Article

2004-09-26 International-UN-NGOs

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 98zulu 2004-09-26 11:29|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "The United States didn't join in the pledge to fight hunger and poverty. The Bush administration objected to proposals for international taxes as undemocratic and impossible to implement.

Why don't we have those honest UN Oil for Food Program managers headed by Coffee Ann Ann manage the fund?

"The Catholic Church assures all its commitment to eradicating the scourge of hunger and the other consequences of poverty from the world," the pope said.

John Paul: "We urge the UN to use all available OPM (Other People's Money) to be the foucus point of this effort. Just don't look for the Vatican to sell off any of our massive land holdings or the Pope Mobile." "We also share in the suffering of the poor and starving. Just last week my request to replace all of the Vatican's solid gold bathroom fixtures with solid Platinum ones was denied. Again, I feel your pain."

Cough...cough...hack...cough.... wheeze. "Oh sweet baby Jesus."

Posted by 98zulu 2004-09-26 11:44:12 AM|| 2004-09-26 11:44:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 He's right tho. I don't have enough.

Posted by Shipman 2004-09-26 1:38:42 PM|| 2004-09-26 1:38:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 As a Catholic, sometimes I just have to shake my head in disappointment (pedophile priests, this nonsense, etc.). Too many Jesuit socialists in positions of power in the hierarchy. The only thing that makes us look good is the Anglican church and ecumenical council (ECC)

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-26 1:53:18 PM|| 2004-09-26 1:53:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Yeah, there's an imbalance of wealth in the world.

So the extremely wealthy Vatican should should give most of its wealth to the poor.

What, that's not what he means?

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-26 2:29:28 PM|| 2004-09-26 2:29:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Here's an interesting point Papa - in those countries in which woman are respected and given, both in word and practice, equal protection of the law as men, the imbalance of wealth seems to be the least. So, if you now just convince those states out of balance to simply modify their behavior, they can correct a major underlying cause for their materialistic poverty [not masked by waves of petro-dollars].

Posted by Don 2004-09-26 2:33:16 PM|| 2004-09-26 2:33:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Why, Don, that might require affirmative action for women in the Vatican and further the cause for women as priests! Can't do that.

Posted by Tom 2004-09-26 2:57:12 PM|| 2004-09-26 2:57:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Photo caption: "Pope John Paul II gestures during his weekly Sunday Angelus prayer"
It looks like a very angry prayer.

Posted by Tom 2004-09-26 2:58:56 PM|| 2004-09-26 2:58:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 So the extremely wealthy Vatican should should give most of its wealth to the poor.

You beat me to it, Barbara. Thank you. Until the Catholic church can practice what it preaches, right down to equality for women both in the church and Islamic countries, they need to ... uh ... indulge in a little more silent contemplative meditation. Yes ... that's it, "silent contemplative meditation" is just what I wanted to say.

How the Church was so able to denounce communism and yet now remains utterly mute regarding the horrible abuse of women in Islamic countries is damning evidence of their bias towards blind belief instead of truly introspective spiritual discovery.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-26 4:14:53 PM|| 2004-09-26 4:14:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 What does the Pope think about the imbalance of work?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-26 4:21:01 PM|| 2004-09-26 4:21:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Zenster, remember the article about Reuters deliberately not using the word terrorist and admitting that it was to protect their reporters?

If there's anyone still willing, I call for a Fifth Crusade. Honestly.

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-09-26 6:20:47 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-09-26 6:20:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Be gentle with the Prince of the Church; the market has been very bad for blue chips lately.......

Posted by Anonymous6670 2004-09-26 7:54:54 PM|| 2004-09-26 7:54:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Be gentle with the Prince of the Church; the market has been very bad for blue chips lately....... and those pedophilia dues the church is paying are a real drag on the bottom line.

Posted by Anonymous6670 2004-09-26 7:56:00 PM|| 2004-09-26 7:56:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 If there's anyone still willing, I call for a Fifth Crusade. Honestly.

Edward, that is something that I cannot do ... quite yet.

An honest-to-goodness Crusade is a tragedy that Islam will have to bring upon itself. A scant few more 9-11 or 3-11 atrocities will do it.

That sand is running out of Islam's hourglass. While they obviously think that there is an endless supply of it in their region, others do not have quite as much use for such a lot of sand. Glass, on the other hand, has many useful applications ...

One nuclear terrorist attack will be all it takes to trigger an actual Crusade. Unless Muslims everywhere vocally condemn and actively agitate against terrorism, their lives aren't worth a plug nickel.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-26 10:04:05 PM|| 2004-09-26 10:04:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I protest, guess that make me a protestant. I could care less what his holey ness says. It has no bearing on me what so ever. Martin Luther took care of that.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-26 10:15:35 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-26 10:15:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 The Catholic Church is right - we need to help the poor. IF you are a Christian it is incumbent upon you to do so.

(my opinion starts here)

Where the Vatican loses it is that they try the same old methods - government coercion instead of appealing to authentic Christian Charity.

Face it - taxes, in the end are a form of force: if you do not pay them, you go to jail. If you reist going to jail, you get manhandled by the police/state. If you resist that, you get shot and possibly killed.

I do not stand with the Vatican in the METHOD used to help the poor. I believe they have become misguided in that they have ignored a primary premise: all people should be treated as ends in themselves, not as a means to other's ends.

The most effective ministry I have ever seen for the poor is the Soup Kitchen run by our Parish. 100% volunteer staff, dontations for the Parish fo food, time and money, and donations of the "dented cans" and "day old" fresh goods from local supermarkets and restaurants. People get fed a hot meal, no questions asked, no sermons.

If the Vatican would advocate that (and press home the duty of Catholics to get involved in Life and Human Dignity issues), they'd be far more effective than when they essentially advocate taking my money at the point of a government gun.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-09-26 10:42:22 PM|| 2004-09-26 10:42:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 FYI women are equals in the church except for the scriptural and liturgical limits placed upon them in the Gospel.

If you wish to bend rules to suit your tastes, you may as well start pulling in gay marriage, polygamy, etc. That's the "go along get along" Catholic Church that countenanced and hid the Paedophile Priests. Of course that applies to more parts of the church than just female clergy. See above for how messed up the Vatican does get on social justice issues at times.

Women and men are not equal - we never have been and never will be. Each of us has strengths and weaknesses that allow us to fill some roles better than others. The dogma of the Church recognizes and reflects this fact.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-09-26 11:17:05 PM|| 2004-09-26 11:17:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 As far as men and women being differently treated in the Theology of the Catholic Church, it goes back to Genesis and the story of the creation - men and women bear different "curses". Its part of the theology of the Christian Church tath continues through the new testiment. Before the "curse", Eve gets the protoevangalium - note that Adam is not given the lineage, but Eve is. (Its only later in the Priestly accounts that male-oriented lineages come out - all the "begat - begot" stuff. The Yahwists approach things differently).

Yes, I'm a bit of a closet Biblical scholar, teaching myself Hebrew and Greek when I need to "drill down" on a particular passage - the King James is especially bad, and even the RSV hides some of the meaning and a lot of the Hebrew word-play that goes on in the Pentateuch - for instance, "Adam" Hebrew is a hominym [sound-alike] for "dirt". As an example of a missed connotation is the verse "God created man in His image, in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them." The "man" that was created is actually carries a connotation more like "humanity" as opposed to "a man". Not to mention the different connotations and social context for "in His image" (remember Hebrew had no word for "souls" so thats not part of the theology - the seperation of Body and Soul is a Greek concept that came into Judiasm when the Greeks conquered them).

Even the New Testament has some of these problems - consider the last line of the "Lord's Prayer": "Do not lead us into temptation but deliver us from evil". the Temptation" is more correctly rendered as "Do not put us to the test" - its an appeal for God to not let bad thigns happen to us where our faith will be tested, not God leading us by the nose into strip bars; similarly the "evil" we are to be "delivered from" is not a generic evil - the greek points more to a translation rendering "the evil one" and not "deliver" but to keep the evil one in abeyance.

As for the "men only" priesthood - its a long and detaield bit of Catholic theology, which, if you do not accept the Magesterium (apostolic teaching authority) of the Catholic Church, then you are free to disagree (protest = Protestant).

It breaks down to Christ using priests as His represntatives here (going back to all the Apostles being male, when, if Christ had willed it, He certainly could have ordained Mary of Magdala). And the theology of Jesus being the the "New Adam" (and Mary the "New Eve") for the New Covenant comes into consideration.

And priests are "in persona Christi" in their relationship between the Church and Christ - and "alter Chriustus" in acting as the presence of Christ.

There are further issues: the Church as the bridegroom of Christ (hence the Church is female - and only males are eligible to be Married to the Church as all priests and bishops claim - the Bishops even wear a ring as a symbol of thier marriage to the diocese)

Well, thats enough theology... you Non-Catholics can feel free to ignore it.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-09-26 11:37:53 PM|| 2004-09-26 11:37:53 PM|| Front Page Top

21:25 Anonymous
21:25 Anonymous
21:17 Anonymous
21:17 Anonymous
21:16 Anonymous6672
21:16 Anonymous6672
21:13 Anonymous6672
21:13 Anonymous6672
07:26 Silk
19:18 Moroccan Arab
19:57 Mrs. Davis
19:56 Sock Puppet of Doom
19:52 muck4doo
19:45 Moroccan Arab
08:14 badanov
08:01 Tom
07:37 Ptah
06:35 Anonymous6334 TROLL
04:51 trailing wife
02:42 Asedwich
02:28 Asedwich
02:00 ed
01:19 Phil Fraering
01:19 Memesis