemn "violence in the service of truth" is to suggest that it is somehow possible for violence to serve truth!  "Violence in service of truth" is absolutely contrary to Christ's example and teachings"!
 
To compare the Inquisition's forced "conversions", "confessions," torture and murder of "heretics" guilty only of teaching their children the religion of their ancestors with "arresting a perpetrator of rape who is trying to evade capture" is truly sad.
 
woman who votes with feet
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 04:33:04 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

ORIGINAL: Guest

He presented empty platitudes to deceive women but his actions were a contradiction.


I don't agree with your assessment.

He delivered this message on an international stage. This wasn't some secret backroom pay off.  He made a statement in the public on the international stage.  It is now something that can be held against the Vatican.  They can't take it back.  Though it is not the whole journey towards the destination, it is a step in the right direction.  If we insist that it was false, half baked, etc, aren't we are simply endorsing their right to withdraw the statement.  "You didn't mean it therefore you take it back?"


Again, I question his sincerity, obviously not the content that shows some forward thinking.


 
Sister Theresa Kane shows great wisdom and committment to the cause of equality for women by focusing on the actual content and the progress.
 
Signs of a great leader.
 
 
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 05:08:48 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest


Again, I question his sincerity, obviously not the content that shows some forward thinking.



Sister Theresa Kane shows great wisdom and committment to the cause of equality for women by focusing on the actual content and the progress.

Signs of a great leader.




Even Sister Kane seemed to realize what JPII said wasn't enough. JPII was not a progressive with respect to women. He was duplicitous. The theology of the body is the most disgraceful claptrap perpetrated in recent history. I expected better from my Church.
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 13:54:22 (permalink)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On this day January 17 in 1377 - Pope Gregory XI moves the Papacy back to Rome from Avignon.
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 13:54:55 (permalink)
Born on this day January 17 in 1572 - Pope Pius V 

Pope St. Pius V, OP (1504-1572), born Antonio Ghislieri, from 1518 called Michele Ghislieri, was Pope from 1566 to 1572 and is a saint of the Roman Catholic Church. Involved early on in the Inquisition, as Pope he resisted the influence of Protestants.


Pope Pius V

Ecclesiastical career
 
He was born as Antonio Ghislieri at Bosco in the Duchy of Milan (now Bosco Marengo in the province of Alessandria, Piedmont), Italy. At the age of fourteen he entered the Dominican Order, taking the name Michele, passing from the monastery of Voghera to that of Vigevano, and thence to Bologna. Having been ordained priest at Genoa in 1528, he settled at Pavia, where he lectured for sixteen years. He soon gave evidence of the opinions which found a more practical expression in his pontificate, by advancing at Parma thirty propositions in support of the papal chair and against the heresies of the time. As president of more than one Dominican monastery during a time of great moral laxity in the Catholic Church, he stood against the trend of the times by insisting on strict discipline, and, in accordance with his own wish to discharge the office of inquisitor, received an appointment to that post at Como. His reformist zeal provoking resentment, he was compelled in 1550 to return to Rome, where, after having been employed in several inquisitorial missions, he was elected to the commissariat of the Holy Office. Pope Paul IV (1555–59), who while still Cardinal Carafa had shown him special favour, conferred upon him the bishopric of Sutri and Nepi, the cardinalate with the title of Alessandrino, and the honour – unique in one not of pontifical rank – of the supreme inquisitorship. Under Pope Pius IV (1559–65) he became bishop of Mondovi in Piedmont, but his opposition to that pontiff procured his dismissal from the palace and the abridgment of his authority as inquisitor.

Pontificate
 
Before Ghislieri could return to his episcopate, Pius IV died, and on January 7, 1566, he was elected to the papal chair as Pius V with duly attendant prodigies, his coronation taking place on his birthday, ten days later. The prudence of Comniendone saved him at the commencement of his pontificate from trouble with Germanyd, as in the generai diet of the empire at Augsburg (March 26, 1566).

Fully alive to the necessity of restoring discipline and morality at Rome to ensure success without, he at once proceeded to reduce the cost of the papal court after the manner of the Dominican Order to which he belonged, compel residence among the clergy, regulate inns, expel prostitutes, and assert the importance of the ceremonial in general and the liturgy of the Mass in particular. In his wider policy, which was characterized throughout by an effective stringency, the maintenance and increase of the efficacy of the Inquisition and the enforcement of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent had precedence over other considerations. Accordingly, in order to implement a decision of that council, he standardized the Holy Mass by promulgating the 1570 edition of the Roman Missal. Pope Pius V made this Missal mandatory throughout the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, except where a Mass liturgy dating from before 1370 was in use. This form of the Mass remained essentially unchanged for 400 years until the modern revision of the Missal in 1970, after which it has become widely known as the Tridentine Mass or Traditional Latin Mass.

Pius V recognized attacks on papal supremacy in the Catholic Church and was desirous of limiting their advancement. In France, where his influence was stronger, he took several measures to oppose the Protestant Huguenots. He directed the dismissal of Cardinal Odet de Coligny and seven bishops, nullified the royal edict tolerating the extra-mural services of the Reformers, introduced the Roman catechism, restored papal discipline, and strenuously opposed all compromise with the Huguenot nobility.

In the list of more important bulls issued by him the famous bull In Coena Domini (1568) takes a leading place; but amongst others throwing light on Pope Pius V's character and policy there may be mentioned his prohibition of quaestuary (February 1567 and January 1570); the condemnation of Michael Baius, the heretical Professor of Leuven (1567); the reform of the breviary (July 1568); the denunciation of the dirum nefas (August 1568); the banishment of the Jews from the ecclesiastical dominions except Rome and Ancona (1569); the injunction of the use of the reformed missal (July 1570); the confirmation of the privileges of the Society of Crusaders for the protection of the Inquisition (October 1570); the dogmatic certainty of the miraculous conception (November 1570); the suppression of the Fratres Humiliati for profligacy (February 1571); the approbation of the new office of the Blessed Virgin (March 1571); the enforcement of the daily recitation of the canonical hours (September 1571); and the purchase of assistance against the Turks by offers of plenary pardon (March 1572). His response to the reforms of Elizabeth I of England (1558–1603) included support of Mary I of Scotland (1542–67) and her supporters in their attempts to take over England "ex turpissima muliebris libidinis servitute". An important event in the history of Elizabethan England was the publication of a bull, Regnans in Excelsis, dated April 27, 1570, that declared Elizabeth I a heretic and released her subjects from their allegiance to her. This transformed the status English Roman Catholics from religious dissidents to potential enemies of the state.

Pius V persistently and successfully attempted to form a general league against the Turks, as the result of which the Battle of Lepanto (October 7, 1571) was won by the combined fleet under Colonna. It is attested in his canonization that he miracously knew when the battle was over, himself being in Rome at the time. Three national synods were held during his pontificate at Naples under Cardinal Alfonson Caraffa (whose family had, after inquiry, been reinstated by Pius V), at Milan under Charles Borromeo, and at Machim.

After his election to the papacy, Pius V continued to wear white, the color of his Dominican habit. Every Pope since him has also worn white clothing. Prior to Pius V, Popes, like Cardinals, wore red. This is why some papal accessories, such as the papal shoes, camauro, mozzetta, and cappello romano, are red.

Death and Canonisation
 
Pius V died on May 1, 1572. He was succeeded by Pope Gregory XIII (1572–85). In 1696, the process of Pius's canonisation was started through the efforts of the Master of the Order of Preachers, Antonin Cloche. He also immediately commissioned a representative tomb from the sculptor Pierre Le Gros the Younger to be erected in the Sistine Chapel of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. The pope's body was placed in it in 1698. He was canonised by Pope Clement XI (1700–21) on May 24, 1712.


Portrait of Pius V by Pierre Le Gros
 
The front of his tomb has a lid of gilded bronze which shows a likeness of the dead pope. Most of the time this is left open to allow the veneration of the saint's remains.

Pope Pius V is also a patron saint of the Maltese Islands and helped financially in the construction of the city of Valleta.

 
The body of Pius V in his tomb in Santa Maria Maggiore.
click on image

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

Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Papal History 2009/01/17 23:28:43 (permalink)
Dear friends,

I have been reading through the exchange in this thread and would like to share.  I am cautious about ascribing deceitfulness or duplicity personally to Pope John Paul II.  The work for women's equality is a complex endeavor.  It draws together many strands of human understanding.  Societally and ecclesially, we live in a time when gender ideology is in a state of massive transition. While in critical areas we have yet to see transformation, in other areas of gender relations advance is concrete. The norms of twenty five years ago no longer hold true for today.  Scientifically, we are continually gaining new ground in comprehension of human biology.  In the western world, women are welcome in the public sphere in ways we never have been before.  Massive shifts have happened and are continuing to happen.

The purpose of studying historical perspectives of the papacy is to gain appreciation for where we have been.  This helps us understand how we have come to be where we are and to see in fact that some things have changed.

In working for change, it is critical to remember that as things move forward, not everyone occupies seats located on the high crest of the wave.

Different people and different segments of society synthesize new ideas in different ways and at different paces.  Some welcome transition. Understanding and comprehension of new vistas happens easily for some.  In other segments of society, needed transition happens slowly or is completely resisted.  Or worse yet it is opposed.  On a personal level, some people adapt to change more quickly than others.   Some people enjoy change.  Others refuse to accommodate it.

Being resistant to change does not necessarily mean that someone is deceitful.  It may simply mean that which presents at face value:  one is resistant to change, one is misinformed, one is uninformed?  Recall that Thomas Aquinas held fast to the belief that the sperm contained complete human life.  His 'scientific' understanding was consistent with the science of his time.  Given progress in science, were he alive today, it is unlikely that he would support that old point of view.

Work for women's ordination includes labouring for cultural change.  This is the work of bringing truth and grace into the world.  It includes working to liberate people from old ways of seeing.  For thousands of years, women in both the civil and religious realms have suffered from the consequences of social prejudice and ignorance.  The suffering continues.  But strides are being made in the brighter light we are gaining. 

Perspectives held as normative today may well be swept aside and replaced with improved norms as more information is illuminated for us.  Pope John Paul II was a man who viewed the world from a distinct 'social location.'  Like any other person, his perspectives were shaped by particular biases.  He occupied a certain social space during a specific time in history.  He came from a country that until recently held fast to notions dictating traditional gender roles.  He was a man whose formative years took place in the first half of the twentieth century.  His time was different from mine. I am uncomfortable with ascribing deceitfulness to what might well be the result of views shaped by natural biases and misinformation.  It is impossible to expect twenty first century comprehension from a twentieth century mind.  John Paul was shaped by a childhood in Poland during which communism and fascism crippled his homeland.  He lived out his vocation in an ecclesiastical world dominated by the perspectives of celibate men... a world where women's viewpoints have not been welcome and where, until fairly recently, few questions were raised about the absence of women.

Furthermore, we must keep in mind that history will take the perspective that John Paul's papacy rests on the cusp of the civil rights and women's movements.  His papacy was a time of many major social transitions.  History will see that during his papacy, the Church was comprised of international groupings shaped by disparate views regarding roles for men and women. Some parts of the world still hold fast to traditional notions about  men and women.  Others are progressive. Today, what is considered normative in North American and Western Europe is not the norm in other parts of the world.  John Paul's papacy witnessed a clash of cultures. I don't have evidence to support that he despised women as some men including some clerics do.  He was known for his friendships with women.  He was a man of his particular country and time.  He was 'traditional' and despite this, he did manage to take some steps forward. ...though I agree, they were not enough.

Although we may concurrently occupy the same space in time, we do not all share the same comprehension what it means to be man or woman.  We are not all are graced with the same clarity and understanding.

While we at www.womenpriests.org respect Pope John Paul II as man who made progress for women in  some ways -- in the Church, he finally defined sexism as a sin.  He recognised women's achievements and our changing roles in the workplace.  He encouraged the work of women's liberation in the  world --  it is clear he did not get 'the whole enchilada.'   At the same that he was progressive, he was also the architect of a new kind of feminism which frequently blurs the distinctions between sex and gender.  Did he understand the difference?  And he repeatedly affirmed that women's primary vocation is to motherhood.

Does this necessarily add up to duplicity?  There are other strands of influence that come into the picture -- features of John Paul himself, features of other key players too.  Besides these factors, there is resistance to change, bad advice, overreactions to and/or misreading of radical feminism, and an inadequate comprehension of modern science.

Given all these factors, I personally am not comfortable nor am I confident that we have enough information to ascribe a verdict of duplicity to Pope John Paul II in his personal capacity.

He is a person of contradictions who produced contradictory results.  In key ways, he did move things forward for women. In key ways, he held women back.  Nonetheless while there still is a glass ceiling that needs to be shattered, we are closer to it now than nearly ever before.

At www.womenpriests.org, we respect the personal integrity of our recent Popes including our present one, too.  We hold them  in high regard as outstanding spiritual leaders.   Nonetheless, we know they are human.  They are men with limitations in perception. We are convinced that in dismissing women as priests, some serious mistakes have been made by Popes and their advisors. We therefore feel obliged in conscience:
Our work is for reform in community.  Our aim is to bring an end to prejudice against women.  Liberation must ultimately come from knowledge and new insight and greater awareness.  The old ways of thinking struggling to transition to to new is not necessarily an equation that adds up to duplicity.  Misinformation does play a role.  Old views are crumbling. We are on the cusp of change.  The UN identifies work for women as an important millenial goal.  We aren't alone in the work that still must be done.  The issue of  how we facilitate transition is one that is alive in the world as a whole. A new consciousness is rising.  Our goal at www.womenpriests.org is to illuminate healthier perspectives which will bring us into closer communion with Christ.  Women are equal to men.  We belong right beside them in all realms of the Church. 

If you have questions, please let me know.

with love and blessings,

~Sophie~
post edited by Sophie - 2009/01/18 04:00:12
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Papal History 2009/01/18 01:16:22 (permalink)
 
 



Recall the theory re: positions various people occupy during times of change:

1.     Innovators - initiate the response

2.     Early Adopters - modify and adopt the response.

3.     Early Majority - cautious and sure

4.     Late Majority -  conservative

5.     Laggards - the last to respond
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Papal History 2009/01/18 01:21:13 (permalink)
 




Reflecting - I might add several categories or differentiate in another way:
  • radical progressives for whom change cannot happen soon enough
  • progressives - moving more slowly so that others can catch up
  • the undecided but open - undecided but open to new information
  • people hesitant to change
  • people who will not change
  • radicals who will do all they can to stop change
  • people oblivious to the need for change
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Papal History 2009/01/18 01:34:58 (permalink)
Comparisons are there between the US progress on efforts to eradicate racism and the Catholic Church's efforts to eradicate sexism?  How does the time frame of achievement of the goal differ?
 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The following is from the January 12, 2009 edition of The New Yorker:



There are many things that the Inauguration of Barack Obama will not mean—the complete eradication of racial prejudice; the disappearance of injustices of history still made manifest in the everyday statistics of employment, education, and incarceration––but it can only instill in the American people a sense of possibility and progress.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 
Homelands
by David Remnick
 
Slaves—men of West African origin branded with Christian monikers like Tom, Peter, Ben, Harry, and Daniel—helped build the White House. Three were on loan from its chief architect, James Hoban. Construction began in 1792, and slaves worked as sawyers, quarrymen, carpenters, stonemasons, brickmakers. Such was the fabric of the new republic: twelve American Presidents owned slaves, eight of them while in office.

After emancipation and the Civil War, a handful of black men won seats in Congress, but, as the spirit of Jim Crow overwhelmed the promise of Reconstruction, white supremacy regained its hold. On January 29, 1901, the last of those black congressmen, George H. White, of North Carolina, stood in the well of the House and prophesied the miracle of reconciliation and justice:



This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the Negroes’ temporary farewell to the American Congress but let me say Phoenix-like he will rise up some day and come again. These parting words are on behalf of an outraged, heart-broken, bruised and bleeding, but God-fearing people. . . . The only apology I have for the earnestness with which I have spoken is that I am pleading for the life, the liberty, the future happiness, and manhood suffrage for one-eighth of the entire population of the United States.
On January 20th, an African-American family will take occupancy of the White House. The incoming President’s father was Kenyan, his mother a Kansan. The future First Lady’s great-great-grandfather Jim Robinson worked as a slave on the Friendfield Plantation, in Georgetown, South Carolina, and is thought to be buried there in an unmarked grave. The election of Barack Hussein Obama represents the culmination of the processes predicted by Representative White, forces that accelerated with the rise, in 1955, of the Second Reconstruction––the civil-rights movement––and the election and the appointment thereafter of hundreds of African-Americans to public office. It is cause not for self-congratulation but for celebration nonetheless. There are many things that the Inauguration of Barack Obama will not mean—the complete eradication of racial prejudice; the disappearance of injustices of history still made manifest in the everyday statistics of employment, education, and incarceration––but it can only instill in the American people a sense of possibility and progress.



Barack Obama was not elected the forty-fourth President based on the depth of his legislative achievements or on the length of his public service. John McCain and Hillary Clinton were the “experience” candidates. Rather, Obama projected an inspiring message, a “narrative,” of change at a moment when so much in American life––the economy, the environment, national security, health care––is in such parlous condition that, for many voters, political familiarity seemed less a source of solace than a form of despair. During the campaign, Obama embodied novelty and a broader American coalition, and everything we heard about his temperament—as a community organizer in Chicago, as a president of the Harvard Law Review, as a legislator, as a campaigner—spoke of someone who, in contrast to the outgoing, faith-based President, possessed a gift for rational judgment and principled compromise.

Barack Obama was not elected the forty-fourth President based on the depth of his legislative achievements or on the length of his public service. John McCain and Hillary Clinton were the “experience” candidates. Rather, Obama projected an inspiring message, a “narrative,” of change at a moment when so much in American life––the economy, the environment, national security, health care––is in such parlous condition that, for many voters, political familiarity seemed less a source of solace than a form of despair. During the campaign, Obama embodied novelty and a broader American coalition, and everything we heard about his temperament—as a community organizer in Chicago, as a president of the Harvard Law Review, as a legislator, as a campaigner—spoke of someone who, in contrast to the outgoing, faith-based President, possessed a gift for rational judgment and principled compromise.

Now there remains only the occasion of Obama’s Inaugural Address before he will put to the test his capacity to reconcile forces and historical actors far beyond his experiences in Cambridge, Hyde Park, Capitol Hill, and Oahu. As if the hydra-headed economic disaster and the heightened tension between nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India were not enough to quicken the pulse, the Bush era is ending, and the Obama era is opening, with yet another conflagration in the most intractable, faith-dazed, and history-inflamed spot on earth. With the end of an uneasy six-month truce, the agents of Hamas immediately began firing rockets, dozens of them a day, into the population centers of southern Israel. As the Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab writes in the Washington Post, the Hamas leadership had lost much of its support in Gaza and knew that the only way to regain it was to reëstablish itself as “the heroic resister.” In return, the Israeli government––now in the run-up to a national election––unleashed its F-16s and helicopter gunships. As in so many instances in the past half century—the Lebanon War of 1982, the “Iron Fist” response to the 1988 intifada, the Lebanon War of 2006—the Israelis have reacted to intolerable acts of terror with a determination to inflict terrible pain, to teach the enemy a lesson. The civilian suffering and deaths are inevitable; the lessons less so.

On June 4th, the day after Obama clinched enough delegates to win the Democratic Party’s nomination for President, he spoke at a session of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, with the intention of assuring American Jews of his allegiances. Once more, he invoked his own story and told of how, when he was eleven, he first learned about Jewish traditions, history, and the “dreams of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds”:


The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black; he was from Kenya, he had left when I was two. My mother was white and she was from Kansas, and I’d moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn’t know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional, and cultural identity. And I understood the Zionist idea—that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

As President, Obama will have to address another dream of homeland––the unrealized dream of the Palestinians. In the West Bank, he will be dealing with a leadership that, while imperfect, supports the overdue justice of a two-state resolution. The same is true in Israel, at least with those politicians to the left of Benjamin Netanyahu. But in Gaza Obama will be dealing, directly or not, with political actors who, with Iranian support, seek ceaseless battle with Israel, and may even hope to destabilize Egypt.

Soon after George W. Bush came to office, eight years ago, he told a confidant that “there’s no Nobel Peace Prize to be had” in Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. He turned his attention instead to places farther east in the Middle East, with mostly horrific results. But, as Obama told his listeners at AIPAC last June, there remains the Talmudic imperative of tikkun olam, “the obligation to repair the world.” In four years, or eight, he may well have won no Nobel medal, made no final repair. But the obligation of constant engagement is deep; the cost of negligence is paid in blood. And, what is more, history has proved that the seemingly impossible can be achieved: the Irish and the English have all but resolved a conflict that began in the days of Oliver Cromwell, and on January 20th an African-American President will cross the color line and move into the White House––a house that slaves helped build. ♦

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/01/12/090112taco_talk_remnick
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/18 05:19:30 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Sophie

Dear friends,

I have been reading through the exchange in this thread and would like to share.  I am cautious about ascribing deceitfulness or duplicity personally to Pope John Paul II.  The work for women's equality is a complex endeavor. 

 
Dear Sophie,
 
I am sorry but from everything I have read regarding the theology of the body, OS, letters of encouragement written to women's groups who support "wives be submissive..."  in the traditional sense, the way he dismissed Sister Kane in her request, the gag order on priests to not even discuss the topic of women’s ordination, the excommunication of people who attend women’s ordinations, the threat of excommunicating those who support the ordination of women, the notion that women are ontologically different...  JPII’s apology to women does not ring true to me. You and others may feel differently but I cannot.
 
Apologizing for mistakes of other’s in the past does not equate to a sincere apology in my opinion. Apologizing for women being raped, murdered, oppressed, marginalized by other men does not make what he did to women acceptable. I thoroughly reject the way women have been excluded and marginalized in the Church. If JPII had been a real man and apologized for his own transgressions against women, I could have more respect for the content of the apology. As it is he did great harm to women in their cause for ordination to the priesthood by promoting this false theology of the body. I am offended as a Catholic woman and saddened by this.
 
Perhaps God needed JPII to help liberate Poland, perhaps he instituted some good changes in placing women on the altar as servers, but it is far from where we need to be and the theology of the body is an offensive slap in the face. I am hurt, truly hurt by it.
 
Duplicitous, yes I think he was. I do not rationalize his behavior away. If he was not duplicitous then he would have to be pathetically ignorant about the spirituality of women. Not a great spiritual leader by any stretch of the imagination.
 
The ignorance manifest by past men (even some Saints) may have been understood due to their lack of scientific knowledge and primitive indoctrination. Today we know better, we have global communication and information literally at our fingertips. There is no reason for this ignorance. In fact it seems that JPII and others in the Vatican realized how difficult the ban on women’s ordination was to defend, so much so that they needed to institute a ban on all discussion. This does not seem like the action of someone sincere.
 
You believe they are sincere and act out of ignorance. This is difficult for me. Perhaps I credit them with too much intelligence. Either way the hurt is the same. There is restlessness inside of me that will not dismiss, excuse, or apologize for the perpetrators of such sins against women committed in the name of God.
 
I don’t expect these men to be perfect. I do forgive their transgressions against women, but I will not apologize for their wrongdoing. They are the spiritual leaders of the Church and they need to be told when they are not living up to the responsibility entrusted to them.
 
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Papal History 2009/01/19 00:19:44 (permalink)
 




Dear friend,

I write to acknowledge your post.  Your words eloquently capture the reality of the deep hurt that you and so many of us are struggling to contend with.  I would like to share a bit more in response. Time is not on my side at the moment. I will be back. Be assured that I welcome and honour your contribution.  You write about important but difficult features of the journey.  I look forward to continuing this discussion.  I appreciate what you have shared very much. 

with love and blessings,

~Sophie~
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/19 05:28:49 (permalink)

I don’t expect these men to be perfect. I do forgive their transgressions against women, but I will not apologize for their wrongdoing. They are the spiritual leaders of the Church and they need to be told when they are not living up to the responsibility entrusted to them.

Well said.  They have a responsibility to Christ, to the Church, to Christianity, to the children, and to the world, to preach and teach accurately the teachings and demonstrated examples of Christ.   If, for whatever reason, they fail in this great task, it is our duty to point it out and to carry on the work of Christ anyway, with or without or in spite of their leadership.  All those who have been baptized have a sworn responsibility to Christ to preserve and uphold Christ's teachings and demonstrated examples to the children of this world, so help us God.  Our responsibilities are no different and no less than the hierarchy's, and Christ holds us no less accountable.
 
woman who votes with feet
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Papal History 2009/01/19 16:21:36 (permalink)
woman who votes with feet
 
thank you for expressing so brilliantly what we need to do, that is, telling the truth about the teachings and actions of Jesus.  We need to stand up for what really are the teachings of Jesus and how it really should be for the people of the church.  We must hold accountable the clerics and not put up with any lies or distortions the clerics come up with about the words of Jesus or how our church should really be if it did obey Jesus and the New Testament, or any decent moral, ethical code for that matter. Thank you for so lovely a way to express this.
Page: << < ..6789 > Showing page 7 of 9 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Guest
Quick Reply: (Open Full Version)
  Enter the random characters shown
Submit Post
Jump to:
© 2020 APG vNext Trial Version 4.6

This website is maintained by the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research.

Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research

Visitors to www.womenpriests.org since 11 January 2014

Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research