The Monkey Princess (stellanova) wrote,
The Monkey Princess

  • Mood:

papa ratzi, again

Okay, this is my last word on Ratzinger. I just read the comments about his election on the BBC news site (I went to the Radio 4 page to listen to yesterday's Archers, and there was a link), and lo and behold, lots of smug idiots keep saying stuff like this:

Historic Catholic teachings and the Gospels state clearly what Catholics should believe and follow. Just because Benedict XVI is reverting to original Catholic teachings does not make him conservative, it just makes him true to Catholicism. If people are unhappy with this they should change religion.

Have these morons any sense of historical perspective? Apart from the fact the Gospels make no reference to contraception, abortion or homosexuality (although they do have something to say about living in luxury, Pope "I am a Humble Worker - That's Why I Am Wearing These Golden Robes" Benedict), THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS CHANGED A LOT. Jesus, everything isn't written in stone. In Church terms, Vatican II was a much more radical move than even lifting the contraception ban (and let's not even get into the fact that some of the early church fathers, like Augustine, actually considered the foetus to be "vegetative" - hardly proponents of the idea that life begins at conception). Vatican II threw out lots of historical Catholic teachings, and guess what? People got used to it pretty fucking quickly. I hate this smug and ignorant assumption that a misogynistic fundamentalist who wants to ignore the very idea of progression is somehow some sort of super-Catholic. The Church has changed its views on many things over the years, and to pretend that everything was exactly the same for two millenia until some crazy liberals started making a fuss is insulting and just plain stupid.
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded