Käßmann stirs Catholics with pill speech

This woman is a babe for us older fellows, I think.

What credibility does babe have left after driving around drunk? Now she wants to recommend birth control to catholics who, it seems, value life more than she does. Maybe she should continue drinking whatever it was she was imbibing when the police caught her driving drunk a couple of months ago. Please God she stays out of her car while doing it.

I'm pretty sure everyone has the right to take the moral high ground in comparison to the Catholic church these days.

So the woman drove while slightly intoxicated, got busted, owned up to her misdemeanor and had the guts to resign from her position as church leader. Compare that conduct to Ratzinger and his minions who've been covering up an epidemic of sexual abuse of children by their clergy for decades, and even today take the position that they (a) either didn't know about it (they did); (b) that once the crimes were "discovered" they did everything in their power to put an end to them (they didn't), and (c) that the Catholic Church is being persecuted by the press, and in particular the New York Times (it isn't).

Under these circumstances, who has the greater moral authority?

Besides, Kässmann's comments were right on target. Good for her.

Another example of the oft-described "permissive society" I suppose I'm showing my age by using that term, but....

I'm all for the use of birth control, but I don't think I'd describe it as "God's gift." That seems a bit exaggerated. For starters, it was invented by men.

So was God.

I am a Catholic but I think in fairness the lady cannot be compared to other sinners. Who of us can really claím to have never never drank a bit too much and then drove home? I will not throw any stones here as the difference between me and her is that I managed to get away with it, this does of course not excuse my behaviour but if I have to compare this to our priests sexually abusing children for ages ............... then sorry ........... the lady is a saint.

She resigned for her error, our church has done a thousand more sins and yet sees no reason to panic.

If this was politics I would vote for her. Being a strong catholic I will look the other way. Shame on me.

Henckel --

The birth control pill's been around for 50 years. You don't believe that women have a right to control their reproductive destinies? Get over it, or move to Tehran. Permissive society, indeed!

I am old...and would enjoy getting this babe tipsy!

She's probably still on probation for her DUI. And she'd never shag you.

Prufrock2010… Even if God was invented by man, the corollary that he is not real does not automatically follow. Furthermore, your claims about "Ratzinger and his minions" are not proved once you look beyond the New York Times et al. Lastly, whether "women have a right to control their reproductive destinies" is a secular issue. You make the same error as Käßmann in responding to a Catholic theological issue with arguments solely from secular politics. I agree that Catholics should re-examine this issue, but not solely with the secularist arguments of Käßmann.

Profrock2010 says: "Compare that conduct to Ratzinger and his minions who've been covering up an epidemic of sexual abuse of children by their clergy for decades, and even today take the position that they (a) either didn't know about it (they did); (b) that once the crimes were "discovered" they did everything in their power to put an end to them (they didn't), and (c) that the Catholic Church is being persecuted by the press, and in particular the New York Times (it isn't). " Each of your a) b) and c) is assertion. Proof is required. Merely abusing the Pope is, in any case, in no way relevant to the issue at hand. Was the Lutheran Minister in order is seeking to attack Catholic doctrine while she was an ecumenical guest in the Catholic Cathedral. I would have thought that common courtesy would dictate that she might have found another venue or forum to promote opinions (to which she is entitled) without being unnecessarily discourteous. The issue of her drink-driving is irrelevant here too. I would have thought that was a finished matter in which she acted honourably by vacating her position as leader of the Lutheran Church. For that she deserves congratulations, sympathy, support, and forgiveness. There but for the grace of God ...

Christian & Cherub --

How much proof do you need? You might want to do a little bit of independent research. A good place to start is www.SNAP.org. It doesn't take much digging to find out who knew what and when they knew it. Cardinal William Levada, the current Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the position held by Ratzinger for 25 years before he became pope), published a screed on March 26, 2010 attacking the New York Times and some of its journalists for their accurate reporting on the abuse scandals that the church covered up and the trail that led directly to Ratzinger. It should be noted that this same Levada was the Archbishop of Portland, Oregon back in the 1980s when that diocese was involved in similar coverups. Remarkably, Levada claims that "in 1980 [he] had never heard of any accusation of sexual abuse by a priest." What planet was he living on prior to 1980?

The Catholic Church has been using the "persecution" meme as a defense since its inception. It's getting pretty old, particularly in light of the church's ignominious history as a persecutor and its more recent history of covering up the heinous crimes of hundreds, if not thousands, of its clergy. We will never know the true numbers because this information is kept in secret files in the Vatican.

Christian, I agree that women's rights to control their reproductive destinies is a secular issue. It is the Catholic Church that has made it into a "theological issue," in your words, when in fact there is no theology to support the Church's position. It is the Church, not I, that has perverted this issue for its benefit to the derogation of the rights and dignity of women. The Church's misogynistic history is not a matter of conjecture or speculation, but of fact.

Cherub, I didn't bring up the issue of Kässmann's drunk driving arrest. The first poster did. I was merely putting it in context.

As for discourtesy to other religions, I don't think anyone could outperform Ratzinger on that score, given his public statements regarding Jews and Muslims, his campaign to poach priests and congregants from the Church of England and his reinstatement of Bishop Williamson, the Holocaust denier. Ratzinger's hypocrisy and mendacity are compounded by an incredible tin ear. He just doesn't get it, and those who defend him don't get it, either.

Prufrock2010 says: As for discourtesy to other religions, I don't think anyone could outperform Ratzinger on that score, given his public statements regarding Jews and Muslims, his campaign to poach priests and congregants from the Church of England and his reinstatement of Bishop Williamson, the Holocaust denier. Ratzinger's hypocrisy and mendacity are compounded by an incredible tin ear. He just doesn't get it, and those who defend him don't get it, either." Apart from your egregious partisan attitude to the sex abuse issue, you make clear your personal vendetta against the Pope. What public statement has the Pope made against Jews and Muslims. You must be on another planet. His Regensberg address has been deliberately misused by his enemies. Your claim re the Anglicans is even more bizarre. The Traditional Anglican Communion (and others) sought Communion with the Catholic Church and asked the Church what more they needed to do. The Pope responded with his Anglicanorum coetibus. It is up to those Anglicans now to seek entry to the Church through this legal mechanism. This is not poaching ... it is a charitable response to a request from a significant group of Anglicans to return to Full Communion with the Church. What do you think the Pope should have done? Tell the to go away? That the Pope was not advised re Williamson's egregious denial of the holocaust was a major blunder. But all the Pope was doing was preparing the ground for a return to the Church of some Catholics who have been much more sinned against than sinning. And before you jump to any conclusions, I do not belong to either of these traditionalist groups. I am a mainstream post VatII Catholic who enjoys the post Vat II Mass. But truth and loyalty to the Church are important to me, and vendettas against public persons by ideologically motivated venom does not impress.

Prufrock2010, you really are a sad case. Ideological you are. There are facts and there are what people make of facts, and there are those who use information to justify a preprepared position. Your attack on the Pope is unwarranted. It may have been more apposite of you to blame JP2 for not taking action, ill and all as he was.

Re the Jews and Muslims, you simply don't have a case. The Pope's quoting Byzantine Emperor Manuel II was a fair quote and certainly not only gave well intentioned Muslims food for thought it also made for even closer relations between Muslims and Christians. Re the Jews, the Pope simply brought back the old Missal and then made changes to the prayer to which you refer, an old prayer which he did not compose!

The lifting of the excommunication of Williamson did not bring him into the fold as you suggest. SSPX is still not reconciled with the Catholic Church. The self-righteous secular bigot in you is well and truly exposed by your reference to traditional Anglicans. The point is that you hate Christianity, which sort of disqualifies you from the right to be taken too seriously. The then Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to do something about the "filth" in the Church but was prevented from doing so until he became Pope. But if we accept your moral positions not only would Christianity cease to be Christianity but we would also not be guilty of an of the homosexual misconduct of which you apparently disapprove but contradictorily actually approve. Secularists complain when Christians, including the clergy, do not act in a Christian manner (such is the weakness of human beings), but then advocate a morality which would condone much of the behaviour of which you hypocritically disapprove. I mean here adultery, homosexual practices and the like. Not very bright eh!

Cherub --

I'm rather impressed by the speed with which you responded with an ad hominem attack. You know nothing about me or my ideological positions, hence your reference to me as a "self-righteous secular bigot" is inaccurate, unsupported and gratuitously offensive. I did not attack you personally and I would appreciate the civility of your refraining from attacking me personally. How do you know what I hate unless I tell you?

Just a couple of minor points. First, Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 25 years before he became pope. It was his job as Prefect to deal with the pedophilia scandals (read: sex crimes against children) that were pandemic throughout the church (and still are). He did not do his jJOB. To assert that he was prevented from doing anything about it by JPII is both ludicrous and not supported by any evidence.

Second, you are resorting to a particularly vile defense of pedophilia that was recently tried by the Vatican, i.e., conflating pedophilia with homosexuality. Even the Vatican had to pull back on that assertion a couple of weeks ago when it provoked outrage throughout the world. No legitimate psychiatrist, psychologist or social scientist anywhere on the planet conflates pedophilia with homosexuality -- only the church, whose homophobia is well-established. Personally, although I am heterosexual, I have no problem with someone else's sexual preference and I definitely do not consider homosexuality to be "misconduct." For the record, I don't consider pedophilia "misconduct," either. I consider it a serious crime which should subject the perpetrator to life imprisonment.

Third, I never mentioned adultery. You did. Freudian projection, perhaps?

You joined this forum today. I've been around a few months. Why don't you go back and read some of my posts on various subjects and find out if I'm "not very bright, eh?"

And by the way, tautology is not argument. Simply repeating the same thing over and over again is not persuasive. But I'm persuaded that you're passionate about your faith (fine with me), that you are homophobic (that's your right) and that you cannot support your defense of Ratzinger's conduct. I wish you well in your search for salvation. I'll stick with my secularism, and I'll continue to call a spade a spade.

Good for her, she's back to stupid from drunk! Things are looking up. Still suggest she go talk with the Talliban.

What does this woman have in common with the Taliban?

Memory retention Prufrock, she spoke about not supporting the war in Afganistan and the readers suggested she end it by going and having a talk with the Talliban. The laugh heard round the world.

A woman who can't understand why the Talliban have to be eradicated is like a Jew who understands the Nazis point of view. Clueless.

I'm afraid I must have missed that colloquy. However, anyone who thinks the Taliban have to be or can be eradicated by war is truly as clueless as anyone who thinks the war in Afghanistan can be won. I suspect you weren't around for Vietnam.

Prufrock 2010 said: "You know nothing about me or my ideological positions, hence your reference to me as a "self-righteous secular bigot" is inaccurate, unsupported and gratuitously offensive." Well Prufrock, I can read and, although you may not realise, you trailed your coat. You referred to misogynism and homophobia in what was a "gratuitously offensive" and "unsupported" on Anglicans. You support a permissive sexual ethics, eg homosexuality, and then have the temerity to take offence when I refer to the sexual abuse of teenage boys by homosexual priests. Logic please. And for your edification I quote from a piuece written by an Australian solicitor and barrister Paul Rees in which he exposes the case against Ratzinger foir the sham that it is. This is only a portion of it but others may find in it a corrective to your unsubstantiated accusations. "Only one of the ¦quot;smoking guns¦quot; against Benedict involves a priest who was not reported to the police. This was Peter Hullermann, who sexually assaulted three boys in the German diocese of Essen in 1979. The documents in the case have been released to the media, including the minutes of a meeting with the victims¦#39; parents. These record that the parents did not want the case referred to police, to protect their children. Perhaps this was really a cover-up, but alternatively the parents may have had a sincere desire to shield their children from further trauma.

Hullermann was sent for therapy in Munich, where he was allowed to return to parish duties against the advice of his treating psychiatrist. These decisions were made by the Munich personnel director, a Father Fahr, and the diocesan vicar-general, Father Gruber. The decision to accept Hullermann required the approval of Munich¦#39;s diocesan council, which consisted of Archbishop Ratzinger and his senior officials.

Fahr did not attend the council meeting, but sent a memo stating that a young priest needed ¦quot;medical-psychotherapeutic treatment in Munich¦quot; and a place to live with ¦quot;an understanding colleague¦quot;.

The diocesan council approved the request. Gruber later wrote another memo recording Hullermann¦#39;s return to parish duties and copied it to Ratzinger, but it did not mention the psychiatrist¦#39;s advice. Neither memo provided any information alerting Ratzinger to the fact that Hullermann was a paedophile. Some years later, after Ratzinger had left Munich, Hullermann was transferred to another Bavarian diocese, where he re-offended. This does appear to be a case of gross, if not criminal, negligence by Munich diocesan officials, and a cover-up as well. But Ratzinger was a victim of the cover-up, not a participant. The documents show that he was kept in the dark about Hullermann, and Gruber has confirmed this (Fahr is dead). While Gruber might be suspected of covering for his boss, the same cannot be said of the psychiatrist, who is still angry about the affair. But he also says Ratzinger knew nothing about what was going on ..."

How can the Catholic Church "poach Anglicans"? This assertion makes no sense.It was Henry VIII that took the English Church out of communion with Rome.These folks are just returning part of the English Church back to Rome.

Since Chist is considered by most Christians to be the Savior of the world and the fullfillment of the Jewish religion it only makes sense for the Pope to pray for the conversion of the Jews. This is not hate it is love.

-Prufrock2010

Your overly simplistic description of the Holy Roman Empire

and the Catholic Church reveals a complete lack of objectivity. If your intention is to establish at least a near approximation of the truth you have failed. If your intention is to bash the Catholic Church you may have succeeded in convincing those who already believe your dogma or those who don't get past the sensationalized head lines published in forums such as the Local.

If you wish to be objective you should include at least some of the accomplishments of the Catholic Church. The modern University, hospitals, schools, the promotion of the Arts and Sciences, at least a partial civilization and union of the Germanic Tribes, Canon's Laws influnence on modern law and the idea that the Church and State exist in seperate spheres and idea that still has not found much currency in many Islamic States Etc...

Thames --

Are you suggesting that I write a dissertation on the Holy Roman Empire on this thread? Seriously? Read a history book or two.

By the way, I have no dogma, nor do I believe in dogma. That's your bag.

I'm not here to discuss the accomplishments of the Catholic Church through the ages, some of which have been laudable. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. I've been discussing Ratzinger's role in the systemic sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy.

It's interesting that you cite to "Canon's [sic] Laws [sic] influence on modern law and the idea that the Church and State exist in separate spheres...." It is precisely by invoking Canon law that the Catholic Church has managed to successfully shield so many of its clergy from exposure to civil law to answer for their crimes against children.

Nor am I here to compare the mythologies of the Catholic Church and Islam. That's a topic for another discussion in which I have absolutely no interest.

I was raised and educated as a Catholic. I know something about the Church and its perfidy, and I am not in the least objective about the Church's historical and contemporary role in society. Neither are you. If you were, you wouldn't be so defensive about the evidence that points directly to Ratzinger's doorstep.

Too bad the pill was not yet invented in Käßmann's parents' time...

Pufrock2010 says: "By the way, I have no dogma, nor do I believe in dogma." You really are a philosophical pygmy! Your dogma is that there is no dogma! Philosophy 101! Your problem is that you see yourself above all others who disagree with you and seek to lampoon Pope and Church in advance of your "dogma". Not very bright eh!

Cherub --

I'm finished with your puerile personal attacks. Defend your pope, defend your dogma, defend your myopia until the cows come home. I'm not "lampooning" the pope or the Catholic Church. I'm calling the pope out as the corrupt leader of the largest criminal enterprise on the planet, and I will continue to do so until the little rat bastard finds the decency to resign his position and return the Church to its members, who might be able to clean it up in time, through the grace of God.

Prufrock2010 says: "I'm finished with your puerile personal attacks. ...I'm not "lampooning" the pope or the Catholic Church. I'm calling the pope out as the corrupt leader of the largest criminal enterprise on the planet, and I will continue to do so until the little rat bastard finds the decency to resign his position ..." Poor old Prufrock, still in self-contradictory mode. You dislike "personal attacks" but you then go on to call the Pope "the little rat bastard". Not very bright eh!

Cherub --

I never once attacked YOU. I am free to attack the little rat bastard in the Vatican because he's a public figure AND the corrupt leader of the largest criminal enterprise on the planet. If you can't understand the distinction, you might have to reassess your opinion of who's "not very bright eh!"

You just won't give it up, will you? Your hysterical defense of Ratzinger is truly bizarre, as though he were a cult leader or something. Oh, wait! He IS a cult leader! "Pass the sacramental kool-aid with the eucharist, oh Holy Father. I will follow you to the hubs of hell."

Prufrock2010 says: "You just won't give it up, will you? Your hysterical defense of Ratzinger is truly bizarre, as though he were a cult leader or something. Oh, wait! He IS a cult leader! "Pass the sacramental kool-aid with the eucharist, oh Holy Father. I will follow you to the hubs of hell."

You refer to my "hysterical" defence of the Pope (for which you will find no evidence, and then contradictorily, once again, you go into full hysteria mode!

Still not very logical and not very clever. You make it just so easy for anyone to see through your "front". Oh Wel ...

In any case, the real issue was about the Lutheran Pastor who showed significant disrespect to her Catholic hosts - and you approved, Prufrock2010. What ever side of the contraception debate you are on, the silly superficial remarks of the Pastor should have been beneath her. Time and place eh!

I'm not hiding behind any "front." I've made my opinions about Ratzinger and his corrupt organization very clear.

I applaud the Lutheran pastor for her comments. If the Catholics were not prepared to hear her remarks at an Ecumenical Church Congress held in a Catholic church, they should not have invited her to speak. But then that would have defeated the "ecumenical" part, would it not?

Too bad they didn't invite me to speak. Then they would have heard some things that would have been far more disconcerting to them. Alas....

@prufrock2010

I give up resistance is useless.

You win on stamina alone.

You could have written a disertation you already have a good start.