(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

At risk of becoming tediously repetitive, I will again draw attention to the fact that the majority of academic scholars of the Historical Jesus believe that Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic preacher whose proclamation of the imminent arrival of God's Kingdom was mistaken.

A former minister put it this way: "Jesus' kingdom preaching was predicated on a mistake. His fervent belief that a magnificent kingdom, primarily for Jews, would appear on Earth within his listeners' lifetime was an error, an illusion, an unfulfilled hope."

The "Apostles of Christ" were mistaken, wrong, deluded about the imminent, 1st century arrival of the Kingdom of God.

Just as wrong as any 19th century End-of-Days crackpot sect or cult who wrongly predicted the Apocalypse back then too.

The very foundations of Christianity are unstable!

Baroque Basilica or Shaker Shack – it doesn't really matter how pretty or plain the superstructure is…

if the foundations are rotten…

Is there really any point in asking nicely for 'dialogue' from a man, or men, who have made a career out of KNOWINGLY peddling falsehoods to vulnerable, credulous people?

(Report comment to the moderator)

They are also words which do not speak to us, nor are they words of Truth, they are not speaking truthfully about us/to us. Again we know that too well, from our own life experiences, joys, hurts, loves…also from research.

What I am attempting to point out is that in light of Ratzi's OWN other writings and theology, those words appear to be more confusing and more flawed.

In this sense I personally feel [and this is only personal opinion] that familiarising ourselves with ratzi's other writings could help us in our dialogue with the church/churches.

But of course thank God for our democratic countries, respect for Human Rights and Freedom of Speech. Wish you all a Happy New Year!

(Report comment to the moderator)

Excerpts:
"the particular inclination of the homosexual person…is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

"…when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

"…attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

"…the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered….when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Of course, there are those who will argue that "freedom of speech" is being curtailed. Yes, there is no doubt about that! But here, anyone broadcasting race hate material, through any medium, would be prosecuted of a criminal offence under the Race Relations Act. What is really needed here is for politicians to have the courage to say: "tough – get over it!"

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

From my own viewpoint, what I don't understand is why this nutter is given such news coverage in the first place. And aren't there some difficulties with freedom of speech? I ask this question because the BBC wouldn't dare give news coverage to racist organisations like the BNP.

I ask this: We can't make the Pope support our cause, but the BBC could refuse to report on such hateful speeches. Maybe what we should be doing is demanding of the BBC the same probity in censoring material directed against sexual minorities as exists for other issues like race, gender, etc.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

I feel that journalists either interpreted the message very accurately, thus clearly stating what the vatican ambigiously and unclearly hinted at, or yes they might have interpreted it very wrongly….

my question is: if the interpretation was very wrong, what is the correct CLEAR interpretation of those words? Why does the vatican has to speak to us; 'common', 'ignorant', 'lay people' in such a complicated, ambigious and unclear manner?

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

You are correct to say that a number of the comments posted here are factually inaccurate about Joseph Ratzinger's early life.

As also, is YOUR statement:

"He and his family were as anti-nazi as you could get"

Not according to some witnesses from his hometown, who testified to the Independent newspaper:

"…in Traunstein [Ratzinger's hometown], some of the town's older residents feel that questions about the Pope's early years remain unanswered. Herta Kaiser, an 83-year-old pensioner recalled that several people in the town hid Jews from the Nazis and helped them to escape to neutral Switzerland. "Traunstein was not all Nazi, it was also a Catholic stronghold," she said.

There is no evidence that the Ratzinger family felt inclined to help the town's few remaining Jews, or the smattering of anti-Nazi resistance fighters who dared to oppose the regime.

Elizabeth Lohner, 84, whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau concentration camp for being a conscientious objector, recalled: "It was possible to resist and those people set an example for others." She added: "The Ratzingers were young and made different choices."

In 1937, another Traunstein family hid a local anti-Nazi resistance fighter, named Hans Braxenthaler. He had been tortured in Dachau for his opposition to the regime. Frieda Meyer, 82, one of the Ratzinger family's neighbours at the time, said: "When Braxenthaler was betrayed and the Nazis came for him, he shot himself rather than give himself up."

And some information about Ratzinger's religious mentor:

Ratzinger's election will also raise questions about the dubious role played by the Catholic Church during the Nazi era. The extent to which leading Catholics felt obliged to reach compromises with the regime is outlined by the stance taken by Ratzinger's mentor, Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, one of the Pope's most important early influences.

Documented evidence shows that the cardinal visited Hitler's mountain retreat during the 1930s and was entertained to lunch by the Führer in person. During their meeting, Von Faulhaber is on record as telling Hitler that the Church saw him as an "authority chosen by God, to whom we owe respect".

Not impressive at all is it?

And we haven't even touched here on his insupportable behaviour relating to the paedophile priests scandals…

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)