Der katholische Herr Josef Kardinal Ratzinger, auch bekannt unter seinem derzeitigen Verbrechernamen Benedikt XVI., von seinen Mafiosi-Anhängern anbetungsvoll “Papa” oder “Papst” genannt, besuchte das – bekanntermaßen überwiegend anglikanische, sprich feindliche Großbritannien.

Er konnte es dabei nicht unterlassen, Anglikaner, die mit dem Bischofsamt für Frauen nicht einverstanden sind, zum Konfessionswechsel einzuladen.

Eine kurios-perverse Aussage eines kurios-hinterwäldlerischen alten Mannes von den wandernden Bergen des Wahnsinns? Nein, die Sache hat durchaus (Hinter)Sinn. Konservative Strömungen in der anglikanischen Kirche kritisieren seit Jahren schon deren Oberhaupt Herrn Rowan Williams ob seiner “Sanftmütigkeit” (Zitat derstandard.at) als Weichling (Zitat ebendaselbst). Herr Josef Kardinal Ratzinger weiß das, und nutzt seinen GB-Besuch, um die “abgefallene” Herde zur Rückkehr in den Schoß der heiligen Mutter Kirche einzuladen (schon allein sich das grafisch vorzustellen ist an Brechreiz kaum zu überbieten, und ist doch eine gängige Floskel: “Der Schoß der heiligen Mutter Kirche”).

Kurz: Herr Franz meint: der Alte spricht. Im Wahn. Leider hören ihm immer noch viel zu viele Menschen zu. Damit hat er sich auch gleich das Oink der Woche verdient.

Weiterlesen:
derstandard.at

Oder alle anderen, die an einer Vergewaltigung teilnehmen. Oder sich mit deren Folgen befassen. Genauer: Neulich wurde eine neunjährige Brasilianerin von ihrem Stiefvater vergewaltigt und geschwängert. Die Familie liess die Zwillingsföten abtreiben. Der lokale Erzbischof Jose Cardoso Sobrinho exkommunizierte daraufhin die Familie und die an der Abtreibung beteiligten Ärzte. Das Opfer selbst ist unter 18 und bleibt daher von der Exkommunikation verschont.

Der Heilige Stuhl (a.k.a. Panzerpapst Benedikt 16) verteidigte das Vorgehen mit dem Hinweis, es gäbe schliesslich Gesetze, und eine kirchliche Disziplin, die man nicht wegen einzelner Härtefälle wegwerfen dürfe.

Ah. Tolle Kirche habt ihr da. Sehr geile Perversion christlicher und humanistischer Werte. Ich hoffe, eure Sekte muss bald zumachen. Spätestens wenn genügend Leute exkommuniziert wurden.

( time via pharyngula)

Schlechte Zeiten für das päpstliche Unfehlbarkeitsdogma: Seine Heiligkeit Josef Ratzinger musste nach einem Entrüstungssturm aus dem ebenfalls Heiligen Land (a.k.a. Israel) zugeben, dass er, wie sich geschichtlich belegen lässt, dann doch Mitglied in der Hitlerjugend gewesen sei. Wie alle Jungs in seinem Alter in jener Zeit.

Obwohl zwischenzeitlich das Gegenteil aus Rom zu hören war. Also wo ist das Problem? Kann man nicht einfach dazu stehen, wenn man schon nichts dafür kann?

Trotzdem geht das unwürdige Rechtfertigungsgewinsel weiter: Ein Sprecher des Vatikan betonte weiter, der junge Ratzinger sei ja nur Flakhelfer gewesen. Ach ja? Irgendwie habe ich in diesem Fall Verständnis dafür, wenn die Israelis sich aufregen und ihrerseits beleidigt sind.

(via haaretz)

Il Papa è solo ed è contro il preservativo: ovvio gli fa sudare la mano.

The Vatican has revised the Pope’s ignorant comments on condoms and their usefulness against HIV/AIDS:

On Tuesday he told reporters accompanying him on his trip to Africa that Aids was a “tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”. Taken aback by outrage worldwide, the Holy See altered the Pope’s remark yesterday to read that condoms merely “risked” aggravating the problem.

The Vatican website published an edited text of the Pope’s comments the day after a question-and-answer sesion on his flight to Cameroon. It was a question from a French reporter that elicited an unqualified response about condoms.

By introducing the word “risks” the Vatican softened the message. The website at first also altered the Italian word the Pope used for condoms, from “preservativi” to “profilattici”.

It is not clear whether “preservatives” — the usual Italian term for condoms — was deemed too colloquial, or whether “prophylactics” was considered not simply more polite but more general, since it could be taken to encompass other forms of “safeguard against disease”. Subsequently the word was changed back to preservativi.

All Vatican press conferences are conducted in Italian, which the German-born Pope speaks fluently and which Vatican-accredited reporters are also expected to speak. Reporters who recorded the interview on the flight said the recordings showed that the Pope had used the word “preservativi” and not “profilattici”.

In addition he had not said that reliance on condoms “risked” aggravating the problem, as the amended version had it, but rather that it “even aggravated it” or, as some media translated the word, “increased” it.

The backlash against Benedict is continuing:

The Vatican’s stance is not simply irresponsible; it is immoral. African countries, as some of the most under-developed in the world, will arguably suffer the worst consequences of the “new” global challenges – climate change and the global economic downturn. The “old” ones also have not gone anywhere – severe poverty, malaria, the brain-drain, poor health, education and infrastructure, bad and corrupt leadership, civil war and genocide.

The last thing Africans need is to be told that religion, the last vessel of hope for many, demands that they ignore one of the very few things they are able to do to help themselves.

It’s unbelievable that a man with no experience in sexual affairs, and who puts religious doctrine above the realities of the world, should pontificate so cynically on such an important matter. Is Church membership really more important than people’s lives?

He’s brought a Holocaust-denying bishop back from excommunication, he’s blamed gay people for climate change, and now Josef Ratzinger says that condoms are part of the problem in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa:

Benedict had never directly addressed condom use. He has said that the Roman Catholic Church is in the forefront of the battle against Aids. The Vatican encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of the disease.

“You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the Pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon, where he will begin a seven-day pilgrimage on the continent. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.“

Anyone keeping tabs on numbers self-identifying as Catholic in the developed world? I mean how can anyone really give this man or the institution he leads the time of day, after such arrogance/ignorance?

Aus hiesiger Sicht scheint die katholische Kirche in einer respektablen Krise zu stecken. Ausgelöst durch zwei Personalentscheidungen beginnt die Basis dieser Organisation wieder einmal rasant zu bröckeln. Die Reinkommunikation des Richard Wiliamson als globales Ereignis und die Berufung von Gerhard Maria Wagner zum provinziellen Hilfsbischof als lokales Ereignis haben bei vielen Menschen das Fass zum Überlaufen gebracht. Die meisten Kommentatoren sehen die aktuellen Entwicklungen als bedauerlichen Fehler, ich dagegen halte sie für systemimmanent.

Ich sehe die römisch-katholische Kirche inzwischen aus einer gelassenen Distanz. An meiner christlich-katholischen Sozialisation habe ich mich in den knapp vier Jahrzehnten meines Lebens hinreichend abgearbeitet. So habe ich beispielsweise vor einigen Jahren die römisch-katholische Kirche beim europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte angezeigt, weil sie Menschen auf Grund ihres Geschlechts diskriminiert, ein Vorhaben, das irgendwann im Sand verlaufen ist. Heute betrachte ich den Katholizismus römischer Art als massiges Phänomen innerhalb von kosmischen Gesamtzusammenhängen.

Ich halte den Monotheismus abrahamitischer Prägung für die fatalste Katastrophe dieser Erde, was in den letzten 2500 Jahren auch genügend anschaulich wurde. Innerhalb der drei vorderorientalischen Monotheismen ist mir das Christentum die noch am wenigsten unsympathische Religion, meiner Ansicht nach jedoch ein riesiges Missverständnis. Soferne die Worte des Jesus von Nazareth von seinen Evangelisten überhaupt begriffen wurden, stellen sie jedenfalls – wie jede so genannte heilige Schrift – die Basis für himmelschreiende Willkür dar. Die Exegese der bisherigen 2000 Jahre seit Paulus tut ein Übriges, aus der ursprünglichen Lehre ein totalitäres System zu entwickeln.

Die aktuellen Probleme der römisch-katholischen Kirche – seien sie global oder lokal – sind symptomatisch für das Erbe, das der beschnittene Jude Jesus den Seinen hinterlassen hat. Ein Mensch, dessen gewaltsame Zeugung von Anfang an tabuisiert wurde, hinterlässt bei seinen Fanatikern selbstverständlich einen blinden Fleck beim Thema Sexualität. Und wenn die ursächliche Geschlechtlichkeit seiner beiden Eltern schon ein Tabu ist, dann wird das seine eigene erst recht. Johannes kann von sich noch so oft schreiben: “Der Jünger, den Jesus liebte”, “der in seinem Schoß und an seiner Brust lag”, Sexualität – und erst recht der Ausweg Homosexualität – bleibt in dieser Tradition ein dunkles Kapitel. Da hilft es auch nichts, wenn das weibliche Christentum seit Maria Magdalena voll ist von “Verzückungen” in bezug auf diesen Gottessohn.

Johannes war halt einer der “Buberlpartie” seines Herrn, und sein Meister war sein “Lebensmensch”. Und wenn sie in Kärnten gelebt hätten, dann hätten sie ihr letztes Mahl eben im “Stadtkrämer” zu sich genommen. Mit Wodka statt Wein. Und am Tod im Rausch sind natürlich die Juden schuld.

Wir alle bauen immer wieder Mist. Das heisst, Ereignisse entwickeln sich anders, als wir sie beabsichtigt haben. Gemeinhin werden diese Entwicklungen “Fehler” genannt. Wir alle begehen Fehler, seien wir Individuen oder Gruppen. Gerade eben sind drei bedeutende politische Fehler passiert, einer in Washington D.C., einer in Rom und einer in Wien. Barack Obama, Josef Ratzinger und Eva Glawischnig haben an der Spitze ihrer Institutionen Fehler begangen, alle drei interessanterweise in Personalfragen. Alle drei wollten neue personelle Weichen stellen und sind damit in gewaltigen Konflikt mit ihrer Öffentlichkeit geraten. Barack Obama durch seine vorgeschlagenen Kabinettsmitglieder, Josef Ratzinger durch seine rehabilitierten Piusbrüder und Eva Glawischnig durch ihre nominierten Europaabgeordneten. Die Dinge haben sich anders entwickelt, als sie Barack Obama, Josef Ratzinger und Eva Glawischnig beabsichtigt hatten.

Jetzt finde ich es unheimlich interessant und spannend zu beobachten, wie diese drei Menschen damit umgehen, einen Fehler gemacht zu haben. Wie reagieren Barack Obama, Josef Ratzinger und Eva Glawischnig auf ihren Fehler? Barack Obmama begeistert mich, Josef Ratzinger lässt mich kalt und Eva Glawischnig macht mich traurig.

Wir alle können uns an Barack Obama auch hier wieder ein unglaubliches Beispiel nehmen. Er ist präsent, er weiss, was er will, er kennt sein Ziel, er denkt großzügig, er erkennt die Lage, er handelt umgehend und er kommuniziert offen. Sein gesamtes Wesen ist – wie schon den ganzen Wahlkampf hindurch – geprägt von Vertrauen und Respekt. Er benützt keine Feindbilder, an denen er Schuld abzuladen versucht. Er steht zu seiner Verantwortung.

Ganz anders Eva Glawischnig. Ist sie präsent? Weiß sie, was sie will? Kennt sie ihr Ziel? Denkt sie großzügig? Erkennt sie die Lage? Handelt sie umgehend? Kommuniziert sie offen? Ihr gesamtes Wesen scheint geprägt von angsterfülltem Misstrauen und daraus resultierender Respektlosigkeit. Sie benützt Feindbilder, an denen sie Schuld abzuladen versucht. Sie steht nicht zu ihrer Verantwortung.

Liebe Eva Glawischnig! Es ist nie zu spät. Nehmen Sie sich an Barack Obama ein Beispiel. Stellen Sie sich hin und sagen sie es offen: “Ich habe es verpatzt.”

Seit Neuestem gibt es einen weiteren Konflikt zwischen monotheistischen Juden und monotheistischen Christen, weil der heilige Vater neben drei Weiteren auch Bischof Richard Williamson wieder in den Schoß der heiligen Mutter Kirche heimgeholt hat. Der Konflikt entzündet sich daran, dass Exzellenz Williamson bis zum heutigen Tag meint, er “glaube,  es gab keine Gaskammern, (…) soweit er die Beweise verstanden habe.” (wunderbar auf youtube)

An die Zeugung durch einen Geist glaubt er jedoch. Na, dann…

If only we lived in a world where the ignorant words of an old man with too much time on his hands didn’t matter; they do. We live in a world where people like Mikey Causer are beaten to death for being gay. Yet again with Pope Benedict XVI we have the Vatican badmouthing homosexuality, transsexualism and every variance from baseline heterosexual behaviour and institutions:

Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Credo, the Church cannot and should not confine itself to passing on the message of salvation alone. It has a responsibility for the created order and ought to make this responsibility prevail, even in public. And in so doing, it ought to safeguard not only the earth, water, and air as gifts of creation, belonging to everyone. It ought also to protect man against the destruction of himself. What is necessary is a kind of ecology of man, understood in the correct sense. When the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman and asks that this order of creation be respected, it is not the result of an outdated metaphysic. It is a question here of faith in the Creator and of listening to the language of creation, the devaluation of which leads to the self-destruction of man and therefore to the destruction of the same work of God. That which is often expressed and understood by the term “gender”, results finally in the self-emancipation of man from creation and from the Creator. Man wishes to act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him. But in this way he is living contrary to the truth, he is living contrary to the Spirit Creator. The tropical forests are deserving, yes, of our protection, but man merits no less than the creature, in which there is written a message which does not mean a contradiction of our liberty, but its condition. The great Scholastic theologians have characterised matrimony, the life-long bond between man and woman, as a sacrament of creation, instituted by the Creator himself and which Christ – without modifying the message of creation – has incorporated into the history of his covenant with mankind. This forms part of the message that the Church must recover the witness in favour of the Spirit Creator present in nature in its entirety and in a particular way in the nature of man, created in the image of God. Beginning from this perspective, it would be beneficial to read again the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sexuality as a consumer entity, the future as opposed to the exclusive pretext of the present, and the nature of man against its manipulation.

It’s a whole load of unscientific, mostly meaningless garbage of course, but what’s important isn’t so much the content as who’s saying it. For some drunk in a pub to come out with such archaic nonsense is one thing – for the leader of one of the world’s organised religions it’s another. People do and will listen to him, and although I don’t believe for a moment that he speaks for all the world’s Catholics, when he legitimises bigotry through religious intellectualism, or even via the modern language of environmentalism, he is dangerous. Homophobia isn’t an inherent quality in human beings, it’s a value which is transmitted and legitimised, and people like Josef Ratzinger should know better:

It is an instructive exercise to take Pope Benedict’s latest homophobic outburst and substitute the word “Jew” for “homosexual.”

The Pope’s detractors are always quick to point to his service in the Hitler Youth as a teenager.

I fully accept that his Hitler Youth membership was probably compulsory, even that his views on homosexuality may not have arisen from his membership of the party – he has shown a propensity to over-intellectualise anything. But his unique position as Pope should make him particularly mindful of the origins of hate and the role his office can play in either fostering it or inhibiting it:

Gay people are a serious threat to the existence of humanity, as serious as global warming. Does any of that rhetoric sound familiar?

Even the most casual observer of history cannot help but be struck by the chilling parallel.

Yet instead he capriciously couches his homophobia in the terms of environmentalism to legitimise it to his wider audience. The last point is equally salient though, and more concerning. The leader of the Catholic Church actually uses the language of social Darwinism, of Nazism, that we’re ‘against God and nature’, to justify his attack on everyone who doesn’t conform to baseline heterosexuality. A man who has lived through the Holocaust should know better – such words will only help to justify the ignorance of those who hate us. Peter Tatchell remarks:

Free market capitalism, and its culture of greed and consumerism, is a far greater threat to the ecological survival of our planet than homosexuality or transsexuality.

Is the Pope ignorant or malevolent?

The suggestion that gay people are a threat to human survival is absurd and dangerous. It is poisonous propaganda that will give comfort and succour to queer-bashers everywhere.

Homosexuality is a part of human ecology. It has existed in all cultures in all eras. At a time of global over-population, by not having children gay couples contribute to population stabilisation and thereby reduce pressure on over-strained natural resources. We are an ecological asset to humanity.

He may rhetorically overstate the counter-argument, but he’s obviously right in slamming Benedict for linking environmental protection with ‘gender protection’. With capitalism uniquely responsible for the destruction of the environment, as well increasing poverty during this ‘credit crunch’, it’s a disgrace that the leader of the Catholic Church should find time once again to prioritise blaming us for the world’s ills. He has indeed learned nothing from his time as a Nazi.

In response to Norm here…

Q1. How would you define ‘atheism’?

I would define it for myself as the rationally grounded belief that there is no such thing as God.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

In terms of the general cultural atmosphere, yes. We were Catholics, everyone we knew were Catholics and everyone went to Mass. I made my First Communion and my Confirmation, just like everyone else. My parents, though observant themselves, never put us under any kind of pressure to believe or do anything in particular. And we were encouraged to read a lot, so that scuppered any chance of religion taking a hold.

Q3. How would you describe ‘Intelligent Design’, using only one word?
Nonsense

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Everything to do with aviation.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the ‘atheist community’, what would it be and why?

I wouldn’t want to be part of any such thing.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said ‘I’m joining the clergy’, what would be your first response?

If a child of mine got to the stage of wanting to join the clergy the time for arguing with them about the falsity of religion would have long since passed. So, I’d probably sigh and ask them about the hours and the pay.

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

I don’t have one.

Q8. What’s your most ‘controversial’ (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

None that I can think of. I don’t discuss atheism much either with atheists, because it’s such an obviously, almost boringly, correct belief, or with believers, because life is too short and they are usually immune to argument.

Q9. Of the ‘Four Horsemen’ (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Hitchens is by far the most interesting and fun. I have liked things I have read by Dawkins on other matters.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

I suppose the most obvious candidate would Josef Ratzinger. I’d be well equpped to argue about the specifics of Catholicism and damaging the Catholic Church would be a worthwhile endeavour.

Papiez Benedykt XVI jest w trakcie pielgrzymki do USA. Z Waszyngtonu przyjechal dzis do Nowego Jorku(dzis czyli w piatek 18 kwietnia ). Media od tygodni nie grzmialy o niczym z taka czestotliwoscia, ale dzis cala poranna gazeta zarzucona byla informacjami o wizycie papieza. Miasto od dawna przygotowyalo sie na te wizyte, w koncu nie codziennie ma sie takiego goscia w swoim domu i na podworku.

Gazety a i telewizja chwala Benedykta za nieunikanie kontrowersyjnych tematow. Papiez czesto, gesto porusza temat molestowania seksualnego. Pedofilie wsrod ksiezy nazywa najwieksza hanba kosciola. Obiecuje walczyc z tym az do skutku, jakby troche zapominajac, ze to wlasnie on sam jako kardynal Ratzinger zalecal trzymanie tego w tajemnicy.

Ta postawa otwartosci nawet na bolesne tematy zjednuje sobie Amerykanow, a przynajmniej dziennikarzy. Podkreslaja oni co prawda, ze Benedyktowi brakuje ciepla i charyzmy jego poprzednika, ale nazywaja jego starania dobrym startem kosciola. Prezcytalam nawet dzis co bardzo mnie rozbawilo. Otoz jeden z dziennikarzy napisal, ze gdyby Jan Pawel II nie zostal duchownym a pozniej papiezem to z pewnoscia bylby najpopularniejszym gwiazdorem Hollywood. Natomiast Benedykt XVI bylby surowym dyrektorem szkoly katolickiej.

Pr. Dr. Jurcan Ioan-Emil, Duhul Sfânt şi provocările contemporane ale lumii, Ed. Arhiepiscopiei Ortodoxe Române, Alba Iulia, 1999, 415p.

Asistăm în postmodernitate la o imanentizare a soteriologiei pentru că omul are falsa conştiinţă că se mântuieşte prin sine, prin cultura şi ştiinţa contemporană lui, p. 66./ Din punct de vedere teologic, spune autorul nostru, cultura actuală e pelagiană, e o cultură păgână, p. 67./

Tronează în relaţiile dintre noi etica egoismului, p. 67./”deismul nu se rezolvă prin antropocentrism, ci prin teandrismul comuniunii dintre om şi Dumnezeu”, p. 67./ Autorul numeşte “teologii contextuale” teologiile de tip feminist, p. 67./

“Încercările de socializare sau de sexualizare ale Treimii sunt de fapt tendinţe [unilaterale n.n] de a scoate dogma trinitară din această izolare [ pe care o trăieşte Apusul neortodox şi n.n.] pe care epoca medievală a construit-o în jurul Persoanelor treimice”, p. 68./

În Ortodoxie, hristologia şi pnevmatologia se compenetrează şi se condiţionează reciproc, p. 77./ Actualul patriarh al României, PFP Daniel, spunea într-un articol de tinereţe că “Ortodoxia prezintă o hristologie pnevmatologică şi o pnevmatologie hristocentrică”, p. 77, cf. Prof. Dan-Ilie Ciobotea, Dorul după Biserica nedespărţită sau apelul tainic şi irezistibil al Sfintei Treimi, în rev. Ortodoxia XXXIV [ 1982], nr. 4, p. 590./

Prof. de Teologie Ortodoxă Theodoros Zissis spunea foarte adevărat că: “Lucrarea fiecărei Persoane în timpuri diferite nu a avut ca urmare subordonarea celorlalte două Persoane, aşa încât să avem patromonismul în Vechiul Testament, hristomonismul în Noul Testament şi pnevmatomonismul în Biserică”, p. 77, cf. Prof. Dr. Theodoros Zissis, Die Bedeutung der orthodoxen Pneumatologie, în rev. Oekumenisches Forum, nr. 5, Graz, 1982, p. 11./

“Dimensiunea hristică”, spune autorul român, “imprimată în umanitatea lui Hristos în Biserică, în calitatea de Cap al ei, este în acelaşi timp o dimensiune pnevmatologică”, p. 78./ Se citează: Pr. Prof. D. Stăniloae, Dinamismul creaţiei în Biserică, în rev. Ortodoxia XXIX [1977], nr. 3-4./ Creaţia are capacitatea de a se deschide lui Dumnezeu şi de a recepta harul divin, p. 79./

“Filioque nu poate să redea comuniunea adevărată între Fiul şi Duhul Sfânt deoarece El Îi separă pe Amândoi, atât în planul transcendent, cât şi în cel imanent”, p. 95./ “Dacă purcederea [Duhului Sfânt] nu reiese din Persoana Tatălui, ci din relaţia Lui cu Fiul, atunci ea provine în cele din urmă din relaţia ousiei [fiinţei dumnezeieşti] între Persoane şi nu de la Persoană”, p. 96, din persoana Tatălui./

Autorul e de părere că Jürgen Moltmann se deschide mult pnevmatologiei stănilosciene, reface orientarea sa filioquistă dar nu o depăşeşte total, pentru că harul divin rămâne o problemă neprecizată, p. 97./ Autorul român precizează foarte corect faptul, că “adaosul Filioque nu trebuie doar verbal dezaprobat, ci trebuie căutată învăţătura ortodoxă, care să dea baza unei teologii în care Dumnezeu să fie prezent şi activ în lume”, p. 98./

Teologul Piet Schoonenberg vede pe Cuvântul lui Dumnezeu ca prezenţa lui Dumnezeu în creaţia Sa iar pe Duhul ca imanenţa sau inhabitarea Sa, p. 99, cf. Piet Schoonenberg, Der Geist, das Wort und der Sohn. Eine Geist-Christologie, Verlag Friedrich Pustet, Regensburg, 1992, p. 148./ Separaţia dintre Fiul şi Duhul care se vedete la Piet S. , în creaţia lumii şi în providenţierea Sa, este de fapt o reflectare directă a separaţiei dinte Fiul şi Duhul în plan transcenden. Pentru el Duhul Sfânt purcezând şi de la Fiul este nedespărţit de Acesta, devenind o legătură cu Tatăl a Fiului dar neavând o împreună-locuire, respectiv o împreun-acţiune/lucrare cu Fiul, p. 99. /Piet Schonnenberg e teolog catolic, pe când Moltamann e teolog luteran./

P. Schoonenberg consideră noţiunea de persoană în triadologie, uimitor pentru noi, drept o “titulatură depăşită”, care nu merită să fie atribuită lui Dumnezeu, p. 100./

Leonardo Boff, teolog catolic, Îl vede pe Sfântul Duh “mai mult o prezenţă energetică şi mai puţin o persoană”, p. 103, pentru că el Îl vede pe Sfântul Duh ca fiind rupt/separat de Hristos, p. 105./ Boff militează pentru o Biserică a săracilor, pentru o Biserică populară, p. 121./

Teologul Jose´ Comblin, tot catolic, vrea să facă o teologie în care Sfântul Duh şi Biserica să interacţioneze, p. 123./ Însă, spune autorul român, dacă Sfântul Duh e considerat în romano-catolicism “sufletul Bisericii”, atunci Sfântul Duh este privit ca o realitate substanţială, care duce la impersonalism pnevmatic, p. 124./ Teologia lui Combin e una contextuală, în care Biserica e privită ca o realitate pur imanentă, p. 124./ Pentru teologul catolic citat anterior Biserica s-a născut ca o realitate populară, a poporului şi apoi ca o realitate ce ţine de Hristos, p. 125./

Pentru J. Moltmann Biserica e în primul rând misionară, p. 129/ Teologul protestant consideră că pietismul a descoperit inima, însă nu sesizează, spune autorul român, că “pietismul protestant a fost de fapt accentuarea individualismului în Biserică”, p. 130./ Moltmann are şi viziunea Bisericii Ecumenice, care trebuie să se realizeze prin Mişcarea Ecumenică, adică o unitate vizibilă a Bisericii lui Hristos, p. 130./Însă deopotrivă vorbeşte şi de o Biserică politică, p. 132./

Autorul român crede că lui J. Moltmann îi revine meritul de a fi redescoperit profunzimea Duhului Sfânt în teologia protestantă. “Astfel Duhul nu mai rămâne o entitate intangibilă pentru om, ci Se manifestă ca o realitate activă şi participativă.”, p. 132./

Prin teologia pe care o elaborează Moltmann trece : 1. de la Biserica nevăzută protestantă la Biserica văzută, activă în istorie, p. 135; 2. redescoperă prezenţa Sfântului Duh în Biserică, p. 135 şi 3. în teologia sa Sfântul Duh Îl substituie pe Hristos, p. 137./

În şcoală bultmaniană raportul dintre Biserică şi Sfântul Duh e total inexistent pentru că lipseşte şi raportul dintre Hristos şi Biserică, p. 140./ J.-M.R. Tillard pune la baza Bisericii ideea de comuniune, p. 141./ Marea greşeală a teologiei romano-catolice spune părintele Jurcan, e aceea că ” a detaşat, separat harul de persoanele divine, pentru că el e [ considerat ca fiind n.n.] creat“, p. 143./

Ecleziologia teologului german Josef Ratzinger, actualul papă, “are ca scop demonstrarea universalităţii Bisericii, adică catolicitatea romană a Trupului lui Hristos, precum şi fundamentarea ei pe primatul papal”, p. 145-146./ Papa Benedict 16 consideră că Biserica se exprimă cel mai bine prin “neo-liberalismul eshatologic, care nu mai vede în Iisus un moralist, ci un harismatic, Care înlătură instituţia prin eshatologismul Său”, p. 146./ Însă, pentru actualul papă, coeziunea cu Biserica, cel care strânge la un loc Biserica şi care e unitatea Bisericii nu e Hristos, ci el însuşi, pontiful roman, p. 149./

Dualismul ecleziologic apusean derivă din aceea că “teologia apuseană [eterodoxă n.n.] nu a găsit legătura dintre spirit şi materie, dintre om şi Dumnezeu, dintre Biserică şi lume, respectiv dintre istorie şi eshatologie”, p. 167./ În Ortodoxie “Duhul Sfânt nu este prezentat separat de Persoana Fiului, pe Care o revelează şi cu Care rămâne în Biserică”, p. 169./

“Structura epiclectică a Bisericii ” constă în “împreuna-lucrare a Duhului cu Fiul”, p. 171./ Hristologia şi pnevmatologia “sunt componente necesare ecleziologiei”, p. 171./ Pentru noi, ierarhia bisericeasă este dependentă de Sfântul Duh şi nu invers, ca Duhul Sfânt să fie dependent de ierarhia bisericească, p. 184./

Simone de Beauvoir a fost soţia lui Sartre, p. 257./ Erotismul e “drogul societăţii contemporane”, p. 320./

Pr. Dorin.

Am Abend endete die zehntägige Auktion (nicht mehr verfügbar) des Golfs des ehemaligen Besitzers Josef Kardinal Ratzinger, dem heutigen Papst Benedict XVI.

Mit dem Höchstgebot von EUR 188.938 und 88 Cent ging der Zuschlag um 19:30 Uhr an ein Online-Kasino in Austin, Texas. Die Versteigerung war zuvor von mehr als 8,4 Millionen interessierten Internet-Nutzern angeklickt worden. Ebay musste in den vergangenen Tagen den Counter der Auktion sogar um eine Stelle erweitern – mehr als eine Million war nicht vorgesehen.

Der 21-jährige Zivildienstleistende Benjamin Halbe hatte die metallicgraue “Ratzinger-Karre” mit Erstzulassung 1999 für 9500 Euro bei einem VW-Händler in Siegen gekauft.

Aktuell verbreitet sich noch etwas Unmut über den Verlauf der Auktion, da der Artikel in der letzten Stunde zeitweise nicht oder nur eingeschränkt erreichbar war und somit nicht jedes gewünschte Gebot auch abgegeben werden konnte. Der Unternehmenssprecher des Auktionshauses Ebay Nerses Chopurian spricht aber von einer gültigen Auktion.