Does anyone know the Pope’s email address?

…I want to send him a Christmas greeting this year showing one of his predecessors with a communicant.

…or maybe this one:(and yes, I know it’s unfair to criticise Ratzinger for having been in the Hitler Youth, but my criticism isn’t serious, it’s a piss-take, unlike his attempt to blame atheists for the holocaust.)

Advertisements

21 responses to “Does anyone know the Pope’s email address?

  1. Pingback: 2010 in review | DaveD's Blog

  2. Amazing! So human beings should look to bonobo monkeys to determine how they should interact with each other! Amazing. So, according to you, humans are just animals, and should act like them! That’s so FREEING!!!!!!

    And yet the fact that they’re promiscuous doesn’t mean they have sex solely for pleasure. Maybe you should try giving them condoms.

    The laws of thermodynamics prove God. Just the second law shows that there was a beginning to the universe. That means that something started it. God.

    Regarding “safe sex”, tell me what percentage of people who think they’re having safe sex actually are? How many have it consistently? I’d wager that it’s a worse percentage than those who commit themselves to abstinance and follow through.

    No, human promiscuity is the problem, it has proven to be problematic in every instance. Human promiscuity leads to unwanted pregnancy, broken marriages, fatherless children, deadly and incurable diseases, including a whole slew of brand new STDs, poverty, crime. Trying to say that this isn’t the root cause is dishonest and cruel.
    Look, if you saw someone walking out into the street into the path of an on-coming car, would you try to stop him, if possible? Maybe you wouldn’t but warning people of danger is not cruel, is not dishonest. And their eternal life is more important than having sex on earth.

    Like

    • “Amazing! So human beings should look to bonobo monkeys to determine how they should interact with each other! Amazing. So, according to you, humans are just animals, and should act like them! That’s so FREEING!!!!!!”

      That is probably the most dishonest piece of straw man bullshit I’ve ever seen. I mentioned bonobos as an example of other animals that have sex for reasons other than procreation after you said there were none. Humans are just animals though, but we have our own traits and behaviours. One of those traits is the ability to think, and in that we appear to be unique. Other animals are unique in other ways, but they, like us, are still “just animals”.

      “And yet the fact that they’re promiscuous doesn’t mean they have sex solely for pleasure. Maybe you should try giving them condoms.”

      I prefer to get my information about bonobos from the people who study them for years, rather than some religious dickhead who reaches his conclusions rectally, then makes more shit up to support them.

      “The laws of thermodynamics prove God. Just the second law shows that there was a beginning to the universe. That means that something started it. God.”

      What makes you conclude that the universe even had a beginning? (Oh, that’s right, the bible tells you so!) Even if it did, there’s nothing in any of the laws of thermodynamics to “prove” a god.

      “Regarding “safe sex”, tell me what percentage of people who think they’re having safe sex actually are? How many have it consistently? I’d wager that it’s a worse percentage than those who commit themselves to abstinance and follow through.”

      You’d wager that would you? Why not supply some evidence instead? While you’re at it, why not show how, when you have two strategies, both of which work with some people but not others, removing one strategy is helpful.

      “…their eternal life is more important than having sex on earth.”

      More religious hubris. You cannot know, for certain, that there even is a life after death. That’s just an opinion, with no evidence whatsoever. There is, however, evidence of people being knocked down by motor vehicles, so warnings about that are obviously appropriate.

      Like

      • Ok, how about this: You don’t know why bonobos have sex like they do. You can’t speak to them, and they couldn’t answer you. Humans are just animals? Sorry, dude, I’m more than an animal. I have an immortal soul given to me by God, other animals don’t. Maybe you’re just an animal, but humanity is not.

        I prefer to get my knowledge about the universe from the God who created it, rather than some imbecile who believes someone who studied some monkeys for a few years.

        The conclusion that the universe had a beginning? Everything we know has a beginning and will have an end. That’s also a law of thermodynamics.

        When you provide me some evidence of what I’ve asked, I’ll show you mine. I want you to show me how, when you have two strategies, one which works every time it’s tried, and one which works some percentage under 100% when it’s tried, you still give the second option to people without telling them ALL the facts.

        Regarding your last statement, let’s say you’re right. If you’re right, when you and I die, neither of us will know. But if I’m right, we’ll both know-you from hell, me from heaven. I’ll take my chances.

        Like

  3. No, God is “playing God” with people’s lives.

    Repressive? Is it repressive to think of people only as sex objects? As if that’s all that a human being is-a sex machine. Why don’t animals have sex solely for pleasure? Because that’s not what sex is for. You’re actually the one putting people in a cage.

    You want to see AB(C) at work? Look at any Muslim country. Abstinence until marriage, being faithful after. How many AIDS cases to you see in Saudi Arabia? I’m not suggesting that we must be as stringent as a Muslim country, but it DOES work.

    Like

    • “No, God is “playing God” with people’s lives.”
      What god? I’ve yet to see any evidence that there are any gods.
      “Why don’t animals have sex solely for pleasure?”
      They do. Try Googling bonobos.
      “I’m not suggesting that we must be as stringent as a Muslim country, but it DOES work.”
      So does safe sex, but so many of the religious seem unable to mind their own damned business. Maybe abstinence works for you personally, but bullying others with threats of damnation for not conforming to your unsupported opinion is dishonest and cruel.
      In Muslim theocracies, it is common to stigmatise and deny the existence of AIDS victims, so perhaps you’re wise not to want to be as “stringent” as them.

      Like

  4. By lying about the efficacy of condoms in combatting AIDS, successive Popes have condemned millions to death. The Catholic church is culpable because it has influence which it seeks to retain by any means necessary. That includes producing more children to grow up into Catholics, which undoubtedly was the reason for the original ban on contraception, but unfortunately in poor areas that can’t afford large families, this exacerbates poverty.
    Any study about the rate of paedophilia is faulty, as it can only include those who have been detected. Since religion still garners undeserved respect it is often guarded against rigorous investigation, and in the case of the Catholic Church, they have been shown to obstruct justice in this matter over and over again.
    This is at the heart of most of the criticism of the Pope and his church. He is supposed to be infallible, a claim I obviously treat with the derision it merits, but the Pope, like most of his predecessors, doesn’t even appear to try to live up to it, merely asserting his authority as if it was a given.

    Like

    • How is it lying to say that abstinance is the better way to prevent the spread of AIDS? How is it lying to say that condoms don’t do the job as well as abstinance? How is it not a lie to tell people to go ahead and have sex outside of marriage as much of the world advises? How is it not a lie, when the numbers and kinds of STD’s have done nothing but spread since the widespread immorality of sexual promiscuity began?

      Regarding what you call the cover-up, you have no idea what you’re talking about. In many cases in the US, the authorities were notified of the problem, and the authorities left it to the church to deal with it. In many cases, the secrecy of the case was more to protect the victims than the perpetrators. In some cases, the Church thought a change of venue would take the priest out of harms way, at the recommendation of psychologists of the time. In some cases, bishops shoved the problem under the rug and hoped it would go away. Certainly, the Church mishandled the whole mess. Has apologized, and paid restitution, and most of the priests now are dead, or incarcerated in Catholic Church facilities. They will also receive their final judgement from God.
      The Pope’s infallibility isn’t omniscience, nor is it impeccability. Infallibility only exists in what the Pope teaches in matters of faith and morals.

      You can declaim the studies that have been done, but there have been some very in-depth studies within the Catholic Church, much more in-depth than those done in any other institution. But I can assure you, believe me or not, that the problem is much less within the Catholic Church than it is in the public sector. Also, what the Church has done to put a stop to the problem is working. Can you name the last new case of the problem? In the US, they’re at least 10 years old or older, mostly 50-60 years old.

      Like

      • It is a lie to say, as Mr Ratzinger has, that condoms “aggravate the problem” of AIDS. Abstinence would work if people weren’t so fallible, but they are, and abstinence has been shown to be a bad policy compared to sex education and condom use, and preaching the opposite won’t change the facts.
        As to your assertion that there haven’t been any new cases of child abuse by priests in the US for at least 10 years, I really hope that’s true, but what it really means is that no new cases have yet come to light. That’s not where the Catholic church is most culpable though; it’s the cover up, followed by the Vatican dragging its heels whenever caught out, that show moral bankruptcy. Ratzinger even sought, and obtained, immunity from prosecution in 2005, rather than actually defend himself and his church in a Texan court. The basis for this immunity was the false claim that he was a head of state, and the basis for that claim is a treaty the then Pope, Pius XI, made with Mussolini in 1929. That it was another bible-basher, George W. Bush, who granted the immunity shouldn’t be surprising. He too preferred religious dogma to evidence based reality.

        Like

      • Condoms aggravate the problem because they fool people into thinking that it’s ok to have sex regardless of what diseases you carry. They do not work very well. It’s proven. Abstinence works EVERY time it’s tried. Sure, it requires discipline. But it works. Putting on a condom does not work every time it’s tried. And actually, it is working very well where it’s being tried, in Uganda.
        As for the actions of the Church in this latest scandal, granted, they handled it incorrectly, andpoorly, looking at it through the rear-view window. But hind-sight is 20/20. Unquestionably bishops made mistakes. Nevertheless, media reports frequently painted the bishops’ actions and motives in the worst possible light. That some priests were assigned to new parishes was widely reported as the deliberate, systematic enabling of continued abuse. In fact, in many such cases psychological “experts” had assured bishops-in keeping with the thinking of the time-that the priests in question had been treated successfully, and they presented no further danger. Subsequent wisdom is that such sexual disorders are far too deep-seated to be cured by a month’s stay at a treatment facility. The Christian call to forgiveness and to giving someone a second chance following conversion from even grave sin also played a role.
        The absence of reporting in particular cases is not de facto evidence of malice. Many victims and their families did not want the matter reported to the police and would share what they knew about a given priest with the diocese only on the condition that they not be put through the trauma of a civil investigation and trial.
        I really wonder about people’s concept of what the Catholic Church is, and what it is not. You obviously think of the Pope as the CEO of the Catholic Church, that he’s responsible for each and every action of every priest that works for the Catholic Church. But that’s a wrong impression. You say that Ratzinger sought immunity…from what? He wasn’t accused in any crime. The plaintiff in the action had an opinion, the judge disagreed after hearing the Pope’s lawyer. In fact, this plaintiff used the same idea you have. The pope issued a letter saying that any further incidents of this would not be tolerated. By the way, this meant that the priest would be relieved of duties, de-clericized, and released to civil action.

        Like

      • “Condoms aggravate the problem because they fool people into thinking that it’s ok to have sex regardless of what diseases you carry. They do not work very well. It’s proven. Abstinence works EVERY time it’s tried.”
        Is this a fucking joke? Saying that your presuppositions are proven is a complete fabrication. Where abstinence alone has been tried it has been a total failure. If the Catholic church, and other pious fools, kept their religion to themselves the spread of AIDS would be slowed down to a manageable rate.
        You mentioned Uganda. That country has had a great deal of success in the fight against AIDS, but not with abstinence alone. They’ve used the ABC approach (abstain, be faithful, use condoms); sure, abstinence plays a part, but so does using condoms, and the Catholic church’s dogmatic lies about contraception threaten to undo all the work done so far.

        Yes, the Catholic church has handled all the child abuse scandals badly, but that’s because they were more concerned with the reputation of the church than the welfare of the children in their care. I’m shocked that you go to such lengths to defend them – all the Catholics I know (and I live somewhere with a high proportion of Catholics) are disgusted by the feeble excuses coming from the Vatican, and can’t understand why it has been going on so long.

        You say that I have the wrong impression when I regard the Pope as the CEO of the Catholic Church, but you don’t attempt to give me the right impression. If he’s not in charge, what’s he for? Is he just a figurehead? If so, why should any Catholic take anything he pronounces upon seriously?

        Like

      • Plays a part…what a maroon. BTW, if you abstain and be faithful, you don’t need a condom…
        I’m not defending them, just pointing out the reality. I abhor child abusers, I abhor the road which led to this, which started with the sexual revolution. I do not make excuses for them individually, but I will defend the Church as a whole, because 95% or more of them are blameless.
        Regarding the church structure, I should let you go figure it out for yourself, but as I said above, what a maroon. Each bishopric, diocese, is a local church beholden unto itself. Bishops themselves have responsibility to be in moral and faithful union with the Pope. What’s he for? He shepherds his flock. Each bishop does the same in his diocese. What’s he for? He’s the representative of Jesus on earth. Why should any Catholic take that seriously? Ask any Catholic. Make sure you find a real one, not a Catholic in Name Only, what we like to call ‘but Catholics’.

        Like

      • “Ask any Catholic. Make sure you find a real one, not a Catholic in Name Only, what we like to call ‘but Catholics’.”

        Oh look, it’s the “No True Scotsman” fallacy! I wondered how long it would be before you pulled that one. You dismiss the opinion of people you’ve never met because you’re so desperate to defend your beloved church.

        “[The Pope is] the representative of Jesus on earth.”

        He’s doing a lousy job – Je$us needs a better agent, public opinion is crucifying him!

        “…if you abstain and be faithful, you don’t need a condom…”

        That’s a big “if”, and it DOESN’T FUCKING WELL WORK, which is why condoms are included in SUCCESSFUL anti-AIDS campaigns.

        Like

      • No, many people claim to be Catholic but object to some church meeting or another, or don’t practice one church teaching or another. In fact, most Catholics, myself included, fail miserably at being Catholic. We know how we’re supposed to live, but fail. We keep trying, though, which is what Jesus expects. Not success, perseverance. For example, I don’t know Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden. Both say that they’re Catholic. But what they say and what they do are two different things. If you went up to either of them and asked the question, you might get the wrong answer. So find one who really practices his faith and you will get the right answer.

        Regarding the pope and the job he’s doing, it’s not for you or I to say. It’s God’s choice. But most Catholics would say you’re wrong.

        Any AIDS prevention program that starts with condoms fails worse. Do you primarily aim at the lowest common denominator? I guess you think working at McDonalds is the top of the heap then? No, you aim high, which is abstinance and faithfulness to one person, your spouse. What you have to know is why condoms are forbidden by the church, but I’m sure that doesn’t interest you. Any sex act between any unmarried persons is wrong in the eyes of God. Any sex act using contraception is also wrong in the eyes of God. In both cases you subvert the purpose for which God created sex. Handing out condoms, at least the Church handing out condoms, is condoning two practices which are wrong to the Church, and to condone said acts would be a sin in and of itself. But go ahead, and go play.

        Like

      • “Any sex act between any unmarried persons is wrong in the eyes of God. Any sex act using contraception is also wrong in the eyes of God. In both cases you subvert the purpose for which God created sex.”

        What a sad, repressive dogma to live by; nature as something to feel guilty about. As pathetic as that is, when you play with people’s health to bolster your own religious fantasies, that is dangerous. You are, in effect, playing God with lives.

        Like

  5. Oh, and although I was baptised, I’ve never been confirmed!

    Like

  6. I take it you’re a supporter of the mass-murdering, kiddy-fiddling, poverty inducing liars for doctrine at the Vatican. That’s your prerogative. Mine is to take the piss out of them, and you.

    Like

    • Which ones? The three or four percent of priests compared to the 10-15 percent in normal society?

      Like

      • I’d be interested to know where you got those statistics. Did you pull them from your own rectum, or from someone else’s? And do they include the people at various levels of the Catholic hierarchy who helped cover up the scandal for so long? (I take it you’re just talking about the paedophiles here. It would be even more grotesque for you to be claiming that 10-15% of the general population were mass murderers!)

        Like

  7. You’re a confirmed idiot.

    Like

    • Where do you get your accusation of ‘mass murderer’ or ‘poverty inducer’? I’d bet my stats are more accurate than your ‘facts’.

      Every study that’s been done in this country, where we have more data, the incidents of abuse in the Catholic Church are less than what they are in the general population where adults have authority over children. Public school systems, non-Catholic churches, and so on. Also, those who did anything to hide pedophile priests, are few and far between.

      Don’t get the idea that I’m harboring those who did that. I just want you to know that it’s a human problem more than a Catholic problem.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s