Can a Catholic not like his communist Pope?

[JakeStarkey]

quite the conundrum Catholics find themselves in.

The Pope is infallible, to them, every thing he says is right and should be followed

but

he is a fucking communist

tough call, freedom and hell or slaves and heaven

Many people would say Jesus was a communist. Would you abandon him just as easily?

Jesus was not a communist and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Neither is the Pope, and consequently your thread fails as a straw man fallacy.

Of course he fails.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

quite the conundrum Catholics find themselves in.

The Pope is infallible, to them, every thing he says is right and should be followed

but

he is a fucking communist

tough call, freedom and hell or slaves and heaven

Many people would say Jesus was a communist. Would you abandon him just as easily?

Jesus was not a communist and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Neither is the Pope, and consequently your thread fails as a straw man fallacy.

Popes can't be communist? They've been much worse historically. It's why very little of my Catholic faith predicates on faith in the papacy.

What do you mean, "worse"?
You seem to be starting from a pretext that "communism" is a negative, which begs the question what you think it actually is. You even tried to make a distinction between commune and commune-ism. I've given you a copiously described example of religious communism that works. How do you reconcile that?

Or to go back to your previous point, there are virtually no Hutterites that commit violence. One or possibly two murders in five hundred years. Not that that has anything to do with "communism" but how do you reconcile that?

You're not grounded in rational thought. Practically speaking, communes work on a small scale, but communism does not work as a government and economic system. It's failed every time it's tried and leaves misery and poverty in its wake. Popes used to understand the intrinsic evil of communism and fight against it. But now we have a communist pope who wants to revisit failed ideologies and upbraid the very thing that's brought more freedom and prosperity to the average man than anything in history...capitalism.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You haven't been paying too much attention, have you? Pope Francis weighed in on the Islamic terror controversy saying that free speech should have limits and insulting other religions should not be allowed. Educate yourself before telling me I need to do the same: The Pope is wrong on religious speech - CNN.com

Ah but I have. And to that I've already raised the question -- was that cartoon mocking a religion.... or was it indeed mocking those who cloak themselves in religion in order to excuse their commission of atrocities? The latter, methinks.

In any case that's a social commentary, not a religious one.

One could argue that anyone who's truly religious could never commit violence. We aren't beleaguered by stories of Hindu suicide bombers or Buddhists cutting off heads. Every world religion is respectable when it's peaceful and peaceful exercise of faith seems to be the common thread in all the world's religions....

...except Islam. So I agree that we can ask, are these people truly religious?

I've met Muslims who are truly peaceful individuals, their religion makes them so. They are unfortunately overshadowed by the non religious, those for whom Islam is an excuse for murderous and violent acting out.

Sorry, biased sample fallacy.

And none of this has anything to do with the Pope anyway. I thought that was the topic.

It is. The Pope has no business trying to silence free speech or validate religious violence.

None.

Where does the Pope have any authority to silence speech?

Is the Pope, alone among the billions of humans on the planet, not entitled to an opinion?
Doesn't that smack of silencing his free speech?

You don't get it. The Pope should be on the side of free speech, not trying to suppress it. It's not about his authority, it's about his leadership and the values he stands for. He's taking a stand against Western liberalism and a stand for violent religious violence and suppression of free thought and expression. He's on the wrong side of history.

 

[Pogo]

Many people would say Jesus was a communist. Would you abandon him just as easily?

Jesus was not a communist and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Neither is the Pope, and consequently your thread fails as a straw man fallacy.

Popes can't be communist? They've been much worse historically. It's why very little of my Catholic faith predicates on faith in the papacy.

What do you mean, "worse"?
You seem to be starting from a pretext that "communism" is a negative, which begs the question what you think it actually is. You even tried to make a distinction between commune and commune-ism. I've given you a copiously described example of religious communism that works. How do you reconcile that?

Or to go back to your previous point, there are virtually no Hutterites that commit violence. One or possibly two murders in five hundred years. Not that that has anything to do with "communism" but how do you reconcile that?

You're not grounded in rational thought. Practically speaking, communes work on a small scale, but communism does not work as a government and economic system. It's failed every time it's tried and leaves misery and poverty in its wake. Popes used to understand the intrinsic evil of communism and fight against it. But now we have a communist pope who wants to revisit failed ideologies and upbraid the very thing that's brought more freedom and prosperity to the average man than anything in history...capitalism.

We weren't talking about "governments" -- we were talking about communism. What I demonstrated to you is a completely self-sustaining and self-sufficient (ergo self-governing) economic system, using communism as the social fabric from which it's woven. It has no "poverty" because it has no "wealthy".

It does have capitalism --- as a collective, not as individual people. And it works; at the time I was among them at least, if not still, they were the most prolific ethnic group in the United States. When they grow beyond their size limitations they build a daughter colony and split up, which is where colonies come from, and it's been working that way for five hundred years.

If that's "failure" I need a definition for "success".

 

[Pogo]

Ah but I have. And to that I've already raised the question -- was that cartoon mocking a religion.... or was it indeed mocking those who cloak themselves in religion in order to excuse their commission of atrocities? The latter, methinks.

In any case that's a social commentary, not a religious one.

One could argue that anyone who's truly religious could never commit violence. We aren't beleaguered by stories of Hindu suicide bombers or Buddhists cutting off heads. Every world religion is respectable when it's peaceful and peaceful exercise of faith seems to be the common thread in all the world's religions....

...except Islam. So I agree that we can ask, are these people truly religious?

I've met Muslims who are truly peaceful individuals, their religion makes them so. They are unfortunately overshadowed by the non religious, those for whom Islam is an excuse for murderous and violent acting out.

Sorry, biased sample fallacy.

And none of this has anything to do with the Pope anyway. I thought that was the topic.

It is. The Pope has no business trying to silence free speech or validate religious violence.

None.

Where does the Pope have any authority to silence speech?

Is the Pope, alone among the billions of humans on the planet, not entitled to an opinion?
Doesn't that smack of silencing his free speech?

You don't get it. The Pope should be on the side of free speech, not trying to suppress it. It's not about his authority, it's about his leadership and the values he stands for. He's taking a stand against Western liberalism and a stand for violent religious violence and suppression of free thought and expression. He's on the wrong side of history.

So I'll ask again, since I didn't get an answer -- how is the Pope "exercising an authority" by stating an opinion? Who is bound by this "authority"? How?

How is he even taking a stand "for religious violence"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ah but I have. And to that I've already raised the question -- was that cartoon mocking a religion.... or was it indeed mocking those who cloak themselves in religion in order to excuse their commission of atrocities? The latter, methinks.

In any case that's a social commentary, not a religious one.

One could argue that anyone who's truly religious could never commit violence. We aren't beleaguered by stories of Hindu suicide bombers or Buddhists cutting off heads. Every world religion is respectable when it's peaceful and peaceful exercise of faith seems to be the common thread in all the world's religions....

...except Islam. So I agree that we can ask, are these people truly religious?

I've met Muslims who are truly peaceful individuals, their religion makes them so. They are unfortunately overshadowed by the non religious, those for whom Islam is an excuse for murderous and violent acting out.

Sorry, biased sample fallacy.

And none of this has anything to do with the Pope anyway. I thought that was the topic.

It is. The Pope has no business trying to silence free speech or validate religious violence.

None.

Where does the Pope have any authority to silence speech?

Is the Pope, alone among the billions of humans on the planet, not entitled to an opinion?
Doesn't that smack of silencing his free speech?

You don't get it. The Pope should be on the side of free speech, not trying to suppress it. It's not about his authority, it's about his leadership and the values he stands for. He's taking a stand against Western liberalism and a stand for violent religious violence and suppression of free thought and expression. He's on the wrong side of history.

Of the many silly things stmike has said today, this is the silliest. stmike wants to limit the free speech of the Pope.

Free speech is not absolute, and there are consequence, just and not, for speaking.

The Pope is not taking "a stand for violent religious violence and suppression of free thought and expression." He is counseling a wise and restrained course.

You remind me of the kid who was astounded, years ago, that he was going to get his face pounded for telling lies about someone's sister's virtue.

stmike does believe in hetero-fascist thuggery and violent speech against those with whom he disagrees in the marriage equality movement.

Tough.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

quite the conundrum Catholics find themselves in.

The Pope is infallible, to them, every thing he says is right and should be followed

but

he is a fucking communist

tough call, freedom and hell or slaves and heaven

Many people would say Jesus was a communist. Would you abandon him just as easily?

Jesus was not a communist and I defy you to prove otherwise.

He was socialist, progressive, liberal.

He was everything RWs hate.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

quite the conundrum Catholics find themselves in.

The Pope is infallible, to them, every thing he says is right and should be followed

but

he is a fucking communist

tough call, freedom and hell or slaves and heaven

He's infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, but everything else is just the opinion of a flawed individual. Papal infallibility is often misunderstood. In truth, it has a very narrow application. He promises to publish an encyclical promoting his communism, misguided belief in global warming, and urging Christians to not offend Muslims. I won't be taking it very seriously at all.

IOW, you'll go against the teachings of christ AND your chosen church.

So, what's the difference between today and yesterday?

Seriously, you always post contrary to the teachings of Jesus/god/christ so why is today any different?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

One could argue that anyone who's truly religious could never commit violence. We aren't beleaguered by stories of Hindu suicide bombers or Buddhists cutting off heads. Every world religion is respectable when it's peaceful and peaceful exercise of faith seems to be the common thread in all the world's religions....

...except Islam. So I agree that we can ask, are these people truly religious?

I've met Muslims who are truly peaceful individuals, their religion makes them so. They are unfortunately overshadowed by the non religious, those for whom Islam is an excuse for murderous and violent acting out.

Sorry, biased sample fallacy.

And none of this has anything to do with the Pope anyway. I thought that was the topic.

It is. The Pope has no business trying to silence free speech or validate religious violence.

None.

Where does the Pope have any authority to silence speech?

Is the Pope, alone among the billions of humans on the planet, not entitled to an opinion?
Doesn't that smack of silencing his free speech?

You don't get it. The Pope should be on the side of free speech, not trying to suppress it. It's not about his authority, it's about his leadership and the values he stands for. He's taking a stand against Western liberalism and a stand for violent religious violence and suppression of free thought and expression. He's on the wrong side of history.

So I'll ask again, since I didn't get an answer -- how is the Pope "exercising an authority" by stating an opinion? Who is bound by this "authority"? How?

How is he even taking a stand "for religious violence"?

I didn't say he was exerting authority, that's your spin and completely unjustified.

And when in the wake of Islamist violence the Pope says that free speech should have limits and shouldn't insult Islam, that's giving the terrorists EXACTLY what they were seeking by violence. How you don't see that is perplexing, perhaps it's just the blinding power of Leftism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

stmike is now speaking for the jihadists. How the world spins.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry, biased sample fallacy.

And none of this has anything to do with the Pope anyway. I thought that was the topic.

It is. The Pope has no business trying to silence free speech or validate religious violence.

None.

Where does the Pope have any authority to silence speech?

Is the Pope, alone among the billions of humans on the planet, not entitled to an opinion?
Doesn't that smack of silencing his free speech?

You don't get it. The Pope should be on the side of free speech, not trying to suppress it. It's not about his authority, it's about his leadership and the values he stands for. He's taking a stand against Western liberalism and a stand for violent religious violence and suppression of free thought and expression. He's on the wrong side of history.

So I'll ask again, since I didn't get an answer -- how is the Pope "exercising an authority" by stating an opinion? Who is bound by this "authority"? How?

How is he even taking a stand "for religious violence"?

I didn't say he was exerting authority, that's your spin and completely unjustified.

Yeah actually you did -- it's right above. And I quote, "The Pope has no business trying to silence free speech or validate religious violence."

I didn't even get to the second part about "validating religious violence", I'm on the phrase "has no business". Sure sounds like you're saying the Pope has to shut up. Five billion people on earth can have an opinion but the Pope has to shut up? On whose authority?

And when in the wake of Islamist violence the Pope says that free speech should have limits and shouldn't insult Islam, that's giving the terrorists EXACTLY what they were seeking by violence. How you don't see that is perplexing, perhaps it's just the blinding power of Leftism.

Number one, "shouldn't", if that's his word, always represents opinion. Plug that into point above.
Number two, how do you know "exactly what they're seeking"? Are you omniscient?

What was the quote from the Pope? Somehow I don't quite trust your power of paraphrase.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It is. The Pope has no business trying to silence free speech or validate religious violence.

None.

Where does the Pope have any authority to silence speech?

Is the Pope, alone among the billions of humans on the planet, not entitled to an opinion?
Doesn't that smack of silencing his free speech?

You don't get it. The Pope should be on the side of free speech, not trying to suppress it. It's not about his authority, it's about his leadership and the values he stands for. He's taking a stand against Western liberalism and a stand for violent religious violence and suppression of free thought and expression. He's on the wrong side of history.

So I'll ask again, since I didn't get an answer -- how is the Pope "exercising an authority" by stating an opinion? Who is bound by this "authority"? How?

How is he even taking a stand "for religious violence"?

I didn't say he was exerting authority, that's your spin and completely unjustified.

Yeah actually you did -- it's right above. And I quote, "The Pope has no business trying to silence free speech or validate religious violence."

I didn't even get to the second part about "validating religious violence", I'm on the phrase "has no business". Sure sounds like you're saying the Pope has to shut up. Five billion people on earth can have an opinion but the Pope has to shut up? On whose authority?

And when in the wake of Islamist violence the Pope says that free speech should have limits and shouldn't insult Islam, that's giving the terrorists EXACTLY what they were seeking by violence. How you don't see that is perplexing, perhaps it's just the blinding power of Leftism.

Number one, "shouldn't", if that's his word, always represents opinion. Plug that into point above.
Number two, how do you know "exactly what they're seeking"? Are you omniscient?

What was the quote from the Pope? Somehow I don't quite trust your power of paraphrase.

The Pope needs to choose his words more carefully. The higher the office, the larger the consequences for wreckless speech. Whether we're talking about presidents, prime ministers, or popes, all of them have to take greater care not to send the wrong message. And when he says “You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith of others.” It sounds pretty damn authoritative.

And yes, saying that free speech has its limits in the wake of terrorist attacks designed to punish free speech sends the message that validates religious violence. I really don't care whether you agree with that or not, because everyone else does, indicated by the news, commentary, blogging, and punditry in reaction to his comments. This is the point, not what he said, but how it's perceived. He isn't taking very seriously the impact of his word choice.

And what's this about delivering such a speech while couched by 4 imams? I do think that the Pope should take seriously his role as Pontificus Maximus (chief bridge builder), but right after some very violent attacks by Islamists, people note that very few, if any, Imams actually condemn violence and take an active stand against it. The timing is off to do this while people are still so angry. It's about "optics" and right now the Pope's optics don't look too good.

 

[ninja007]

Exactly, PICNICS, it is what they do to raise money for pedophile priests. As for fornication, drinking in excess and gambling...perhaps Catholics should concentrate on reading the bible instead of praising the Pope and letting him tell them what to do as opposed to the Word of God. Then again, I guess you think Catholic priests fucking altar boys isn't fornication or a sin.

Boozing, betting and fucking are not sins. I did warn you that you were going to stain your pants again. Sure enough...

Btw there's no such thing as a "Catholic picnic". There's no "picnic" even mentioned in the Catholic Constitution.

"For it is written -- amen amen I say to you, when you findeth yourself in a hole, yea verily the first thing to do is quit diggin'."

Did your Pope create that 'verse'??? You should read the bible and not listen to the perverted word of man.

You're on to Ignore since you have zero to contribute here. I suggest SMDT do the same; we don't need the pollution in what could otherwise be adult discussion. He and I may have variant viewpoints but at least he understands what Catholicism is. You obviously do not.

If I worshipped a man, prayed to man-made saints and believed in the Catholic church more than Jesus himself, I would put me on ignore too!

I used to think this way too nutz, but it isn't as simple as this.

 

[Nutz]

Exactly, PICNICS, it is what they do to raise money for pedophile priests. As for fornication, drinking in excess and gambling...perhaps Catholics should concentrate on reading the bible instead of praising the Pope and letting him tell them what to do as opposed to the Word of God. Then again, I guess you think Catholic priests fucking altar boys isn't fornication or a sin.

"For it is written -- amen amen I say to you, when you findeth yourself in a hole, yea verily the first thing to do is quit diggin'."

Did your Pope create that 'verse'??? You should read the bible and not listen to the perverted word of man.

You're on to Ignore since you have zero to contribute here. I suggest SMDT do the same; we don't need the pollution in what could otherwise be adult discussion. He and I may have variant viewpoints but at least he understands what Catholicism is. You obviously do not.

If I worshipped a man, prayed to man-made saints and believed in the Catholic church more than Jesus himself, I would put me on ignore too!

I used to think this way too nutz, but it isn't as simple as this.

I am sorry, Catholicism is an affront to Christianity. There is no other way to put it.

 

[Agit8r]

Naturally, the Council of Cardinals picked a guy who would speak for the interests of the church body--most of whom are poor. It is not merely a mission of this present pope:

"The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces... For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good"
-- Pope John Paul II, from Centesimus Annus

Communism doesn't lift people from poverty, it only increases and systemizes poverty into a cruel, inescapable life. JP fought against communism his entire life, showing solidarity with the Polish people who cried out under the cruel boot of communism. It also needs to be noted that JP gauged his words carefully, not attacking free market capitalism, but rather reminding those who've succeeded of their obligation to help the poor. There's a quantum leap between the Church's social justice teaching that prevails upon us to be mindful of the needy and to help them and communism which simply redistributes wealth and in doing so destroys it so that everyone is equally in dire poverty and the brink of starvation. Social Justices does not lend to communism, it lends to righteousness, the kind that all Christians should aspire to.

Naturally, the Council of Cardinals picked a guy who would speak for the interests of the church body--most of whom are poor. It is not merely a mission of this present pope:

"The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces... For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good"
-- Pope John Paul II, from Centesimus Annus

Communism doesn't lift people from poverty, it only increases and systemizes poverty into a cruel, inescapable life. JP fought against communism his entire life, showing solidarity with the Polish people who cried out under the cruel boot of communism. It also needs to be noted that JP gauged his words carefully, not attacking free market capitalism, but rather reminding those who've succeeded of their obligation to help the poor. There's a quantum leap between the Church's social justice teaching that prevails upon us to be mindful of the needy and to help them and communism which simply redistributes wealth and in doing so destroys it so that everyone is equally in dire poverty and the brink of starvation. Social Justices does not lend to communism, it lends to righteousness, the kind that all Christians should aspire to.

The pope is not a communist. A more accurate term would be distributist:

Distributism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Naturally, the Council of Cardinals picked a guy who would speak for the interests of the church body--most of whom are poor. It is not merely a mission of this present pope:

"The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces... For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good"
-- Pope John Paul II, from Centesimus Annus

Communism doesn't lift people from poverty, it only increases and systemizes poverty into a cruel, inescapable life. JP fought against communism his entire life, showing solidarity with the Polish people who cried out under the cruel boot of communism. It also needs to be noted that JP gauged his words carefully, not attacking free market capitalism, but rather reminding those who've succeeded of their obligation to help the poor. There's a quantum leap between the Church's social justice teaching that prevails upon us to be mindful of the needy and to help them and communism which simply redistributes wealth and in doing so destroys it so that everyone is equally in dire poverty and the brink of starvation. Social Justices does not lend to communism, it lends to righteousness, the kind that all Christians should aspire to.

Naturally, the Council of Cardinals picked a guy who would speak for the interests of the church body--most of whom are poor. It is not merely a mission of this present pope:

"The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces... For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good"
-- Pope John Paul II, from Centesimus Annus

Communism doesn't lift people from poverty, it only increases and systemizes poverty into a cruel, inescapable life. JP fought against communism his entire life, showing solidarity with the Polish people who cried out under the cruel boot of communism. It also needs to be noted that JP gauged his words carefully, not attacking free market capitalism, but rather reminding those who've succeeded of their obligation to help the poor. There's a quantum leap between the Church's social justice teaching that prevails upon us to be mindful of the needy and to help them and communism which simply redistributes wealth and in doing so destroys it so that everyone is equally in dire poverty and the brink of starvation. Social Justices does not lend to communism, it lends to righteousness, the kind that all Christians should aspire to.

The pope is not a communist. A more accurate term would be distributist:

Distributism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

No matter how wealth is forcefully redistributed, it's always wrong. God said "thou shalt not steal" and it's really as simple as that. Government stealing from people is theft and shall not go unpunished. This doesn't help Pope Francis's image as a communist. Distributism is communism under a different name and just as demonic.

 

[Pogo]

Where does the Pope have any authority to silence speech?

Is the Pope, alone among the billions of humans on the planet, not entitled to an opinion?
Doesn't that smack of silencing his free speech?

You don't get it. The Pope should be on the side of free speech, not trying to suppress it. It's not about his authority, it's about his leadership and the values he stands for. He's taking a stand against Western liberalism and a stand for violent religious violence and suppression of free thought and expression. He's on the wrong side of history.

So I'll ask again, since I didn't get an answer -- how is the Pope "exercising an authority" by stating an opinion? Who is bound by this "authority"? How?

How is he even taking a stand "for religious violence"?

I didn't say he was exerting authority, that's your spin and completely unjustified.

Yeah actually you did -- it's right above. And I quote, "The Pope has no business trying to silence free speech or validate religious violence."

I didn't even get to the second part about "validating religious violence", I'm on the phrase "has no business". Sure sounds like you're saying the Pope has to shut up. Five billion people on earth can have an opinion but the Pope has to shut up? On whose authority?

And when in the wake of Islamist violence the Pope says that free speech should have limits and shouldn't insult Islam, that's giving the terrorists EXACTLY what they were seeking by violence. How you don't see that is perplexing, perhaps it's just the blinding power of Leftism.

Number one, "shouldn't", if that's his word, always represents opinion. Plug that into point above.
Number two, how do you know "exactly what they're seeking"? Are you omniscient?

What was the quote from the Pope? Somehow I don't quite trust your power of paraphrase.

The Pope needs to choose his words more carefully. The higher the office, the larger the consequences for wreckless speech. Whether we're talking about presidents, prime ministers, or popes, all of them have to take greater care not to send the wrong message. And when he says “You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith of others.” It sounds pretty damn authoritative.

You take the word "cannot" entirely too literally here. What that means is short for "you cannot... (e.g.) stick your hand in the fire (and not expect to get burnt)". It's a simple observation of human nature. The second part (in parentheses) is understood -- it's not meant as laying down some kind of "rule". It's not literally saying "you're not permitted to stick your hand in the fire".

And yes, saying that free speech has its limits in the wake of terrorist attacks designed to punish free speech sends the message that validates religious violence. I really don't care whether you agree with that or not, because everyone else does, indicated by the news, commentary, blogging, and punditry in reaction to his comments. This is the point, not what he said, but how it's perceived. He isn't taking very seriously the impact of his word choice.

And what's this about delivering such a speech while couched by 4 imams? I do think that the Pope should take seriously his role as Pontificus Maximus (chief bridge builder), but right after some very violent attacks by Islamists, people note that very few, if any, Imams actually condemn violence and take an active stand against it. The timing is off to do this while people are still so angry. It's about "optics" and right now the Pope's optics don't look too good.

No idea what you're talking about.

I went back and watched the link you left and watched the video. It doesn't impart what you're twisting it into at all. Maybe you should go watch it too.

No, I think what I thought at the beginning of this thread-- it appears you're trying to politicize the papacy, coming in with predetermined plans -- apparently parroted from outside entities -- to polarize religion and looking for any possible opening to do it. And stretching quite a bit to find a way to make that happen. That's all I see going on here.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

__________________________________________________________
​

Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
St. James 4:4

___________________________________________________________​

Because I'm more than a little frustrated with my Pope. Already infamous for his many comments demonizing capitalism, he now proceeds to attack free speech and throw his weight behind the global warming cult.

WTF, your holiness?

Capitalism is the greatest engine to human freedom and prosperity in the history of mankind, global warming is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme with aims on global government, and when Islam kills people for insulting their pedophile prophet, the proper response is not to tell Christians to work harder not to offend Muslims.

Now the Bible passage I posted is a very appropriate rebuke of Pope Francis. Christians are not called to be friends with the world, to promote worldly values, and to mimic the demonic bigotry of worldly political correctness. Trying to win popularity among reprobate humanity by necessity requires abandoning Christ and our obligation to be the Light of Christ to the nations. Jesus calls us to be light in darkness, not to join the darkness. Jesus warned us that if our salt loses its saltiness, it becomes worthless, something to be thrown out as refuse. But most of all, Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. We do not promote earthly kingdoms or international agendas, we are ambassadors of the kingdom of God.

But to put things in perspective, Catholics pray for the Pope, that he may benefit from a special grace, a pouring of the Holy Spirit to guide him. Historically, some Popes have demonstrated through their actions a deep, pious faith that indicates they operate through the Holy Spirit, but others have been corrupt, or sometimes outright evil. There's no need to post a list of bad Popes throughout the history of the Church. I consider myself blessed that I've been a contemporary to one Pope who was truly God's servant, the late Pope John Paul II, and even if he's the last righteous Pope I see in my lifetime, I would not consider myself robbed. Still it's disappointing to know that we have a corrupt Pope in office. I had such high hopes for him.

Your honesty about your feelings about this Pope tells me that you are not blindly following whoever comes down the line and that gives me great hope for you. I feel great empathy for you and want you to know that I have had to suffer my own disappointments with men who professed to love God, preached the Gospel and then turned to preaching for filthy lucre. I cannot even tell you the half of how that has made me feel. But the truth is - I follow Christ - and those men (and women) are going to answer to God for misrepresenting Him. So is this pope.

Again - reading you this morning - gave me great compassion for what you are going through. I have never trusted this pope since I laid eyes on him. I saw the countenance on his face and what I saw was pure evil. I know of a Catholic military man who said he felt uneasy about him early on. I thought - he is the exception to the rule - no other Catholic is ever going to admit what he is saying is true. But here you are. I can only tell you that the man I am referring to has the highest integrity and has served his country honorably and is an older gentleman - retired many years - high ranking retired military and he doesn't trust him either. So you are in very good company. I will be praying for the LORD to guide you this morning and I'm believing God's very best for you.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

How is it that your God allowed Pope Frank to ascend to the top position that he now occupies if he truly is as you say he is? Surely your God does not allow for a communist pinko to lead Catholic in the free world now does He? ~ Susan
PS If Popes really gave a crap about any poor person one would think that anyone of them throughout history would have sold off an old master painting, or two of the many that are locked in the Vatican vaults to relieve that person's suffering, would one not? Money . . . it drives our economy and that, too, the economy of the Vatican. Can you imagine a Pope plucking off a valuable ring off of one of his fat little fingers to relieve the suffering of one of his sheep? Nawww . . . totally impossible as we all know if we had the courage not to delude ourselves.

Pope to raffle gifts given to him to raise money for the poor Reuters


Pope Francis Auctions Off His Harley-Davidson CatholicVote.org


Pope Francis auctions off gifts he has received from world leaders Daily Mail Online

quite the conundrum Catholics find themselves in.

The Pope is infallible, to them, every thing he says is right and should be followed

but

he is a fucking communist

tough call, freedom and hell or slaves and heaven

Many people would say Jesus was a communist. Would you abandon him just as easily?

Only a Progressive is stupid and arrogant enough to think Jesus was a Socialist.

It's called Liberation theology, Frank. That is what Jesus was a socialist is all about. The bible says if a man will not work he won't eat. Who said that? The Apostle Paul.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

__________________________________________________________
​

Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
St. James 4:4

___________________________________________________________​

Because I'm more than a little frustrated with my Pope. Already infamous for his many comments demonizing capitalism, he now proceeds to attack free speech and throw his weight behind the global warming cult.

WTF, your holiness?

Capitalism is the greatest engine to human freedom and prosperity in the history of mankind, global warming is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme with aims on global government, and when Islam kills people for insulting their pedophile prophet, the proper response is not to tell Christians to work harder not to offend Muslims.

Now the Bible passage I posted is a very appropriate rebuke of Pope Francis. Christians are not called to be friends with the world, to promote worldly values, and to mimic the demonic bigotry of worldly political correctness. Trying to win popularity among reprobate humanity by necessity requires abandoning Christ and our obligation to be the Light of Christ to the nations. Jesus calls us to be light in darkness, not to join the darkness. Jesus warned us that if our salt loses its saltiness, it becomes worthless, something to be thrown out as refuse. But most of all, Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. We do not promote earthly kingdoms or international agendas, we are ambassadors of the kingdom of God.

But to put things in perspective, Catholics pray for the Pope, that he may benefit from a special grace, a pouring of the Holy Spirit to guide him. Historically, some Popes have demonstrated through their actions a deep, pious faith that indicates they operate through the Holy Spirit, but others have been corrupt, or sometimes outright evil. There's no need to post a list of bad Popes throughout the history of the Church. I consider myself blessed that I've been a contemporary to one Pope who was truly God's servant, the late Pope John Paul II, and even if he's the last righteous Pope I see in my lifetime, I would not consider myself robbed. Still it's disappointing to know that we have a corrupt Pope in office. I had such high hopes for him.

Well there are hundreds of "feel good" churches that branched off of Catholicism for you to convert to if you want. Hell you can start your own church if you'd like. All you have to do is cherry pick your favorite parts of the bible and ignore whatever you don't like!

Wrong. He isn't looking for a feel good church. He is looking for a church that follows the Doctrine of Christ and I commend him for it. He isn't putting man above God here and again I commend him for it. This man has his eyes wide open and I praise God for his willingness to share this. I thank God for him. What a breath of fresh air he is!