# Is the Pope´s visit worth €14 million?



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

A lot of people don´t think so, and there have been widespread protests wherever he has appeared. 

Protestas contra el Papa Video
La Jornada: Preparan protestas en España contra el Papa; llega hoy a Santiago de Compostela

Evidence of a decline in the role of religion in Spain? Or just disillusionment at some bloke in robes sitting on a throne telling people how to live their lives?


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Bus strike in Barcelona yesterday in protest about the cost of the Pope´s visit.

La CGT convoca una huelga de autobuses contra el gasto público por la visita del Papa - Barcelona - El Periódico


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Spain's gays welcome Pope with a kiss | Olive Press Newspaper | News Spain



> THOUSANDS of gay people are set to welcome the Pope to Spain, with a kiss.
> 
> Following the Pope’s alleged anti-gay stance, Facebook group ‘Queer Kissing Flashmob’, has decided to hold a mass ‘kiss-in’ when the head of the Catholic Church visits Barcelona this week.


Supposed to be yesterday - don't know if it happened.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2010)

I made a comment about this the other day, and was immediately shot down by my brother-in-law, who commented about the enormous amount of publicity this has given for his family's home region of Galicia. 

All I could think of when I saw the video of the "drive through town" is the scene from _Bienvenido Mr. Marshall_ when the long-awaited Mr. Marshall's motorcade just blows through town at a high rate of speed.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2010)

jimenato said:


> Spain's gays welcome Pope with a kiss | Olive Press Newspaper | News Spain
> 
> 
> 
> Supposed to be yesterday - don't know if it happened.


It did.


----------



## pensionista (Sep 6, 2010)

Alcalaina said:


> Bus strike in Barcelona yesterday in protest about the cost of the Pope´s visit.
> 
> La CGT convoca una huelga de autobuses contra el gasto público por la visita del Papa - Barcelona - El Periódico


Why should the taxpayer pay for the visit of an old man in a frock.?
The Catholic Church (with its vast wealth) should be responsible.
Our leaders talk of cuts everywhere yet sanction ridiculous events like this.
The London visit cost something like £15 million, at a time when everyone is experiencing difficult times economically.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

halydia said:


> It did.





> THOUSANDS of gay people are set to welcome the Pope to Spain, with a kiss.


Actually the headline is a bit ambiguous - I don't suppose they actually kissed the Pope.:kiss:


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2010)

jimenato said:


> Actually the headline is a bit ambiguous - I don't suppose they actually kissed the Pope.:kiss:


hahahaha, you are correct. That would've made me smile though.


----------



## Calas felices (Nov 29, 2007)

*Pope's visit*

The London visit cost something like £15 million, at a time when everyone is experiencing difficult times economically.

Just love the way papers pluck figures out of the air. So where were the additional costs generated from? Were there more police employed, more security personnel employed?? and how does this compare with a visit by another Head of State??


----------



## xicoalc (Apr 20, 2010)

jimenato said:


> Spain's gays welcome Pope with a kiss | Olive Press Newspaper | News Spain
> 
> 
> 
> Supposed to be yesterday - don't know if it happened.


Yes it did, and according to Sky news the pope went on to strongly criticise the Spanish laws on gay marriage, divorce, and abortion ..... talk about being polite to your hosts!


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jimenato said:


> Actually the headline is a bit ambiguous - I don't suppose they actually kissed the Pope.:kiss:


If this were the Expat Lounge, I would be tempted to suggest that they "b***er the Pope" instead!


----------



## xicoalc (Apr 20, 2010)

Alcalaina said:


> If this were the Expat Lounge, I would be tempted to suggest that they "b***er the Pope" instead!


 Alcalaina - I am shocked by you!!! Outraged!!! Speechless!!! Gobsmacked!!! For words like that to come out of your mouth!!! :clap2:

The gay men of Barcelona have much better taste in men!!!:eyebrows::rofl:


----------



## pensionista (Sep 6, 2010)

Calas felices said:


> The London visit cost something like £15 million, at a time when everyone is experiencing difficult times economically.
> 
> Just love the way papers pluck figures out of the air. So where were the additional costs generated from? Were there more police employed, more security personnel employed?? and how does this compare with a visit by another Head of State??


Head of state ? really ? It is highly debatable as to whether the Vatician City is a state. A Holy See, yes.
Other heads of state usually justify their costs by generating trade agreements between fellow states. The only trade that the Vatician generates, as far as I know, is ;
1)..Dogma
2)..An inexhaustible supply of serial child abusers.


----------



## xicoalc (Apr 20, 2010)

pensionista said:


> The only trade that the Vatician generates, as far as I know, is ;
> 1)..Dogma
> 2)..An inexhaustible supply of serial child abusers.


:clap2::clap2: well said!

14m euros is rediculous to welcome the most narrow minded man in the world into one of the most open minded countries. Just imagine if they spent 14m on promoting tourism, or helping small businesses - think how much that would make a difference to so many people. If the pope really wants to see his followers, cant he use a webcam? I bet most of his priests have got webcams (sorry that was below the belt - but with the popes lot it usually is!)


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I take a different view on the Papal visit to Spain.
I watched yesterday's moving ceremony of the consecration of the Sagrada Familia on EWTN and clearly there were plenty of people there, both inside and outside the basilica, enthusiastically welcoming him. I know Spain is no longer a Catholic country as it was a generation ago, a lot has changed, yet Catholicism is still the major religion and most Spaniards get baptised, confirmed, get married and buried by the Church. Maybe only 10% go to Mass regularly (still 10 times higher than Church of England here), but Catholic spirituality still is a force in the lives of many people. As for the Pope's conservatism, he is a traditionalist Pope and you don't expect anything else - he is just restating the doctrines and teachings he is meant to uphold, whether some people agree with or not. Spain has Catholic monarch, religion is taught in state schools (and I suppose most parents still want it, like in England) and you have chaplains in hospitals, armed forces and universities. Just like the Papal visit to UK in September that has done much to raise the morale of Catholics and others, the same can be said about Spain following, by all accounts, a successful visit by Benedict XVI.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2010)

Joppa said:


> ...Catholicism is still the major religion and most Spaniards get baptised, confirmed, get married and buried by the Church. Maybe only 10% go to Mass regularly (still 10 times higher than Church of England here), but Catholic spirituality still is a force in the lives of many people.


Catholicism is still the _only_ religion. 
You're either Catholic or you're something else. 

A quote from the "Christian Science Monitor:" 
_“Spain is a bastion of the Catholic Church in Europe. It doesn’t treat all religions equally. It has preferential treatment for the Church,” says Ferran Requejo, a political science professor in the Universidad de Barcelona. “Relations with the government have been cold for some time and the Vatican has been pushing to weaken the secular push.”_ Regarding this preferential treatment, one has only to look at their tax return and the advertisements around tax time: "Check the box for the Church!" 

If I remember properly, last year was the very first year that civil weddings outnumbered church weddings. I'm getting married next year, and the local priest was highly disappointed (to say the least) that he only has five weddings booked in his church for next year. Each restaurant we have gone to has enthusiastically told us that they celebrate civil weddings on premises and you can tell that this has become a big business for these restaurants. 

I'd like to know how many people celebrate these rites for anything much more than the pomp and circumstance. Baptism = big party. Communion = mini-wedding. 

Out of my extended family and friends here I can think of two people who regularly attend mass: one is my 87 year old grandmother in law, the other is in his 60s and arguably borderline Opus. 



I will, however, argue that the blanket statements that have been made on here against the church and priests (in terms of abuse) have been unfair. I urge some of you to rethink such strong generalizations.


----------



## pensionista (Sep 6, 2010)

halydia said:


> Catholicism is still the _only_ religion.
> You're either Catholic or you're something else.
> 
> 
> ...


Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## xicoalc (Apr 20, 2010)

halydia said:


> I will, however, argue that the blanket statements that have been made on here against the church and priests (in terms of abuse) have been unfair. I urge some of you to rethink such strong generalizations.


I do agree that it is wrong to generalise but it disgusts me to hear time and time again about the things that go on within the catholic church. The one sector of society that we should be able to trust, look up to and follow in the footsteps of are the one sector of society that have let us down so many ways. Yes, of course the percentage of priests that have carried out abuse is tiny in comparison to the amount of priests that are there but I can't help but feel that the old fashioned views of the cathloic church (celebate priests etc) all contribute to things like this going on.

I am not particularly religious - although I will add that I was brought up C of E and went to church every week until about the age of 15 when I chose not to go anymore. I chose not to because even at that age I saw hypocracy. The bible can be interpreted in so many ways, depending on which side of the fence you are sitting and who you ask BUT above all the bible says we should love each other. I spoke to a very good friend of mine (who incidently is a priest) and asked him his opinion on the fact I am gay. He said that his opinion does not matter, I am, in his eyes a child of god and the only person who can judge me is god. He also went on to say that even if god views my sexuality as wrong, he will always consider the good things I have done in life when making his judgement on me - SURELY the pope (so called leader of the Catholic church, and so called spreader of love and peace) should adopt this opinion.

The pope (and I refer to him in particular) has no right to visit Spain and openly criticise it's ways of life, in particular the gay community - especially when he has such issues (like the abuse scandals) going on in his own community. He should spend his efforts dealing with those issues, and perhaps that means reforming his religion and his own views first.

If you, or anyone else walked down a street and made homophobic comments you could quite easily be arrested for "hate crimes", and quite rightly so - yet it is OK for this prat to come to Barcelona, to a Spanish society and then criticise its rules, laws, and ways fo life - if you don't like it - keep out!

So yes, I apologise if my previous post came accross as generalising - I really wasn't - BUT it's time the pope took a long hard look at himself and some of the things that do go on in this church before he starts criticising others.

You mention that many don't go to church now - that's probably because, like some I know, they no longer want to associate with the church and what it stands for - and instead prefer to quietly practice their faith elsewhere!

15m euros - much of which is probably spent on security because so many hate him and they vatican fear for his safety - says a lot really i think! A complete waste of money at a time when so many are starving around the world!

Sorry if this was a very long post but I do feel strongly against the pope and what he stands for!


----------



## pensionista (Sep 6, 2010)

Joppa said:


> I take a different view on the Papal visit to Spain.
> I watched yesterday's moving ceremony of the consecration of the Sagrada Familia on EWTN and clearly there were plenty of people there, both inside and outside the basilica, enthusiastically welcoming him. I know Spain is no longer a Catholic country as it was a generation ago, a lot has changed, yet Catholicism is still the major religion and most Spaniards get baptised, confirmed, get married and buried by the Church. Maybe only 10% go to Mass regularly (still 10 times higher than Church of England here), but Catholic spirituality still is a force in the lives of many people. As for the Pope's conservatism, he is a traditionalist Pope and you don't expect anything else - he is just restating the doctrines and teachings he is meant to uphold, whether some people agree with or not. Spain has Catholic monarch, religion is taught in state schools (and I suppose most parents still want it, like in England) and you have chaplains in hospitals, armed forces and universities. Just like the Papal visit to UK in September that has done much to raise the morale of Catholics and others, the same can be said about Spain following, by all accounts, a successful visit by Benedict XVI.


Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests' | News


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

pensionista said:


> Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests' | News


The same Pope also saw victims of sexual abuse and apologised and shed tears with them.


----------



## xicoalc (Apr 20, 2010)

Joppa said:


> The same Pope also saw victims of sexual abuse and apologised and shed tears with them.


Yes but it could be argued that was just PR!

Lets face it, celebs do things wrong, they always make a big gesture afterwards, big companies screw up, they always make a gesture afterwards!

The article pensionista just posted about the pope covering up years ago - i hadnt seen that until now - perhaps the tears were because his attempted cover up was coming to light!!!


----------



## Xose (Dec 10, 2008)

steve_in_spain said:


> I do agree that it is wrong to generalise but it disgusts me to hear time and time again about the things that go on within the catholic church. The one sector of society that we should be able to trust, look up to and follow in the footsteps of are the one sector of society that have let us down so many ways. Yes, of course the percentage of priests that have carried out abuse is tiny in comparison to the amount of priests that are there but I can't help but feel that the old fashioned views of the cathloic church (celebate priests etc) all contribute to things like this going on.
> 
> I am not particularly religious - although I will add that I was brought up C of E and went to church every week until about the age of 15 when I chose not to go anymore. I chose not to because even at that age I saw hypocracy. The bible can be interpreted in so many ways, depending on which side of the fence you are sitting and who you ask BUT above all the bible says we should love each other. I spoke to a very good friend of mine (who incidently is a priest) and asked him his opinion on the fact I am gay. He said that his opinion does not matter, I am, in his eyes a child of god and the only person who can judge me is god. He also went on to say that even if god views my sexuality as wrong, he will always consider the good things I have done in life when making his judgement on me - SURELY the pope (so called leader of the Catholic church, and so called spreader of love and peace) should adopt this opinion.
> 
> ...


So, do we just crucify them all??

C of E child abuse was ignored for decades - Telegraph

or just the Catholic Pope.... and only crap on this one's grave, or all of them from history past?.

Shall we burn churches and hang priests - in fact, all move to Cuba? - and just let good old man kind resolve all our problems as it has done in the past... a-la Lord of the flies, only in a much, much bigger and uglier scale?

Not that I suggest that Rajoyism (only problems no solutions) doesn't have it's place, but I can't see the alternatives being mentioned. Lest we forget, society didn't just happen, and the fear of God/Alah/Thor ;-) etc., had quite a bit to do with calming down our animal instincts..... didn't it?

I would also add that had it not been for the church in all its forms and all of it's forgive and forget and turn the other cheek teachings, things might not be the way they are today in many acceptances... hundreds or thousands of years of interpretations and affectations later. One only has to look at our world today in other societies. But perhaps I'm wrong.


----------



## pensionista (Sep 6, 2010)

Joppa said:


> The same Pope also saw victims of sexual abuse and apologised and shed tears with them.


Joppa..with all due respect he should be shedding more than tears, Apart from having links to the SS during the war he was the head of the department in the Vatician that handled child abuse cases from all over the world. This was during the reign of Pope John Paul II.
He allowed a priest in Wisconsin to retire ON FULL PAY for a further 24 years after he was found to have abused more than 200 children. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.
In 1986 a priest in Munich admitted abuse over a prolonged period of time. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.
And it goes on , and on, and on.
During his entire time as head of this office NO ACTION WAS TAKEN against any abusing priests.
I really admire your loyalty to this man.


----------



## xicoalc (Apr 20, 2010)

Xose said:


> So, do we just crucify them all??
> 
> Not that I suggest that Rajoyism (only problems no solutions) doesn't have it's place, but I can't see the alternatives being mentioned. Lest we forget, society didn't just happen, and the fear of God/Alah/Thor ;-) etc., had quite a bit to do with calming down our animal instincts..... didn't it?
> 
> I would also add that had it not been for the church in all its forms and all of it's forgive and forget and turn the other cheek teachings, things might not be the way they are today in many acceptances... hundreds or thousands of years of interpretations and affectations later. One only has to look at our world today in other societies. But perhaps I'm wrong.


Of course we dont crucify them all - I, nor nobody else suggested that, and you are right that the church and its influence has in many ways driven society to what it is today BUT....the current pope in particular has a lot to answer for - his views are dated, and yes although the 'fear of god' has made the world a better place in many ways, it has also made the lives of many a living hell. Gays in fear of their life, or personal safety being just one... 

Spain was one of the first countriesb to accept "different forms of love", decriminalise it and embrace it. The world is slowly following suit and *SOCIETY *is teaching people to "live and let live". The catholic church is *still *teaching homophobia and spreading negative views and it needs to change - ESPECIALLY when he should be taking a closer look at himself, SOME of his clergy, and what must be happening inside that church for this problem to have been so widespread.

Historically, religion may have influenced our lives and calmed our animal instincts BUT we are not animals now, we are a more civilised world and as the flock develops and changes, so should the shepherd! Maybe it should be the catholic church goers who select the next pope (jsut like we select our country leaders) - the overwhelming majority of catholics are wonderful people, and many choose to follow the popes beliefs in their own life but dont feel they shoudl force it on others - perhaps the next pope shoudl be elected in a more democratic way - and just to show no hard feelings, instead of black or white smoke at the vatican, perhaps we should have men in lycra with cheer leaders pom poms come out when the election has been concluded!!! :cheer2:


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

The word religion neans different things in different contexts, and we are in danger of confusing them. On the one side it means faith, morality, charity and all the good bits, and on the other, the established church with all its dogma and hypocracy.

Spain has largely turned its back on the latter, but still warmly embraces the former. The Saints and the Virgin, who are benign and caring, are far more significant in everyday life than the Pope and his gang with their rules and their dark threats of purgatory and hellfire.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

steve_in_spain said:


> Of course we dont crucify them all - I, nor nobody else suggested that, and you are right that the church and its influence has in many ways driven society to what it is today BUT....the current pope in particular has a lot to answer for - his views are dated, and yes although the 'fear of god' has made the world a better place in many ways, it has also made the lives of many a living hell. Gays in fear of their life, or personal safety being just one...
> 
> Spain was one of the first countriesb to accept "different forms of love", decriminalise it and embrace it. The world is slowly following suit and *SOCIETY *is teaching people to "live and let live". The catholic church is *still *teaching homophobia and spreading negative views and it needs to change - ESPECIALLY when he should be taking a closer look at himself, SOME of his clergy, and what must be happening inside that church for this problem to have been so widespread.


This Pope and the one before also bear a lot of responsibility for the spread of AIDS in the developing world, by prohibiting the use of condoms. In my eyes that is a crime against humanity.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

steve_in_spain said:


> Maybe it should be the catholic church goers who select the next pope (jsut like we select our country leaders) - the overwhelming majority of catholics are wonderful people, and many choose to follow the popes beliefs in their own life but dont feel they shoudl force it on others - perhaps the next pope shoudl be elected in a more democratic way - and just to show no hard feelings, instead of black or white smoke at the vatican, perhaps we should have men in lycra with cheer leaders pom poms come out when the election has been concluded!!! :cheer2:


Why do they need a pope at all? The cardinals or whatever meet now and again to discuss changes in the rules, just like FIFA; that´s far more democratic surely.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Alcalaina said:


> The Saints and the Virgin, who are benign and caring, are far more significant in everyday life than the Pope and his gang with their rules and their dark threats of purgatory and hellfire.


All parts of the same deposit of faith of the Catholic Church, and the belief in and respect for the papacy is greater than any individual who happens to be in office.


----------



## xicoalc (Apr 20, 2010)

Alcalaina said:


> This Pope and the one before also bear a lot of responsibility for the spread of AIDS in the developing world, by prohibiting the use of condoms. In my eyes that is a crime against humanity.


Oh now I agree on this one! Also, when I was in the UK our GP practice was a small 3 set up and one doc was a Cathloic woman... there was a sign up saying that you cannot come to the surgery on XYZ days of the week for contraception pill, morning after pill or contraception advice as she is the only doctor on and it is against her religious beliefs to talk about it..... I actually thought doctors HAD to put their beliefs to one side when they are doing a job....no?


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

Well, I was in Barcelona on Sunday (obviously) and was stuck in a protest march. Not that I minded, I even enthousiastically accepted a banner and joined in  Later on me and two friends went to the Cathedral where we were hoping to catch a glimpse of the Pope and see the protesters, but all we saw were some cardinals and bishops, no pope. I was surprised though that the bishops walked right through the crowd of protesters, the police let them come very close to those clergymen. Not that they were violent, but given the fact that sex and orgasm should be totally unknown to these guys I can imagine they found all the condoms pointed to them, slogans about "la Virgen ha foll*do" and similar unpleasant.


As for the original question: no, this visit isn't worth the money spent. I support the tax system like in Germany where you can indicate if you wish to see tax money spent on religion (and if yes: which religion) or not. Of course you can say it was the visit of a Head of State as much as a religious visit. My personal opinion is that the Vatican City is a pariah state, kept intact only to protect the richdom and possessions of the  Church and to offer a loophole for misbehaving priests who, as per Vatican law, can only be sent to a regular court if no christian sentence is appropriate. Vatican City should not exist, and as long as it exists it should not have any diplomatic ties whatsoever. Obviously political correctness will stand in the way of that.

Given the crisis we are in and the number of people still hardly getting around with the tiny income they get, throwing money out of the window for the visit of one of the wealthiest men on earth, is scandalous IMO.


----------



## Calas felices (Nov 29, 2007)

*Costs*

Love to know who was waiting below the window that all this money was thrown out of. Anybody like to hazard a guess what it was spent on that is if it was spent at all and not a figment of an imagination?


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Calas felices said:


> Love to know who was waiting below the window that all this money was thrown out of. Anybody like to hazard a guess what it was spent on that is if it was spent at all and not a figment of an imagination?


Security, transport, accommodation for his entourage ... The issue though is that the Vatican should pay for the cost of the visit, not the host country. The Pope is NOT a Head of State.

New Statesman - The case against Vatican power

Last time he came there was a big scandal about bribes for TV rights in Valencia:

14 million tax fraud uncovered in 2006 Pope's visit to Valencia


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

As a gay,( lapsed )Catholic I think it is appalling that the State should contribute anything towards a visit by this homophobic, reactionary ex-Hitler Jugend member. If I had been in Barcelona I hope I could have persuaded my OH to take part in the kiss-in.
I am personally suspicious of a man who wears red Gucci loafers and has as his PA a young, handsome man.....(the scriptural saying 'let s/he that is without sin cast the first stone' scarcely applies in my case as I'm a happy sinner).
But not all Catholics should be tarred with the same brush. When I was a regular church-goer we had a lovely young priest who, when told about my relationship and asked to comment, replied that the Almighty had more things to worry about than what two mature women got up to at Number Two Acacia Gardens.
His sermons were as progressive as you could hope for from a Catholic priest and he was a decent, humane man who left our parish to work with the poor in Peru.
His successor was not so enlightened so my attendance at Mass declined sharply then stopped altogether. I was quite sorry that this had to happen.
It's wrong to dismiss all religion and religious people as dogmatic and reactionary. Consider the priests and nuns who worked with and fought for the poor in Latin America and were cruelly murdered by right-wing regimes.
In my opinion and experience very many RC priests are themselves closeted gays. I have as friends two gay men who both left the priesthood to become teachers because they could not live with the hypocrisy required of them by the Church.
The church's loss, teaching's gain.


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

Alcalaina, he is unfortunately head of state. A pariah state that in fact has no right to be recognised diplomatically IMO, but still a state. And even when the Vatican has limited power, his influence makes him powerful. Berlusconi will rarely go against the opinion of the Pope in practise, remember the euthanasia case last year when a girl who was comatose and braindead for 19 years would be taken off the breathing machines. The Pope was obviously furious and Berlusconi immediately responded he'd create an emergency law outlawing any form of euthanasia (luckily he was too late with that and as far as I know the law never was voted afterwards)


----------



## xicoalc (Apr 20, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> As a gay,( lapsed )Catholic I think it is appalling that the State should contribute anything towards a visit by this homophobic, reactionary ex-Hitler Jugend member. If I had been in Barcelona I hope I could have persuaded my OH to take part in the kiss-in.
> I am personally suspicious of a man who wears red Gucci loafers and has as his PA a young, handsome man.....(the scriptural saying 'let s/he that is without sin cast the first stone' scarcely applies in my case as I'm a happy sinner).
> But not all Catholics should be tarred with the same brush. When I was a regular church-goer we had a lovely young priest who, when told about my relationship and asked to comment, replied that the Almighty had more things to worry about than what two mature women got up to at Number Two Acacia Gardens.
> His sermons were as progressive as you could hope for from a Catholic priest and he was a decent, humane man who left our parish to work with the poor in Peru.
> ...


Well said Mary! i didn't know you were on my bus  

Oh! honey, we should do some bonding 

I so wanted to go to Barcelona for the kiss in - but sadly logistics wouldn't allow  I totally agree and have the same suspicions as you about the popes sexual habits or, at least desires..... Thou protesteth too much me thinks .... your holyness!

Oh my god - visions of the confessional! Ha ha remember the thread a few weeks ago about the little booths in sex shops.....Oh Mary what have you started now with your suggestions about the pope!

Anyway.. he should come to Benidorm instead of Barcelona - he wouldn't need his pope-mobile - they could hire him a mobility scooter like madge off the series (far cheaper) and after a day of preaching he could cruise the bars and nudist beaches - this time of year there are a lot of people around his age group - he's have a ball (or two)


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

gerrit said:


> Alcalaina, he is unfortunately head of state. A pariah state that in fact has no right to be recognised diplomatically IMO, but still a state. And even when the Vatican has limited power, his influence makes him powerful. Berlusconi will rarely go against the opinion of the Pope in practise, remember the euthanasia case last year when a girl who was comatose and braindead for 19 years would be taken off the breathing machines. The Pope was obviously furious and Berlusconi immediately responded he'd create an emergency law outlawing any form of euthanasia (luckily he was too late with that and as far as I know the law never was voted afterwards)


Is the Vatican a State? Debatable!
A curious tale of two embassies - Geoffrey Robertson - New Statesman - RichardDawkins.net


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

steve_in_spain said:


> Well said Mary! i didn't know you were on my bus
> 
> Oh! honey, we should do some bonding


That kiss-in was a great idea. Sadly enough it was a gay-only event, otherwise I had the perfect excuse to ask a random guapa on the street if she didn't mind some french kissing with me ... for the sake of making a political statement only, of course 



Actually, pardon the somewhat untasty question, but I always wondered... Is the pope (or any priest, for that matter) required to only abstain from sexual activities, the "you can look but you can't touch" rule? Or is he forbidden as well to fantasise about any man/woman, look at the adult TV channels in the privacy of his own apartment, ... ? And what happens if he is arroused undeliberately, for example when the Pope Mobile passes some beach with revealingly dressed people, or when a truly handsome guy/girl is sitting on the front row in church?

Also, in case he is not allowed to even look at a pretty person, is there any way to even control this? Who says the priests, in the privacy of their homes, don't... erm... "use their right hand"? 

And all of this celibacy is purely introduced to prevent clergy from having heirs, and to keep the richness and money of the Church in the possession of the Church. Quite hypocrite if you ask me. The Bible teaches to live a sobre life and to give to the poor, but it seems mr Ratzinger and his organisation have enough money themselves to feed half of Africa ... "Do as I say, don't do as I do"?


----------



## xicoalc (Apr 20, 2010)

gerrit said:


> Also, in case he is not allowed to even look at a pretty person, is there any way to even control this? Who says the priests, in the privacy of their homes, don't... erm... "use their right hand"?


Now I know where the phrase "bashing the bishop" came from


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Is the Vatican a State? Debatable!
> A curious tale of two embassies - Geoffrey Robertson - New Statesman - RichardDawkins.net


Vatican City is a fully recognised (by UN) state. The smallest sovereign nation on earth. Probably the most sparsely populated sovereign nation as well (unless the Pitcairn islands declare independence and get diplomatically recognised)

There is indeed a difference between the Holy See and the Vatican City state, but that doesn't stand in the way of the Vatican being a sovereign state (it is NOT Italian soil and has a different law than Italy) and the Pope being head of state.

Actually, the Vatican being a sovereign state is quite handy for misbehaving priests seeking shelter there, because the Vatican uses a law that says civil courts should only be utilised in case there is no religious solution for a specific issue. 

I am not sure if the passports of the approx 500 people who hold Vatican citizenship state "Vatican City passport" or "Holy See passport" and if embassies use the term Holy See or Vatican City. But regardless of that, Vatican City is a UN recognised sovereign state. A pariah state in my opinion but clearly the UN disagrees with me.



Now I repeat my question as I am really curious now  So clergymen are supposed to not have any sexual activity. Does that mean they cannot watch the adult TV channels? They cannot read Playboy? They cannot walk on a beach and enjoy the pretty men and women there (even when their priest robe is wide enough to hide any rising body parts ) ? They cannot utilise their hands as a replacement for the partner they are not allowed to have?

Or is it all fine as long as they don't have sex with an actual person?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

steve_in_spain said:


> Well said Mary! i didn't know you were on my bus
> 
> Oh! honey, we should do some bonding
> 
> ...


Ah Steve....distance separates us.....That and the fact that we can't leave Our Little Azor to make trips. Kennels are out of the question....most won't take Ridgebacks anyway even if they are as cute and gentle as OLA. The only person we would leave him with is my son (who covets him - his wife won't let him have a big dog so they have a small one and Rob, who is a rugby trainer and built like the proverbial brick s***house looks silly walking it) and Rob doesn't often visit for longer than a weekend.
We take him with us when we can find dog-friendly hotels, fortunately there are a good few in Spain.
Back to Il Papa.....my old Auntie Nellie in Canada - yes, that's her name - is eighty-six years old and a pillar of the Catholic church in Quebec. She is really great, more like a sixty year-old or even younger, wears stylish clothes, makes up and is pursued by men: she complains of a ninety year-old 'sex pest' -her words - who invites her on dates.
She was secretary of the Catholic Women's League, the Legion of Mary and at one time the Catholic League of Decency. Not exactly progressive or permissive in outlook.
Yet she has been heard to say that the Church has no business in people's bedrooms.
The RC Church has much in common with Communism. Both are authoritarian, undemocratic, doctrinaire and don't listen to their followers. No wonder disillusioned Communists often become Catholics and vice-versa.
If the church truly listened to and reflected the views of its adherents, at least those in Europe and North America, it woulod be singing from a different songsheet.
Catholics in Latin America and Africa are admittedly more traditionalist in outlook but I firmly believe in the power of reasoned argument to change minds. Even in these countries more progressive voices are being heard.
If Jesus were alive now he would be appalled at the way his teachings have been misinterpreted and perverted by those who run things in his name.
After all, his message was basically quite simple: 'Be nice to each other'.


Here endeth the sermon from Sister Mary of the Church of Perpetual Indulgence, Marbella.....


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

I would compare the Church more to a dictatorship with religious undertone, the Christian counterpart of Iran if you wish so. For sure Vatican City as a sovereign state is a theocracy, and in a secular Europe this should in fact not be tolerated. 

Back when I was at high school (don't confuse with secondary school , in Belgium high school is a term for non-university post-secondary education) one of the teachers I got along with very well (even to the extent we went for drinks together to chat) was a reverend in the Protestant Church of Belgium (a tiny minority religion as most Belgians are either Roman Catholic or non-religious). Despite the religious gap between us (he was doing masses and even had been a missionary in Africa, while I am Atheist) I highly respected him. He was never the preachy sort of reverend, never tried to push his religion in other people's throat, quite progressive, ... 

Afterwards I lived in Ireland for 3 years spread between the Republic and the North. In the North my friends were mixed: some Catholic, some Protestant, some others (Muslim or atheist).

From these experiences, it seems to me that the Protestant church is a lot more open-minded, less oppressive and less dogmatic, and especially more progressive than the Roman Catholic Church. If I were a christian I'd much rather join the Protestant church than the RC church. (but for now I'll stick to atheism)

Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and non-Catholic branches of Christianity usually have no organisation that functions as official rulers of the religion, no hierarchy or let alone a leader (in all other religions, there are more local branches rather than a global organisation and hierarchy with a global leader). Conclusion: the Roman Catholic church is the most oppressive religion out there, and the whole organisational structure goes against everything religion should be about (and that is including Christianity - otherwise other Christian branches would accept the Pope as leader as well rather than reject the Vatican and the Pope like the vast majority of Christian branches do)


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

gerrit said:


> From these experiences, it seems to me that the Protestant church is a lot more open-minded, less oppressive and less dogmatic, and especially more progressive than the Roman Catholic Church. If I were a christian I'd much rather join the Protestant church than the RC church. (but for now I'll stick to atheism)


Protestants can be just as oppressive and bigoted - did you ever come across Revd Ian Paisley when you were in Ireland? He and his Loyalist comrades were laregly responsible for the Troubles in Ulster, setting fire to Catholics´ houses to drive them out of mixed areas in an early form of ethnic cleansing. It was the Catholics´appeal for protection that led to British troops going in, before the IRA regrouped to fight back.

And the bun-fight that´s going on now about women bishops and homosexual clergy? Not a lot of openmindedness in evidence there, I´m afraid.

Best to stay Atheist! Too much strife in the world has religion at its roots.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Alcalaina said:


> Protestants can be just as oppressive and bigoted - did you ever come across Revd Ian Paisley when you were in Ireland? He and his Loyalist comrades were laregly responsible for the Troubles in Ulster, setting fire to Catholics´ houses to drive them out of mixed areas in an early form of ethnic cleansing. It was the Catholics´appeal for protection that led to British troops going in, before the IRA regrouped to fight back.
> 
> And the bun-fight that´s going on now about women bishops and homosexual clergy? Not a lot of openmindedness in evidence there, I´m afraid.
> 
> Best to stay Atheist! Too much strife in the world has religion at its roots.


Well, at least they're having the discussion - I don't see much of that happening in the RC church - in fact the repressive, reactionary Anglican bishops who oppose women bishops are deserting to, and being welcomed by the RC's.


----------



## littleredrooster (Aug 3, 2008)

I think a lot of ppl.and their families have long memories with regard to the part that the Catholic church and the Pope himself, played in not only backing Franco but in knowingly approving some of the atrocities that occured during the Civil war.
That being said, there was already something of a vendetta taking place in Republican areas long before the war, with the murder of a number Catholic priests.
There are probably still stronger anti Catholic feelings in many parts of Spain, than in much of the mainly Protestant UK.


----------



## MaidenScotland (Jun 6, 2009)

gerrit said:


> I would compare the Church more to a dictatorship with religious undertone, the Christian counterpart of Iran if you wish so. For sure Vatican City as a sovereign state is a theocracy, and in a secular Europe this should in fact not be tolerated.
> 
> Back when I was at high school (don't confuse with secondary school , in Belgium high school is a term for non-university post-secondary education) one of the teachers I got along with very well (even to the extent we went for drinks together to chat) was a reverend in the Protestant Church of Belgium (a tiny minority religion as most Belgians are either Roman Catholic or non-religious). Despite the religious gap between us (he was doing masses and even had been a missionary in Africa, while I am Atheist) I highly respected him. He was never the preachy sort of reverend, never tried to push his religion in other people's throat, quite progressive, ...
> 
> ...



Mormons, Church of England/Scotland.. Coptic Christians, Jehovah witnesses


----------



## littleredrooster (Aug 3, 2008)

MaidenScotland said:


> Mormons, Church of England/Scotland.. Coptic Christians, Jehovah witnesses


Dictatorship is a fair description. 
From the time of the conquistadors they have always believed that the end justifies the means. 
Not so long ago the truth came out about the Omagh bomb,... lo and behold it was a Catholic priest who played a major part, but was protected by both sides in order to prevent serious repercussions. 
A friend of mine brought up in a N.I.Catholic village, used to describe to me how the local priest came round the houses on a Monday and gave a good slapping to any kids who had missed church on the Sunday.
He did this in front of the parents, who were always too terrified to do anything about it.
A virtual rule of fear.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Best to stay Atheist! Too much strife in the world has religion at its roots.


Atheism is a secular religion......it is founded on the *belief *that there is no deity.
Since the non/existence of a supreme being cannot be proved, agnosticism is the most rational stance, surely?


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

littleredrooster said:


> I think a lot of ppl.and their families have long memories with regard to the part that the Catholic church and the Pope himself, played in not only backing Franco but in knowingly approving some of the atrocities that occured during the Civil war.
> That being said, there was already something of a vendetta taking place in Republican areas long before the war, with the murder of a number Catholic priests.
> There are probably still stronger anti Catholic feelings in many parts of Spain, than in much of the mainly Protestant UK.


Very true - but as I said about a hundred posts ago, there is a big difference between religion on a personal level and the Church ans an establishment. 

Which is why the romerias and festivals for the Virgin are so popular here even amongst people who never go to church.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> Atheism is a secular religion......it is founded on the *belief *that there is no deity.
> Since the non/existence of a supreme being cannot be proved, agnosticism is the most rational stance, surely?


I remember a joke:

Undertaker, looking at a deceased atheist being prepared for the funeral, is heard to say

'All dressed up and nowhere to go!'


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> Atheism is a secular religion......it is founded on the *belief *that there is no deity.
> Since the non/existence of a supreme being cannot be proved, agnosticism is the most rational stance, surely?


No it´s not, Atheism is founded on the absence of belief, based on the lack of evidence for the existence of a deity.

Agnosticism is for people who just want to keep their options open. As Pascal said, the cost of being a non-believer and getting it wrong is much higher than vice versa.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jimenato said:


> Well, at least they're having the discussion - I don't see much of that happening in the RC church - in fact the repressive, reactionary Anglican bishops who oppose women bishops are deserting to, and being welcomed by the RC's.


I wasn´t suggesting that the RCs are any better! Just that Protestants can be almost as bad.

And the Protestants aren´t really having a discussion are they? It´s more like a stalemate.


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> Atheism is a secular religion......it is founded on the *belief *that there is no deity.
> Since the non/existence of a supreme being cannot be proved, agnosticism is the most rational stance, surely?


Alcalaina is right on this. Atheism means "without belief". It is the lack of belief in gods of any kind, it is NOT the belief that there are no gods.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

jimenato said:


> Alcalaina is right on this. Atheism means "without belief". It is the lack of belief in gods of any kind, it is NOT the belief that there are no gods.


All may be right, as definition of what atheism actually is varies widely, historically, conceptually, linguistically and philosophically. Some make a distinction between 'positive' and 'negative' atheism, 'strong' and 'weak' atheism and 'implicit' and 'explicit' atheism.


----------



## Joturke (Sep 24, 2009)

To consider that someone who does not believe in a divine creator i.e. an atheist- makes an atheist a member of a secular religion is a good example of how the believers in a divine creator continually fail or refuse to think outside the religious mind-set.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Joturke said:


> To consider that someone who does not believe in a divine creator i.e. an atheist- makes an atheist a member of a secular religion is a good example of how the believers in a divine creator continually fail or refuse to think outside the religious mind-set.[/QUOTE
> 
> You are implying that the word 'religion' must per se involve belief in a supernatural deity. That is not so. The Latin root of the word implies one who is attached to laws/rules/dogma. The Greek root of 'atheist' is one who has no belief in a divinity.
> So....the word 'religion' can be attached to any faith, whether secular or religious.Since there is no proof that a divinity does or does not exist one can only state 'I *believe *that God does not exist' - one cannot *know *that.
> ...


----------



## Joturke (Sep 24, 2009)

“the word 'religion' can be attached to any faith, whether secular or religious.”

Being atheist has nothing whatsoever to do with having a faith.- That; for many of those who are not atheist is a fundamental failure into the understanding of being atheist

“Since there is no proof that a divinity does or does not exist”

Actually there is considerable proof,- based on how all religions throughout humanity have defined, reported ,explained all their divine gods, balanced with insight from science and knowledge not available in past times and proven fact- to accept all human reported gods as nothing more than human made (fit for purpose)

The various tomes which today explain all this are fortunately widely available, but will not be found by those picking over Latin and Geek roots of words.

The weekend is here a good time to relax and relfex.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Joturke said:


> “the word 'religion' can be attached to any faith, whether secular or religious.”
> 
> Being atheist has nothing whatsoever to do with having a faith.- That; for many of those who are not atheist is a fundamental failure into the understanding of being atheist
> 
> ...




But you are assuming that the words 'faith' and 'religion' can be used only in connection with a belief in some kind of supernatural deity and that is not so. 
They are in this respect 'neutral' words. 
I repeat : atheists *believe* i.e. cannot* know* that God does not exist.
Ergo: they have *faith[/B] in that proposition.
You seem to be contradicting yourself in your second paragraph. It would help if you made your intended meaning clearer.
I would be interested in the assertion you seem to be making that there is 'scientific proof' of the existence of a supernatural being, i.e. there are FACTS which substantiate this belief and convert it to knowledge. Perhaps Messrs Dawkins and Hawking may learn something new from them....
And may I say that you might be amazed to discover what 'tomes' are available to those who 'pick over' Latin and Greek roots of words.... But in the event they are absent from my library shelves, please pass on relevant authors and titles (but not if you are a Jehovah's Witness).
As for your kind wishes for the weekend - reciprocated - may I suggest that you meant to write 'reflect' rather than 'reflex'?
My muscles have been adequately stimulated already today by means of an energetic walk with my dog!*


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> But you are assuming that the words 'faith' and 'religion' can be used only in connection with a belief in some kind of supernatural deity and that is not so.
> They are in this respect 'neutral' words.
> I repeat : atheists *believe* i.e. cannot* know* that God does not exist.
> Ergo: they have *faith[/B] in that proposition.
> ...


*

Atheists have no belief that there are gods. They do not know there are none, as you say, they can't. They have no 'faith' that there are no gods, they do not 'believe' there are no gods, rather, they have no belief in gods. A subtle difference between that an agnosticsm maybe and I am prepared to accept that the difference is too insignificant to have much importance. But to say that atheists have faith that there are no gods is just wrong.*


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jimenato said:


> Atheists have no belief that there are gods. They do not know there are none, as you say, they can't. They have no 'faith' that there are no gods, they do not 'believe' there are no gods, rather, they have no belief in gods. A subtle difference between that an agnosticsm maybe and I am prepared to accept that the difference is too insignificant to have much importance. But to say that atheists have faith that there are no gods is just wrong.


Well, if you can't *know *something to be true but hold it to be true then you must *believe* it to be true which implies* faith* to some degree? I can't think of another word to apply to someone in that context.
I suppose it all depends on the ferocity of your atheism.
I take the meaning of* faith* to contain the concept of *belief....*


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> Well, if you can't *know *something to be true but hold it to be true then you must *believe* it to be true which implies* faith* to some degree? I can't think of another word to apply to someone in that context.
> I suppose it all depends on the ferocity of your atheism.
> I take the meaning of* faith* to contain the concept of *belief....*


This is getting very metaphysical - fascinating.

There must be a way of describing the sort of vacuum where you neither know nor believe something. Isn't that the point of "a" in "atheism"?

Similarly, if morality is the opposite to immorality, then amorality is the void where neither applies.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> This is getting very metaphysical - fascinating.
> 
> There must be a way of describing the sort of vacuum where you neither know nor believe something. Isn't that the point of "a" in "atheism"?
> 
> Similarly, if morality is the opposite to immorality, then amorality is the void where neither applies.


Yes, this forum is the equivalent of Les Deux Magots on the West Bank....
I think the three 'morality' words describe different states and aren't quite the same as the question of the existence of God.
You can be an immoral person which implies that you are consciously acting in contravention of a set of moral rules or amoral in which you do not acknowledge the existence of those rules.
But it's not the same as 'knowing' or 'believing' something, imo.
I remember once facetiously replying to an earnest American on a Prague expats forum who pronounced sententiously that God did not exist.
I could not resist posting the reply: 'Of course she does and she's British'.
I think that sums up my attitude to this topic. If I ever get to heaven (or the other place) and have means of communicating to those left behind I will let them know....that's how I view it.
I'm more concerned as to where all those UK private sector jobs are coming from....


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> This is getting very metaphysical - fascinating.
> 
> There must be a way of describing the sort of vacuum where you neither know nor believe something. Isn't that the point of "a" in "atheism"?
> 
> Similarly, if morality is the opposite to immorality, then amorality is the void where neither applies.


Indifference! Thats the void!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

jojo said:


> Indifference! Thats the void!
> 
> Jo xxx


Yes, there are loads of more urgent things to worry about!
Jo,I am so sorry I haven't been in touch....this dog charity is eating up my time. Glad your move went well.


I am using Sandra's laptop and the 'd' keeps sticking....


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

jojo said:


> Indifference! Thats the void!
> 
> Jo xxx


Just a bit of harmless entertainment on a wet Sunday afternoon ... 

We were supposed to be going out on a long walk today but it's p***ing down!


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Just a bit of harmless entertainment on a wet Sunday afternoon ...
> 
> We were supposed to be going out on a long walk today but it's p***ing down!


And it keeps the brain cells active....
Guess it will be p*****g down here soon, it's very dull. Speaks of rain, as my old Dorset gran used to say as she perused the clouds.
We took OLA for a long walk in the hills earlier, thankfully.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Ita very grey here now!! Rain any minute???Its nice to get all cosy indoors tho!

Jo xxx


----------



## Joturke (Sep 24, 2009)

Perhaps my earlier words were not clear enough; perhaps they were read with fatigue; in any case:
Prior to entering forum interaction my sobresaliente niece explained some of the “pong” in the “ping-pong” of forum postings and indicated to me that the attention span of a number of forum readers to the written content was minimal whilst at the same time their curious desire to comment on everything was maximum. 

She, not I, refers to this as “Bumbling Bee Condition “- but that nevertheless, with my love for anthropology, I would find it revealing. She was correct.

I earlier stated on “the proof *or not* of a divine creator “that there is considerable proof”- if you follow my words I was referring to the long standing human condition of producing their so called divine creators and I referred to this historical trait as representing - “all human reported gods as nothing more than human made (fit for purpose)”
i.e.
The purposes being many but all merely human instigations. This in my opinion indicates the lack of proof for divine creator and overwhelming proof against.

Apologies for not being succinct enough. I am off to the seaside to ponder the existence or not of Bumbling Bee Condition.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Joturke said:


> Perhaps my earlier words were not clear enough; perhaps they were read with fatigue; in any case:
> Prior to entering forum interaction my sobresaliente niece explained some of the “pong” in the “ping-pong” of forum postings and indicated to me that the attention span of a number of forum readers to the written content was minimal whilst at the same time their curious desire to comment on everything was maximum.
> 
> She, not I, refers to this as “Bumbling Bee Condition “- but that nevertheless, with my love for anthropology, I would find it revealing. She was correct.
> ...


Right!! Thats cleared that up then LOL 

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Joturke said:


> Perhaps my earlier words were not clear enough; perhaps they were read with fatigue; in any case:
> Prior to entering forum interaction my sobresaliente niece explained some of the “pong” in the “ping-pong” of forum postings and indicated to me that the attention span of a number of forum readers to the written content was minimal whilst at the same time their curious desire to comment on everything was maximum.
> 
> She, not I, refers to this as “Bumbling Bee Condition “- but that nevertheless, with my love for anthropology, I would find it revealing. She was correct.
> ...


In the beginning there was Man, and Man created God in his own image. ray:

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz ...


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Alcalaina said:


> In the beginning there was Man, and Man created God in his own image. ray:
> 
> Bzzzzzzzzzzzz ...



My son, when he was little once asked me "Was the Dinosaurs god a Dinosaur?? or was he a man like ours???" That kinda summed it all up for me!

Jo xx


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Alcalaina said:


> In the beginning there was Man, and Man created God in his own image. ray:
> 
> Bzzzzzzzzzzzz ...


There endeth this thread - possibly










Who let that bloody bee in????!!!

PS In answer to the original question, of course it isn't - nobody's visit is!


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Joturke said:


> Perhaps my earlier words were not clear enough; perhaps they were read with fatigue; in any case:
> Prior to entering forum interaction my sobresaliente niece explained some of the “pong” in the “ping-pong” of forum postings and indicated to me that the attention span of a number of forum readers to the written content was minimal whilst at the same time their curious desire to comment on everything was maximum.
> 
> She, not I, refers to this as “Bumbling Bee Condition “- but that nevertheless, with my love for anthropology, I would find it revealing. She was correct.
> ...



Yes...a fondness for words is one thing, being able to use them succintly and correctly is quite another. FYI....anthropology is the study of humankind; the correct term for the study of bees is apiology.
But I am glad you are not a Jehovah's Witness. In my experience they are pests somewhat akin to bees and wasps.
Now....what about those 'tomes' to which you referred?


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky said:


> There endeth this thread - possibly
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> Yes...a fondness for words is one thing, being able to use them succintly and correctly is quite another. FYI....anthropology is the study of humankind; the correct term for the study of bees is apiology.
> But I am glad you are not a Jehovah's Witness. In my experience they are pests somewhat akin to bees and wasps.
> Now....what about those 'tomes' to which you referred?


Perhaps _*etymology*_ would fit in better??:confused2:


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Perhaps _*etymology*_ would fit in better??:confused2:


Yes, you're right.
Speaking of words...I have an appointment at the Centro Medico tomorrow. My doctor's name: Cristobal Vicioso......


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Protestants can be just as oppressive and bigoted - did you ever come across Revd Ian Paisley when you were in Ireland? He and his Loyalist comrades were laregly responsible for the Troubles in Ulster, setting fire to Catholics´ houses to drive them out of mixed areas in an early form of ethnic cleansing. It was the Catholics´appeal for protection that led to British troops going in, before the IRA regrouped to fight back.
> 
> And the bun-fight that´s going on now about women bishops and homosexual clergy? Not a lot of openmindedness in evidence there, I´m afraid.
> 
> Best to stay Atheist! Too much strife in the world has religion at its roots.


I have actually passed the church of mr Paisley lot of times when I lived in Belfast. My therapist worked two streets away so I passed the church almost on weekly basis. Never had the "honour" to meet mr Paisley in person though, maybe better so as I can't say I like or sympathise with this character.

Fully agree with the last line of your post. One time Venus Williams said in an interview that she couldn't understand atheists because life seemed so complex if you don't believe in God, she said. I always experienced it would be more the other way around ; life is as complex enough as it is without having to organise everything around a set of dogma's!





mrypg9 said:


> Atheism is a secular religion......it is founded on the *belief *that there is no deity.
> Since the non/existence of a supreme being cannot be proved, agnosticism is the most rational stance, surely?


Well, true from a purely rational point of view, but when you BELIEVE in something there's nothing wrong in that, even if that belief is that there is no supernatural power that created earth and man. Atheism would only be wrong the moment we'd start forcing our views on religious people with violence. usually it goes the other way around.

The most ridiculous sect within the religious spectrum is actually the Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey. They don't actually believe in satan, they don't believe in god nor satan and just want to rebel against everything religious by totally twisting the biblical verses around. But naming yourself after a creature you don't believe in, sounds like a teenage rebellion to name, and quite silly when a large group of grown people participate in it.




jimenato said:


> Alcalaina is right on this. Atheism means "without belief". It is the lack of belief in gods of any kind, it is NOT the belief that there are no gods.


But de facto it comes down to the same, we don't believe in the existance of a god. ironically, as stated, there are several subdivisions (strong atheism, explicit or non-explicit atheism, ...) so we almost are like a religion with different branches 



jojo said:


> Indifference! Thats the void!
> 
> Jo xxx


That would actually come down to a form of Agnostic thinking: agnostics either say they cannot know that there is a god or not and thus keep the option open, or simply find the question weither a god exists or not unimportant. So even indifference can be given a somewhat religious tag 

Actually Jimenato sums it up best IMO. The difference between agnostics and atheists is thin in practise in many case, but the theory is vastly different as an atheist personally rejects the option that god may exist ; an agnostic will simply say he doesn't know or will say he doesn't care.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

A few "Pope-y" things...
Apparently he has stated that prostitutes can wear condoms to stop the spread of AIDS. However there is a twist to the tale. He stated this in a series of interviews he held with German journalist. They were speaking in German and it appears that someone got the translation wrong and he was referring to _*male*_ prostitutes only. 
He has been quoted as saying that Spain is a country of dramatic contrasts including agressive secularism and deep faith.
And lastly 70+% of the Spanish say they are catholic. (can't give an exact figure 'cos it seems it changes every month!??), but only 13+% go to church regularly.


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

Like in most European countries. Statistics prove anything and nothing. In Belgium the number of catholics is based on the number of baptisms. Meanwhile churches are 90 % empty because of those that were baptised few are bothering to go to church and many are atheist in practise. My parents baptised me as well so statistically I am catholic I guess, reality is that I am atheist. I even refused doing my communion at age 7 because I didn't believe in any deity, so I am not sure if I'd still be considered catholic due to having baptism but not being confirmed through communion. I am in the process of having my name removed from the baptism register as well but unfortunately that process is complex as the church doesn't exactly like it when people openly cancel their membership (even if that membership is only in theory because very few people attend church services)


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

There are always those among us that _*love*_ to say that statistics don't prove anything. I agree! But they give you a starting point to talk about, even if it's just to rip said statistic apart, so don't knock 'em! Please!
I believe that this statistic was reached by just going out there and asking the people, so it was "Do you think of yourself as a catholic?" kind of thing.
Good luck with getting your name removed!


----------



## geez (Apr 4, 2010)

Pesky Wesky said:


> He stated this in a series of interviews he held with German journalist. They were speaking in German and it appears that someone got the translation wrong and he was referring to _*male*_ prostitutes only.


Now _that_ I'm going to look for.



Gerrit said:


> I am in the process of having my name removed from the baptism register as well but unfortunately that process is complex as the church doesn't exactly like it when people openly cancel their membership (even if that membership is only in theory because very few people attend church services)


Hey Gerrit,

Let me know how you go with the de-registration process. In my angry teens I fired off a letter to then Cardinal of Australia to say that I no longer wished to be a part of a club that would award a papal knighthood to the likes of Kurt Valdheim (and either it hadn't yet occurred, or I did not yet know about Rupert Murdoch).

I still have the reply somewhere and it ran along the lines of once a Catholic always a Catholic. There was some vague reference to heresy being a means of exclusion, but I was bored with the argument by that point.


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

Actually you cannot un-baptise yourself, you can however remove yourself as a member of the church. This means (it is like that in Belgium but I assume it's a general catholic rule ?) the bishop of the area you were baptised in will add an additional note to the register of baptisms, the additional note stating you voluntarely are removed as member of the church. You need to write a letter or email to the bishop in which you ask to be removed, stating as well your date of birth, date of baptism and address of the mother or parents house at the time of baptism. That is all to just retrieve you easier in the register.


Now this sounds easy in theory. The problem is that the church doesn't like to see members leave. So very often they will not respond to the letter or email. I have talked to people who needed to send 4 or 5 letters plus several phone calls before they finally removed them from the register. They claimed they never received any of the previous letters, which obviously is a lie. So you gotta be prepared that it is possible you need to push them a bit before they take the requested action. I guess that asking to send a confirmation of removal from the register is a good idea.


It is not obliged to state a reason for wanting to leave the church. However, some bishops will try to talk you out off it by stating that if you indeed leave the church you cannot get married or buried in a catholic ceremony anymore. My answer if such letter comes my way is already prepared and very simple: "I don't give a damn!". That should be simple enough to understand ...

The one thing I am not sure of is if I am not already out of the church. I was baptised but refused to do my communion, so I am not "confirmed" and "formed" as a catholic. So doesn't the refusal to do the holy communion automatically cancel your membership of the church?



I agree statistics can be useful but often you can twist them in whatever direction you want. This is exactly what religions do. They base their membership statistics upon baptisms or other rites when the person was still a baby rather than on the number of visitors to their temple. That way they make it look like they got a whole army of believers ready whereas in practise their masses are in front of 90 percent empty buildings.



PS Geez: if de-registration is too complex, you can also just let them do it for you. Just commit enough sins and make sure your local priest knows about it and he will ban you from the church. Probably more easily than the regular de-registration process


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

gerrit said:


> PS Geez: if de-registration is too complex, you can also just let them do it for you. Just commit enough sins and make sure your local priest knows about it and he will ban you from the church. Probably more easily than the regular de-registration process


Just get divorced and remarry without going through the Church's annulment process. You are automatically banned from Communion.


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

No, the question is the other way around: I was baptised when I was 4 days old, but refused to do the Communion due to my atheist believes. So while I am busy with revoking my church membership (it cannot do harm to send a letter) I wonder if I am not already out of the church officially by not having done my communion.


PS: if I ever get married (which I doubt because true love doesn't need to be proven with a ceremony or ring) I'd opt for a non-religious civil marriage. I may end up with something in between if the later girlfriend/fiancee would insist on something religious, in that case I guess I'd do some compromising. Pleasing the girl you love is more important than telling a priest you don't believe in his stuff in the end. Although as I didn't do my communion I am probably not able to marry in church, so the problem is solved already prior to meeting the later fiancee


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

gerrit said:


> No, the question is the other way around: I was baptised when I was 4 days old, but refused to do the Communion due to my atheist believes. So while I am busy with revoking my church membership (it cannot do harm to send a letter) I wonder if I am not already out of the church officially by not having done my communion.
> 
> 
> PS: if I ever get married (which I doubt because true love doesn't need to be proven with a ceremony or ring) I'd opt for a non-religious civil marriage. I may end up with something in between if the later girlfriend/fiancee would insist on something religious, in that case I guess I'd do some compromising. Pleasing the girl you love is more important than telling a priest you don't believe in his stuff in the end. Although as I didn't do my communion I am probably not able to marry in church, so the problem is solved already prior to meeting the later fiancee


Under Canon Law, a Catholic is someone baptised in the Catholic Church, so under this definition you are still a Catholic. While First Communion and Confirmation are a natural progression from baptism in one's Catholic formation, the absence of the latter doesn't deprive you of the Church's membership. Clearly you are not a practising Catholic so some sacraments and rituals may not be offered to you, but unless you are formally excommunicated, you can still receive the sacrament of the sick (formerly extreme unction) in preparation for death., and be buried in a Catholic cemetery. Nowadays, though, non-Catholics are sometimes permitted to be interred in a Catholic plot (e.g. in a mixed marriage).

A lot of people in Germany have formally cut the tie to the church of their baptism (mainly Roman Catholic or Lutheran) so that they no longer have to pay the church tax (in Germany it generally amounts to about 10% of income tax). Those who formally renounce their membership cannot, as a rule, avail themselves of the church's ministrations such as weddings, baptisms and confirmations for themselves and their children, though they can if they take steps to rejoin their church.


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

OK, if I am in theory still catholic by their opinions, then I'm going ahead to get excommunicated. I don't wish to be a hypocrite being a member of a club in whose teachings I don't believe. 

Can't I just walk into the nearest church with a shirt saying 666, a collection of adult magazines and some other stuff you can buy in the average heavy metal outlet? That should be enough for a priest to ban me forever so that I don't need to go through all the paperwork myself to get out of the club?


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

gerrit said:


> OK, if I am in theory still catholic by their opinions, then I'm going ahead to get excommunicated. I don't wish to be a hypocrite being a member of a club in whose teachings I don't believe.
> 
> Can't I just walk into the nearest church with a shirt saying 666, a collection of adult magazines and some other stuff you can buy in the average heavy metal outlet? That should be enough for a priest to ban me forever so that I don't need to go through all the paperwork myself to get out of the club?


Gerrit, be careful, if you did that the priest would probably want sex with you.


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

I think with my 29 years of age I'm outside of the age category the average priest is interested in 

So other than the paperwork, what easier way to get excommunicated exists? What if I'd convert to another religion (then to declare I stick with atheism after all the next day), doesn't that cancel the membership of the initial religion per definition?


----------



## jimenato (Nov 21, 2009)

Does it worry you so much that some people think you are still a member of a religion? You don't think you are and that is all that should matter.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

jimenato said:


> Does it worry you so much that some people think you are still a member of a religion? You don't think you are and that is all that should matter.


If you want to persist in your atheism, tell your loved ones that you don't want any church's ministrations when dying and you don't want a religious funeral, and it should be respected. Put it in your will as well re funeral. I suppose in Spain, as it is in UK, it's expected you want a religious (Christian) funeral unless your family state otherwise.


----------



## gerrit (Jul 15, 2008)

Joppa said:


> If you want to persist in your atheism, tell your loved ones that you don't want any church's ministrations when dying and you don't want a religious funeral, and it should be respected. Put it in your will as well re funeral. I suppose in Spain, as it is in UK, it's expected you want a religious (Christian) funeral unless your family state otherwise.


I already told my family so they know there should be no church, priest or cross whatsoever involved. Just throw me in the pit and tell the worms it's time for dinner 

The membership of a church is only de jure, what matters is how you feel. Fully agreed. However, sometimes making a statement can make you feel good. Would you want to be member of a cult where someone else enroled you without consulting you?


----------

