RC Cardinal promotes condoms

[wrydolphin]

Just wondered what people thought about this. Personally I think its a step in the right direction for the RC Church, but the Vatican has yet to make a public statement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4929962.stm

[Poop-Loops]

<trolling>

Well, it's a start.

[Thelistmaker]

I’m not a Catholic but I too think it’s a step in the right direction on both the condom and adoption front.

Its still very sad to see human need taking a back seat to religious dogma on the condom issue :cry:

[Poop-Loops]

I’m not a Catholic but I too think it’s a step in the right direction on both the condom and adoption front.

Its still very sad to see human need taking a back seat to religious dogma on the condom issue :cry:

Don't you know anything? God loves you so much that he gave you powerful cravings that you cannot give in to. If you do, you'll go to hell!

[CKava]

If you gave into your 'powerful cravings' everytime they popped up you'd be locked up fairly sharpish anyhow...

So for your own sake Poop Loops I know you don't believe in God but I think you need to be warned that there are social and legal rules guiding what is appropriate behaviour in regards giving in to 'powerful cravings'. You should look them up because it sort of sounds like your suggesting that without religion your free to do whatever you want but I think the police and general public might disagree with you.

[slipthejab]

Well he is free to come off as completely obnoxious. :p

[Poop-Loops]

If you gave into your 'powerful cravings' everytime they popped up you'd be locked up fairly sharpish anyhow...

So for your own sake Poop Loops I know you don't believe in God but I think you need to be warned that there are social and legal rules guiding what is appropriate behaviour in regards giving in to 'powerful cravings'. You should look them up because it sort of sounds like your suggesting that without religion your free to do whatever you want but I think the police and general public might disagree with you.


I swear to God (oops!), it's like you're TRYING to misunderstand me.

What I am saying is that what kind of sick and twisted God would give you cravings such as food, sex, and anger, and then tell you not to indulge in them or else you go to hell? Where did I say we should indulge in them? My stance is that sex and food are powerful cravings because sex makes babies, and food helps keep you alive, back when food was scarce, gluttony wasn't a bad thing. Anger is a powerful craving because if you simply rolled over every time something bad happened, you'd get trampled in life and die. Anger is there when you need to say "no, that's mine and you CANNOT have it!" or something similar.

Please, next time read my post several times before responding, as it seems they are beyond you.

[Poop-Loops]

Well he is free to come off as completely obnoxious. :p

I say what's on my mind. If your feelings are hurt, then you need to grow some thicker skin. I can't believe you people call yourselves martial artists and capable of fending off attackers, when you start crying over words.

[slipthejab]

I say what's on my mind. If your feelings are hurt, then you need to grow some thicker skin. I can't believe you people call yourselves martial artists and capable of fending off attackers, when you start crying over words.

Hmm... you must not have been around very long if you think my feelings are hurt. :p More like just trying to stave off bordedom wading through the monotony of you living up to your names sake. Your posts in any thread seem to be one continual cycle of the same old crap.
Congratulations you've lived up to your name. Next.

Please save the tough-guy banter for those who believe such drivel. :rolleyes:

[Moony]

I say what's on my mind. If your feelings are hurt, then you need to grow some thicker skin. I can't believe you people call yourselves martial artists and capable of fending off attackers, when you start crying over words.

Strange.....i don't assume doing MA means i can fend off attackers, do it for fun and to have friends. If i ever somehow manage to escape a nasty situation with it that's only a bonus....

Moony

[Poop-Loops]

Hmm... you must not have been around very long if you think my feelings are hurt. :p More like just trying to stave off bordedom wading through the monotony of you living up to your names sake. Your posts in any thread seem to be one continual cycle of the same old crap.
Congratulations you've lived up to your name. Next.

Please save the tough-guy banter for those who believe such drivel. :rolleyes:

Oh no! You've seen right through me! I want to be a tough guy! All these posts about "same old crap" as you put it (which are actually against religion in the religion forum, or for martial arts in the martial arts message board, and this single post about not getting your panties in a bunch when someone calls you a poo-poo head is because I want to seem tough in front of random strangers!

Please. If you think that was tough guy talk then the tough guys from your area must all look like this:

http://www.starkravingnormal.com/webpage/joehead.jpg

If you want to insult me, at least learn a thing or two about me first. Calling me an e-tough guy is laughable.

[Poop-Loops]

Strange.....i don't assume doing MA means i can fend off attackers, do it for fun and to have friends. If i ever somehow manage to escape a nasty situation with it that's only a bonus....

Moony

Oh. I know what you mean. I went to the store to get some groceries today. I met my friends and we chatted. It was fun. I didn't get any groceries, I consider those a bonus. Then I went to work and chatted with some people. It was fun. I don't get payed at work, I consider it a bonus. School? Same thing. Education is a bonus.

Let me just say that learning how to hurt people is a weird way to have fun and make friends.

And no, I'm not serious. Your post just made me go "huh?" I don't get in fights, I don't intend to, it is fun, and I also make friends. I guess martial arts are weird in general.

[slipthejab]

Poop loops - z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z--z
Attention whoring is boring. Buh-bye.


Back to the thread and on a more serious note...

Wry yeah it's a step in the right direction. I can imagine the is probably feeling like he'll probably lose his job and be excommunicated.

Advice of that kind certainly isn't expected from that sector.

[Ikken Hisatsu]

never been a big fan of the catholic church. good to see someone at the top trying to keep up with the times though, even if it does mean backpedalling against your doctrine.

[thepunisher]

Just wondered what people thought about this. Personally I think its a step in the right direction for the RC Church, but the Vatican has yet to make a public statement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4929962.stm

I just hope that the Cardinal, who proposed this, won't get ripped to pieces by the church body. There is a similar article on there that shows that the pope is actually against condom use completley so whether the Cardinal will get a positive reaction from the Vatican, we will have to see.

Its good to see that someone from the church has realized that "abstinence" isn't going to help much in countries like Africa but whether that will make a change in thinking overall, I doubt.

Christian

[wrydolphin]

I have a terrible feeling that the Vatican is going to smack the guy down. I have yet to find any follow up on the story, however- I'll keep looking. I really think its time that the Catholic Church start reconsidering many of its basic policies- however saying that, I doubt they care much about what one Episcopal thinks. :D

[Slindsay]

I have a terrible feeling that the Vatican is going to smack the guy down. I have yet to find any follow up on the story, however- I'll keep looking. I really think its time that the Catholic Church start reconsidering many of its basic policies- however saying that, I doubt they care much about what one Episcopal thinks. :D

Given the press the Vatican usually gets about the contraceptives issue they may be playing it smart and trying to avoid a headline telling the world they took disciplinary action against a senior member of the church promoting condoms.

[thepunisher]

Given the press the Vatican usually gets about the contraceptives issue they may be playing it smart and trying to avoid a headline telling the world they took disciplinary action against a senior member of the church promoting condoms.

Yeah Slindsay, you could be right. If they adamently stick to the doctrines they probably will try covering this whole thing up by disciplining the church member and even releasing him and letting the whole thing die out concerning the media by keeping quiet about it.

Christian

[wrydolphin]

Well, huh- Looks like there might be a major policy change in the works for the RC Church.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4938076.stm

[Moony]

Here's hoping that they'll start to modernise in this respect......but it took them several hundred years to give a public appology for the way Galilaeo was treated.

Moony

[CKava]

I swear to God (oops!), it's like you're TRYING to misunderstand me.
And I swear its like your TRYING to make a point but it seems to always get caught up with so much teenage angst & rebellion that it comes out sounding like obnoxious drivel.

Oh and before you point out your monumental age to me I would like to make it clear that teenage angst & rebellion are not only found in teenagers (as you posts illustrate) its just more common amongst teenagers.

What I am saying is that what kind of sick and twisted God would give you cravings such as food, sex, and anger, and then tell you not to indulge in them or else you go to hell? Where did I say we should indulge in them?
I am not aware of any mainstream religion that suggests that A) people shouldn't have sex B) people shouldn't eat and C) well thats just weird what organisation does promote getting angry?

The 2 options for what you were complaining about are either:

1. You think that 'the church' teaches that people should NEVER eat, have sex or get angry or they will go to hell.
or
2. You are criticising 'the church' for attempting to regulate how often and in in what manner people can engage their cravings.

I gave you some credit that you weren't silly enough to make point 1 (though now Im not so sure). So in regards to point 2 I was simply trying to make you realise that the government and general society also puts restrictions on when and how it is appropriate to give into such indulgences. So your problem with 'the church' is a bit silly if it is due to the fact it promotes restraints. What would be more legitamite than attempting to argue against restraints would be to argue against the particular restraints 'the church' issues. However, since these are voluntary restraints that only 'believers' would follow I don't quite understand what your getting so worked up over?

Please, next time read my post several times before responding, as it seems they are beyond you.
Dear God man thats a bit extreme I don't think you should wish such a task on anyone. But your right your posts are beyond me possibly because I value things like logical arguments and find repetitive rants rather difficult to pay attention to.

[Moony]

Dear God man thats a bit extreme I don't think you should wish such a task on anyone. But your right your posts are beyond me possibly because I value things like logical arguments and find repetitive rants rather difficult to pay attention to.

Well said that man!

Moony

[AZeitung]

Poop loops - z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z--z
Attention whoring is boring. Buh-bye.

Ban him, Slip, ban him!

[Topher]

1. You think that 'the church' teaches that people should NEVER eat, have sex or get angry or they will go to hell.
Actually the Vatican’s official position to stop HIV/Aids is to abstain, even with married couples. So some people either face giving their partner HIV/Aids or never have sex.

Anyway, it's good their actually moving forward.

[Gajah Silat]

Yes, at one point many RC churches in Africa were preaching that condoms did not protect from the HIV virus because the were 'porous'. This kind of dangerous misinformation has certainly contributed the the spread of HIV.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-00534

Interesting to note that the Bush administration also champions abstinence!

[Poop-Loops]

Poop loops - z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z--z
Attention whoring is boring. Buh-bye.

Your first post in this thread is an insult directed towards me, and you're calling me an attention whore. :rolleyes:


never been a big fan of the catholic church. good to see someone at the top trying to keep up with the times though, even if it does mean backpedalling against your doctrine.

Who cares if they are backpedalling if the entire doctrine is BS in the first place?

Well, huh- Looks like there might be a major policy change in the works for the RC Church.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4938076.stm

That's very unexpected! The new pope is supposed to be super-conservative, so that's really weird. It might be like someone said before, they don't want to punish the guy for it because then everybody would boo the church. The only thing they can really do is loosen the rules. Cool.

And I swear its like your TRYING to make a point but it seems to always get caught up with so much teenage angst & rebellion that it comes out sounding like obnoxious drivel.

Oh and before you point out your monumental age to me I would like to make it clear that teenage angst & rebellion are not only found in teenagers (as you posts illustrate) its just more common amongst teenagers.

It's funny that you think I'm angst-filled and rebellious. Like I said, your entire neighborhood must be filled with fairies.

I am not aware of any mainstream religion that suggests that A) people shouldn't have sex B) people shouldn't eat and C) well thats just weird what organisation does promote getting angry?

Well, I'll give you this one. There is a not very well known religion called Christianity that says that you can only have sex for procreation, no gluttony, and no anger. The no anger thing is actually good, but I'll get to that later. No gluttony means no Thanksgiving, essentially, and pretty much anybody who ever eats to "bulk up" is going to hell. Awesome.

The 2 options for what you were complaining about are either:

1. You think that 'the church' teaches that people should NEVER eat, have sex or get angry or they will go to hell.
or
2. You are criticising 'the church' for attempting to regulate how often and in in what manner people can engage their cravings.

Who said anything about the church? It's supposed to be based on God, yes? God gave us these cravings, and doesn't let us indulge in them. Rare sex? Don't over eat? No anger? But wait! Didn't God just SLAUGHTER people when he got angry? But I guess he's above us, right? That's always the answer.

I gave you some credit that you weren't silly enough to make point 1 (though now Im not so sure). So in regards to point 2 I was simply trying to make you realise that the government and general society also puts restrictions on when and how it is appropriate to give into such indulgences. So your problem with 'the church' is a bit silly if it is due to the fact it promotes restraints. What would be more legitamite than attempting to argue against restraints would be to argue against the particular restraints 'the church' issues. However, since these are voluntary restraints that only 'believers' would follow I don't quite understand what your getting so worked up over?

Church, church, church. What is it with you and church? It's based on GOD, not the church. And for the record, the gov't pretty much only puts restrictions so that you don't hurt others (no rape, no murder, no driving while drunk, etc). The God says no over eating, not casual sex, etc.


Dear God man thats a bit extreme I don't think you should wish such a task on anyone. But your right your posts are beyond me possibly because I value things like logical arguments and find repetitive rants rather difficult to pay attention to.

I thought there was more evidence other than the logical kind? Why don't you open your mind? :rolleyes:

Ban him, Slip, ban him!

Who are you?

[wrydolphin]

1.) Take out "Christianity" and replace it with Roman Catholic Church. The is RC is not the entirety of Christianity, no matter how many times you try to make it so.

2.) The majority of your arguement have been against the Church- see number 1.

3.) Return to topic and please do not derail another thread for your personal gripe against Christianity.

[Poop-Loops]

Ok, fine. Mormons? Puritans? Protestants? Babtists? Methodists? Don't they all preach the same things?

No, it hasn't.

This thread is ABOUT Christianity (or a portion of it). Besides, my posts have all had something on topic in them.

[wrydolphin]

Do you know nothing about the history of Christianity that you actually believe the first statement?

The thread is not about Christianity per se, but about one church's possible change in doctrine. Please adhere to the subject.

[CKava]

It's funny that you think I'm angst-filled and rebellious. Like I said, your entire neighborhood must be filled with fairies.
Poop Loops I don't know where you come from but being angst filled and rebellious is not something thats particularly frightening... the fact that you think someone would be frightened by characters from Dawson's Creek (angst filled teenagers who occasionally rebel by going 'wild') actually suggests more about your area than mine. But seriously are you trying to do 'a my place is tougher than yours' argument on the internet??? Isn't that a tiny bit silly. Anyway, despite all that your right... Belfast is a town of fairies I mean its world-renowned for it, isn't it?

There is a not very well known religion called Christianity that says that you can only have sex for procreation, no gluttony, and no anger. The no anger thing is actually good, but I'll get to that later. No gluttony means no Thanksgiving, essentially, and pretty much anybody who ever eats to "bulk up" is going to hell. Awesome.
If I said you "must never indulge in eating!" does it sound like I am asking someone to moderate their eating or to never eat? Clean up your wording is the point. If you have a problem with 'the church' teaching not to 'over-indulge' then use 'over indulge' not 'indulge'. Anyhow, you've now changed the original 3 prohibitions you claimed 'the Church' taught:

1.Not to indulge in sex = 1.Not to indulge in sex other than for procreation.
2.Not to indulge in eating = 2.Not to be gluttonious.
3.Not to indulge in Anger = 3.You've abandoned this because you seem to realise its a stupid point to argue.

Your getting closer to what the church teaches (once you get there you might be able to raise a valid argument) so to give you a bit more to work on:

For No 1. The Catholic Church teaches that it is OK to have sex when your married and practice birth control. The birth control method it suggests is 'Natural family planning' this involves periods of abstinance (when the women is fertile) but does not mean that total abstinance is required.

For No. 2 You'll be glad to know that the Catholic Church does not count having a large thanksgiving dinner as gluttony nor does it suggest that anyone who tries to 'bulk up' will go to hell. Gluttony was the least serious of the '7 deadly sins' next to Lust also there is supposed to be a scale to such things: Eating 10 ice creams is significantly less serious than eating as much food as you can, throwing out the scraps and having slaves serve you the food who are starving to death though both are examples of gluttony. Anyhow so are you suggesting gluttony is good to indulge in? Because as far as Im aware modern medicine makes it quite clear that gluttony is a bad idea to indulge frequently even just for the individual doing it.

Church, church, church. What is it with you and church? It's based on GOD, not the church. And for the record, the gov't pretty much only puts restrictions so that you don't hurt others (no rape, no murder, no driving while drunk, etc). The God says no over eating, not casual sex, etc.
I'm using 'the church' because you seem to be unaware of what form of Christianity you are discussing (i.e. unaware that Roman Catholicism is quite different in respects to some of its social teachings from Protestant denominations) and so talk about Christianity as if it is some generic 'Church'. God's teachings in Catholicism come through the 'Church' so actually yes we are talking about what the church teaches. If your going to waffle about Christianity at least learn what Catholicism and Protestantism are and what the differences between them are.

I thought there was more evidence other than the logical kind?
Emmm... Poop Loops please learn to use the logic you claim to hold as the cornerstone of your views. 'I value logical arguments' does not equate to 'I don't believe there is subjective evidence' and once again I am going to remind you that acknowledging the existence of subjective evidence does not mean you have to believe others subjective evidence- hence why I do not believe in God.

[AZeitung]

Who are you?
Excuse me, but I will not tollerate personal insults like that. I'm calling a global mod. Slipthejab, despense your global mod style justice.

[thepunisher]

Excuse me, but I will not tollerate personal insults like that. I'm calling a global mod. Slipthejab, despense your global mod style justice.

AZeitung, slipthejab isn't actually a global mod, lol.
;) :D

Christian

[holyheadjch]

AZeitung, slipthejab isn't actually a global mod, lol.
;) :D

Christian
or is he...

[snailfist]

Regarding the original topic... this has been coming for about forty years. When the Vatican II conference gave the church a doctrinal overhaul a seperate committee was comissioned, and advised the church allow the use of condoms by married couples. However, the Pope who ordered Vatican II had died by the time the committee reported, and his much more conservative successor ignored the report. The majority of Catholics have endorsed using (and, where applicable, used) condoms for a few decades now.

Interestingly enough, the biblical precedent (that I know of) would probably allow it. But then I disagree with Paul on so many things I'm loathe to hide behind him now :D

[thepunisher]

or is he...

Not unless he works undercover !
;) :D Bit hard to ban ppl though then.

Christian

[Johnno]

Stand back everyone.... late reply comin' through!

I just hope that the Cardinal, who proposed this, won't get ripped to pieces by the church body. There is a similar article on there that shows that the pope is actually against condom use completley so whether the Cardinal will get a positive reaction from the Vatican, we will have to see.According to the article in the link, this cardinal was probably the runer-up in the last Papal election. Now I'm no expert on how these things work, but I doubt that so senior a figure would make statements which could create rifts on major matters of doctrine. So I reckon he is 'testing the water' for the Vatican so they can see how it goes down.

Its good to see that someone from the church has realized that "abstinence" isn't going to help much in countries like Africa but whether that will make a change in thinking overall, I doubt.Why should abstinence be more of an issue in Africa? Do you think it's too late to do any good? :confused:

[adouglasmhor]

And Africa is not a country it is a whole continent.

[snailfist]

'Abstinence' -in inverted commas- is more of a problem in Africa because some African nations have massive problems with Aids, much more so than elsewhere. The point is that it's never going to happen, and so the Church shouldn't oppose a much more effective way of ensuring that sexually active people don't get AIDS (i.e. condoms.) Personally, I think it's too late to help people who have already been infected by HIV but if the church starts to condone condom use (in certain circumstances) then it will help people who might otherwise be infected, and subsequent generations.

[Johnno]

'Abstinence' -in inverted commas- is more of a problem in Africa because some African nations have massive problems with Aids, much more so than elsewhere.So surely it is just as important to prevent it spreading elsewhere so that it doesn't become as widespread as in Africa? I don't understand why Africa should be any diferent where 'abstinence' is concerned.

[wrydolphin]

I knew about many of the changed that were brought about by Vatican II, I just didn't realize that any studies had been conducted over birth control. That's pretty interesting- where did you find this information? Is there a link?

It might be testing the waters, or it might not- I believe the article stated that the Cardinal was retired so I would suppose that there are fewer things that the church can do to retirees to bring them back in line. Maybe just prevent further press contact? Also, I think there is more of a movement within the clergy themselves to get the RC church to start addressing some issues- though it might just be American clergy.

[slipthejab]

Not unless he works undercover !
;) :D Bit hard to ban ppl though then.

Christian

LOL! :D
Who needs to ban people when I control the 'panty twister' button. We know just how well it works don't we? :p
Besides, it's far more entertaining.

[Moony]

LOL! :D
Who needs to ban people when I control the 'panty twister' button. We know just how well it works don't we? :p
Besides, it's far more entertaining.

All hail Slip! King of the Knicker Bunchers!!

Moony

[AZeitung]

Stand back everyone.... late reply comin' through!

According to the article in the link, this cardinal was probably the runer-up in the last Papal election. Now I'm no expert on how these things work, but I doubt that so senior a figure would make statements which could create rifts on major matters of doctrine. So I reckon he is 'testing the water' for the Vatican so they can see how it goes down.

I doubt it. I don't know that being a "runner up" for pope necesarrily makes you more senior than an other cardinal. I mean, all the cardinals are in the running. Just because he actually got a few votes at some point doesn't actually mean that much.

If you want my prediction, the document that the church is going to release will reaffirm its current policies to let people know that they don't support this cardinal's view on the subject.

[Johnno]

I doubt it. I don't know that being a "runner up" for pope necesarrily makes you more senior than an other cardinal. I mean, all the cardinals are in the running. Just because he actually got a few votes at some point doesn't actually mean that much.

If you want my prediction, the document that the church is going to release will reaffirm its current policies to let people know that they don't support this cardinal's view on the subject.Sure, but some cardinals are regarded as leading contenders from the outside. Do senior cardinals often make statements which are diametrically opposed to current doctrine?

[AZeitung]

If they really feel it's true, they might. But usually even a priest won't make a statement that directly goes against the church doctrine. Of course, there have been few exceptions.

A cardinal promoting the use of condoms isn't exactly unprecidented, like with that Spanish cardinal about a year ago -- I expect the church's reaction to be similar, but stronger. From what's been said on the subject, especially within the last year or so, I really don't see this as a possible change in doctrine.

[Topher]

It might be testing the waters, or it might not- I believe the article stated that the Cardinal was retired
Apparently he used to be Archbishop of Milan, but is currently a Cardinal.

[Thelistmaker]

Well, I'll give you this one. There is a not very well known religion called Christianity that says that you can only have sex for procreation, no gluttony, and no anger.

Actually the Church of England accepts sex is different from procreation and can be a way to show love for your partner

[Johnno]

Actually the Church of England accepts sex is different from procreation and can be a way to show love for your partnerDo you think that might be the stumbling block which will prevent reunification with the Roman Catholic Church?

[wrydolphin]

You mean as opposed to married priests, monks, women priests, and the fact that the RC Church doesn't even acknowledge the existance of other denominations? Yep, I am sure that non-procreative sex is at the top of the Pope's list for reasons for why Piskies won't be reconciled. :D

[Johnno]

You mean as opposed to married priests, monks, women priests, and the fact that the RC Church doesn't even acknowledge the existance of other denominations? Yep, I am sure that non-procreative sex is at the top of the Pope's list for reasons for why Piskies won't be reconciled. :DYou saw the joke! Who says that Americans don't understand sarcasm?! :D

What are Piskies? Episcopalians? :confused:

[wrydolphin]

Piskies- Episcopalians :D The American Anglicans called themselves Episcopalians after the Revolutionary war.

Of course, His Fuzziness is a bit put out with the American Piskies at the moment- mainly due to us pissing off the Africans.

[Johnno]

Piskies- Episcopalians :D The American Anglicans called themselves Episcopalians after the Revolutionary war.Sounds like Scotland and Wales. The Churches of Scotland and Wales are called 'Episcopalian' because 'Anglican' sounds too English! :D

Of course, His Fuzziness is a bit put out with the American Piskies at the moment- mainly due to us pissing off the Africans.His Fuzziness? :confused:

[wrydolphin]

The Archbishop of Canterbury :D

[Johnno]

The Archbishop of Canterbury :DOkay....

So how did you 'piss off the Africans'?

[wrydolphin]

Long story short- we elected an openly gay bishop and have made movements in some areas to preform religious marriages between homosexual couples. The African churchs are over 8 million and we have 2 million so Canterbury has to bow to them and disipline the American Church. Everyone is waiting for the next Conference to see what happens, completely ignoring for the moment that the Nigerian Church has already made moves to remove themselves from the Communion as well as openly supporting the legal prosecution of homosexuality.

But that's a whole other thread unto itself. :)

[Johnno]

It's all coming back to me know. The gay Bishop is called Gene Miles, or something like that, right?

There was talk of it splitting the Anglican communion, with one lot joining the RC Church and the others (I assume) going it alone.

The new Archbishop of York is African. You can't ignore the fact that that is where the heartland of Christianity lies. Maybe the next Pope wil be African?

[snailfist]

I knew about many of the changed that were brought about by Vatican II, I just didn't realize that any studies had been conducted over birth control. That's pretty interesting- where did you find this information? Is there a link?

It might be testing the waters, or it might not- I believe the article stated that the Cardinal was retired so I would suppose that there are fewer things that the church can do to retirees to bring them back in line. Maybe just prevent further press contact? Also, I think there is more of a movement within the clergy themselves to get the RC church to start addressing some issues- though it might just be American clergy.

Unfortunately I don't know of any links about that; that was something a pretty scandalised RE teacher told me.
Regarding the RC church and others: I think it's a little extreme to say that it doesn't recognise them. But Transubstantiation is the BIG difference between them :D
I don't know about within the clergy- preists tend not to shout about doctrinal differences, as they've taken vows of obedience- but certainly catholics more generally want the church to rethink the condom issue. I was in Germany for World Youth Day last summer and there were all kinds of poster campaigns by catholic activist groups calling for change.