Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Catholic Cover-Up] A Cardinal, a Monseigneur, and 500 children walk into a bar

123457»

Posts

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    I think he took the "house built on sand" parable a bit too far.

    What I think he's saying is that Spirituality and Confession to Christ are what makes the church more than just a "compassionate NGO" (Non Governmental Organisation). Presumably he feels such entities can disband and reform way too easily or something, whereas he believes the Church should be more than that and stronger than that.

    Yeah, he's saying that if the church abandons the spiritual element of its message (and only pursues charitable works), there is no point in its existence any longer; the role could just as easily be filled by a charitable NGO.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Sounds good to me.

    DarkewolfePLA
  • MuddypawsMuddypaws Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    I'd argue that many of the more powerfully spiritual Christians in history, and currently, have done good works with little in the way of preaching. The works themselves should be enough of a powerful message about the worth and intentions of the benefactors beliefs.

    Muddypaws on
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    I'd argue that many of the more powerfully spiritual Christians in history, and currently, have done good works with little in the way of preaching. The works themselves should be enough of a powerful message about the worth and intentions of the benefactors beliefs.

    You're forgetting that Christianity is not about good works at its foundation. It's about being 100% committed to magical thinking w/r/t Jesus and salvation.

    Which is why in Christianity, deathbed salvation is prized over secular humanism.

    Caveman PawsHacksawJuliusMrVyngaard
  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    I'd argue that many of the more powerfully spiritual Christians in history, and currently, have done good works with little in the way of preaching. The works themselves should be enough of a powerful message about the worth and intentions of the benefactors beliefs.

    Well I agree, but there's also a difference between "abandoning the spiritual element of the message" and what you're talking about.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    I'd argue that many of the more powerfully spiritual Christians in history, and currently, have done good works with little in the way of preaching. The works themselves should be enough of a powerful message about the worth and intentions of the benefactors beliefs.

    You're forgetting that Christianity is not about good works at its foundation. It's about being 100% committed to magical thinking w/r/t Jesus and salvation.

    Which is why in Christianity, deathbed salvation is prized over secular humanism.

    There's some argument in different sects of Christianity re: Good works. If I'm not mistaken, Catholicism recognizes good works as an act of grace, and is part of getting into heaven.

    Protestants follow the Sola Fide idea, by faith alone, meaning all you have to do is believe and you'll get into heaven.

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    I'd argue that many of the more powerfully spiritual Christians in history, and currently, have done good works with little in the way of preaching. The works themselves should be enough of a powerful message about the worth and intentions of the benefactors beliefs.

    You're forgetting that Christianity is not about good works at its foundation. It's about being 100% committed to magical thinking w/r/t Jesus and salvation.

    Which is why in Christianity, deathbed salvation is prized over secular humanism.

    There's some argument in different sects of Christianity re: Good works. If I'm not mistaken, Catholicism recognizes good works as an act of grace, and is part of getting into heaven.

    Protestants follow the Sola Fide idea, by faith alone, meaning all you have to do is believe and you'll get into heaven.

    Yeah, and even within the Sola Fide crowd, there's significant discussion as to the role and nature of good works.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Even within protestants, the general argument eventually boils down to agreeing that (No Acts + 100% Faith) > (Great Acts + Little/Faith), and I think that's kinda fucked up, seeing as how I can't fathom how anyone with great faith would somehow have no acts to show for it.

    This is really the root of why so many socio-political issued tied heavily into Protestantism use backwards logic and fuck people over; stated belief is given more credence than evidence of belief.

    Edith UpwardsSynthesisHacksaw
  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    I'd argue that many of the more powerfully spiritual Christians in history, and currently, have done good works with little in the way of preaching. The works themselves should be enough of a powerful message about the worth and intentions of the benefactors beliefs.

    You're forgetting that Christianity is not about good works at its foundation. It's about being 100% committed to magical thinking w/r/t Jesus and salvation.

    Which is why in Christianity, deathbed salvation is prized over secular humanism.

    There's some argument in different sects of Christianity re: Good works. If I'm not mistaken, Catholicism recognizes good works as an act of grace, and is part of getting into heaven.

    Protestants follow the Sola Fide idea, by faith alone, meaning all you have to do is believe and you'll get into heaven.

    Yeah, and even within the Sola Fide crowd, there's significant discussion as to the role and nature of good works.

    Yes. Ultimately it comes down to a lot of politics and reactionary thought. Sola Fide was important for the Protestants to emphasize in order to distant themselves as much as possible from the church. For the Catholic Church, they had the earthly claim on what constituted "good works" (because this included indulgences) and also on the ability to purge sins through the sacrament of reconciliation. The Protestants basically had to switch emphasis to Sole Fide in order to remove the Church's keys to the kingdom.

    There must be a distinction made in Theology when you're talking about Good Works though, for Catholicism, its an Act of Grace, which is integral to the salvation of your soul, as opposed to just being a Good Thing. I'm sure ideas have changed over time in the Protestant community as the distance from the Catholic Church grew, but I'm sure every little sect differs on whether good works are just part of living a good moral Christian life, or an integral, inseparable part of achieving salvation.

    Isn't theology fun?

    BlindPsychic on
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    I'd argue that many of the more powerfully spiritual Christians in history, and currently, have done good works with little in the way of preaching. The works themselves should be enough of a powerful message about the worth and intentions of the benefactors beliefs.

    You're forgetting that Christianity is not about good works at its foundation. It's about being 100% committed to magical thinking w/r/t Jesus and salvation.

    Which is why in Christianity, deathbed salvation is prized over secular humanism.

    There's some argument in different sects of Christianity re: Good works. If I'm not mistaken, Catholicism recognizes good works as an act of grace, and is part of getting into heaven.

    Protestants follow the Sola Fide idea, by faith alone, meaning all you have to do is believe and you'll get into heaven.

    Yeah, and even within the Sola Fide crowd, there's significant discussion as to the role and nature of good works.

    Yes. Ultimately it comes down to a lot of politics and reactionary thought. Sola Fide was important for the Protestants to emphasize in order to distant themselves as much as possible from the church. For the Catholic Church, they had the earthly claim on what constituted "good works" (because this included indulgences) and also on the ability to purge sins through the sacrament of reconciliation. The Protestants basically had to switch emphasis to Sole Fide in order to remove the Church's keys to the kingdom.

    There must be a distinction made in Theology when you're talking about Good Works though, for Catholicism, its an Act of Grace, which is integral to the salvation of your soul, as opposed to just being a Good Thing. I'm sure ideas have changed over time in the Protestant community as the distance from the Catholic Church grew, but I'm sure every little sect differs on whether good works are just part of living a good moral Christian life, or an integral, inseparable part of achieving salvation.

    Isn't theology fun?

    Calvinism, iirc, (which is where most of modern American evangelicalism springs from) is big on Sola Fide.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    I think he took the "house built on sand" parable a bit too far.

    What I think he's saying is that Spirituality and Confession to Christ are what makes the church more than just a "compassionate NGO" (Non Governmental Organisation). Presumably he feels such entities can disband and reform way too easily or something, whereas he believes the Church should be more than that and stronger than that.

    Yeah, he's saying that if the church abandons the spiritual element of its message (and only pursues charitable works), there is no point in its existence any longer; the role could just as easily be filled by a charitable NGO.

    See, I thought what he was trying to say is that if they allow Catholicism to moderate its beliefs to fit the more liberalized modern civilization, the church would become indistinguishable from a charitable NGO. I think he's using his very first sermon as pope to announce that anyone hoping for a reformist pope can get fucked because the whole point of a religious organization is by definition to remain fervently cemented to ancient principles.

    Yay.

    smiley%20angry.gif

  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I think he took the "house built on sand" parable a bit too far.

    What I think he's saying is that Spirituality and Confession to Christ are what makes the church more than just a "compassionate NGO" (Non Governmental Organisation). Presumably he feels such entities can disband and reform way too easily or something, whereas he believes the Church should be more than that and stronger than that.

    Yeah, he's saying that if the church abandons the spiritual element of its message (and only pursues charitable works), there is no point in its existence any longer; the role could just as easily be filled by a charitable NGO.

    See, I thought what he was trying to say is that if they allow Catholicism to moderate its beliefs to fit the more liberalized modern civilization, the church would become indistinguishable from a charitable NGO. I think he's using his very first sermon as pope to announce that anyone hoping for a reformist pope can get fucked because the whole point of a religious organization is by definition to remain fervently cemented to ancient principles.

    Yay.

    smiley%20angry.gif

    It's also probably hedging his bets against legal recourse trying to remove the Church's tax-exempt status in some countries. Some NGOs have to pay tax in some places.

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    I'd argue that many of the more powerfully spiritual Christians in history, and currently, have done good works with little in the way of preaching. The works themselves should be enough of a powerful message about the worth and intentions of the benefactors beliefs.

    You're forgetting that Christianity is not about good works at its foundation. It's about being 100% committed to magical thinking w/r/t Jesus and salvation.

    Which is why in Christianity, deathbed salvation is prized over secular humanism.

    There's some argument in different sects of Christianity re: Good works. If I'm not mistaken, Catholicism recognizes good works as an act of grace, and is part of getting into heaven.

    Protestants follow the Sola Fide idea, by faith alone, meaning all you have to do is believe and you'll get into heaven.

    Yeah, and even within the Sola Fide crowd, there's significant discussion as to the role and nature of good works.

    Yes. Ultimately it comes down to a lot of politics and reactionary thought. Sola Fide was important for the Protestants to emphasize in order to distant themselves as much as possible from the church. For the Catholic Church, they had the earthly claim on what constituted "good works" (because this included indulgences) and also on the ability to purge sins through the sacrament of reconciliation. The Protestants basically had to switch emphasis to Sole Fide in order to remove the Church's keys to the kingdom.

    There must be a distinction made in Theology when you're talking about Good Works though, for Catholicism, its an Act of Grace, which is integral to the salvation of your soul, as opposed to just being a Good Thing. I'm sure ideas have changed over time in the Protestant community as the distance from the Catholic Church grew, but I'm sure every little sect differs on whether good works are just part of living a good moral Christian life, or an integral, inseparable part of achieving salvation.

    Isn't theology fun?

    Calvinism, iirc, (which is where most of modern American evangelicalism springs from) is big on Sola Fide.

    Which is amusing, because most of the hardcore Calvinists I've known weren't all that concerned about evangelism.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    I'd argue that many of the more powerfully spiritual Christians in history, and currently, have done good works with little in the way of preaching. The works themselves should be enough of a powerful message about the worth and intentions of the benefactors beliefs.

    You're forgetting that Christianity is not about good works at its foundation. It's about being 100% committed to magical thinking w/r/t Jesus and salvation.

    Which is why in Christianity, deathbed salvation is prized over secular humanism.

    There's some argument in different sects of Christianity re: Good works. If I'm not mistaken, Catholicism recognizes good works as an act of grace, and is part of getting into heaven.

    Protestants follow the Sola Fide idea, by faith alone, meaning all you have to do is believe and you'll get into heaven.

    Yeah, and even within the Sola Fide crowd, there's significant discussion as to the role and nature of good works.

    Yes. Ultimately it comes down to a lot of politics and reactionary thought. Sola Fide was important for the Protestants to emphasize in order to distant themselves as much as possible from the church. For the Catholic Church, they had the earthly claim on what constituted "good works" (because this included indulgences) and also on the ability to purge sins through the sacrament of reconciliation. The Protestants basically had to switch emphasis to Sole Fide in order to remove the Church's keys to the kingdom.

    There must be a distinction made in Theology when you're talking about Good Works though, for Catholicism, its an Act of Grace, which is integral to the salvation of your soul, as opposed to just being a Good Thing. I'm sure ideas have changed over time in the Protestant community as the distance from the Catholic Church grew, but I'm sure every little sect differs on whether good works are just part of living a good moral Christian life, or an integral, inseparable part of achieving salvation.

    Isn't theology fun?

    Calvinism, iirc, (which is where most of modern American evangelicalism springs from) is big on Sola Fide.

    Which is amusing, because most of the hardcore Calvinists I've known weren't all that concerned about evangelism.

    Right, a real Calvinist thinks evangelism is useless, but Evangelicals really like the whole "I don't have to act like a good person to call myself a Christian" aspect of faith.

  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
    Yeah legit Calvinism encompasses Predestination, so that changes their views on proselytizing

    Atomika
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Yeah legit Calvinism encompasses Predestination, so that changes their views on proselytizing

    The sad thing is that Evangelicals are just really bad at logic, so they think their evangelism is part of predestination.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    The most coherent way of putting I've heard is if you have "real" faith that good works will inevitably follow because the word of the bible encourages them. Without faith good works can still happen but they're spirutally useless.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    I'd argue that many of the more powerfully spiritual Christians in history, and currently, have done good works with little in the way of preaching. The works themselves should be enough of a powerful message about the worth and intentions of the benefactors beliefs.

    You're forgetting that Christianity is not about good works at its foundation. It's about being 100% committed to magical thinking w/r/t Jesus and salvation.

    Which is why in Christianity, deathbed salvation is prized over secular humanism.

    There's some argument in different sects of Christianity re: Good works. If I'm not mistaken, Catholicism recognizes good works as an act of grace, and is part of getting into heaven.

    Protestants follow the Sola Fide idea, by faith alone, meaning all you have to do is believe and you'll get into heaven.

    Yeah, and even within the Sola Fide crowd, there's significant discussion as to the role and nature of good works.

    Yes. Ultimately it comes down to a lot of politics and reactionary thought. Sola Fide was important for the Protestants to emphasize in order to distant themselves as much as possible from the church. For the Catholic Church, they had the earthly claim on what constituted "good works" (because this included indulgences) and also on the ability to purge sins through the sacrament of reconciliation. The Protestants basically had to switch emphasis to Sole Fide in order to remove the Church's keys to the kingdom.

    There must be a distinction made in Theology when you're talking about Good Works though, for Catholicism, its an Act of Grace, which is integral to the salvation of your soul, as opposed to just being a Good Thing. I'm sure ideas have changed over time in the Protestant community as the distance from the Catholic Church grew, but I'm sure every little sect differs on whether good works are just part of living a good moral Christian life, or an integral, inseparable part of achieving salvation.

    Isn't theology fun?

    Yeah, let's not forget the reason Luther rejected works is because works basically meant indulgences

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Basically both sides have found loopholes in doctrine that allow them to be assholes with little fear of reckoning. It's just a little ironic that both sides are using the same loophole.

    Atomika on
    MrVyngaardMeeqe
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    It's all about the prizes you'll win?

    PLA on
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    Calvinism, iirc, (which is where most of modern American evangelicalism springs from) is big on Sola Fide.

    I'd actually place the origin of Evangelicalism with the Holiness Movement. But then all Conservative Christians hitched their wagon to it, bringing along Calvinism.

    At this point, the loudest Evangelicals are certainly Calvinist, but I wouldn't say that most lay Evangelicals are Calvinist.
    Right, a real Calvinist thinks evangelism is useless, but Evangelicals really like the whole "I don't have to act like a good person to call myself a Christian" aspect of faith.

    I don't think that's fair. The real problem you have with them is that you disagree on your definition of "act like a good person".

  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    The real problem you have with them is that you disagree on your definition of "act like a good person".

    Indeed we do.

    "Spout bigotry, harass innocent people, support harmful legislation, ignore most of Jesus' teachings about tolerance and compassion, and still act like I'm a morally-superior person" isn't what I define as a "good person."

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    The real problem you have with them is that you disagree on your definition of "act like a good person".

    Indeed we do.

    "Spout bigotry, harass innocent people, support harmful legislation, ignore most of Jesus' teachings about tolerance and compassion, and still act like I'm a morally-superior person" isn't what I define as a "good person."

    Still not fair, but I won't argue since I know I won't change your mind.

    Gandalf_the_Crazed
  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
    'Do as I say, not as I do' is in the bible right

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Calvinism, iirc, (which is where most of modern American evangelicalism springs from) is big on Sola Fide.

    I'd actually place the origin of Evangelicalism with the Holiness Movement. But then all Conservative Christians hitched their wagon to it, bringing along Calvinism.

    At this point, the loudest Evangelicals are certainly Calvinist, but I wouldn't say that most lay Evangelicals are Calvinist.
    Right, a real Calvinist thinks evangelism is useless, but Evangelicals really like the whole "I don't have to act like a good person to call myself a Christian" aspect of faith.

    I don't think that's fair. The real problem you have with them is that you disagree on your definition of "act like a good person".

    .. what? Calvinism is diametrically opposed to Evangelicalism. The whole point is that God chooses who is saved and you can't do a damn thing about it.

  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Tenek wrote: »
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Calvinism, iirc, (which is where most of modern American evangelicalism springs from) is big on Sola Fide.

    I'd actually place the origin of Evangelicalism with the Holiness Movement. But then all Conservative Christians hitched their wagon to it, bringing along Calvinism.

    At this point, the loudest Evangelicals are certainly Calvinist, but I wouldn't say that most lay Evangelicals are Calvinist.
    Right, a real Calvinist thinks evangelism is useless, but Evangelicals really like the whole "I don't have to act like a good person to call myself a Christian" aspect of faith.

    I don't think that's fair. The real problem you have with them is that you disagree on your definition of "act like a good person".

    .. what? Calvinism is diametrically opposed to Evangelicalism. The whole point is that God chooses who is saved and you can't do a damn thing about it.

    Depends on whether you're talking about the "original" definition, the "modern" definition, or the "media" definition.

    It's... complicated.

    gjaustin on
  • MuddypawsMuddypaws Registered User regular
    The irony is that those most holy are the least likely rise to Pope. If the new Francis were to have based his life on his namesake, he would have been dressed in third hand clothes working in the slums of Argentina during the troubles.

    Likewise, a holy figure at the end of WW2 faced with the choice of death or the Hitler Youth would have swung from a lamp-post. I would hope for more than 'went with the flow' from Christs representitive on Earth. They are not evil men, but is 'best we could do' a tolerable benchmark for one of the key spiritual leaders of the world?

    I would love it if the Papacy were split into Administrator and Spiritual Centre. A political bruiser to break heads and get his hands dirty paired with a truly holy man who would be the moral heart of the Church.

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Muddypaws wrote: »
    The irony is that those most holy are the least likely rise to Pope. If the new Francis were to have based his life on his namesake, he would have been dressed in third hand clothes working in the slums of Argentina during the troubles.

    Likewise, a holy figure at the end of WW2 faced with the choice of death or the Hitler Youth would have swung from a lamp-post. I would hope for more than 'went with the flow' from Christs representitive on Earth. They are not evil men, but is 'best we could do' a tolerable benchmark for one of the key spiritual leaders of the world?

    Well it's trite but true, "Every sinner has a future, and every saint has a past." The entire point of Christianity is supposed to be about forgiveness, mercy and newness of life. I can't think of a reason people like you describe wouldn't be able to represent that idea.

    In fact, they are perhaps the only ones who can.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • MuddypawsMuddypaws Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Interesting idea. The bigger the sin, the greater the redemption and spiritual currency 'earned'?

    One of my fave 'God' movies is 'Last Temptation of Christ', which I went to see through a wall of protesters and 'Blasphemy!' placards but I came out with far more of a sense of 'Oh THATS what Christ was about' than any sermon suffered in my youth. Christ as human then divine facinates me far more than a flawless figure with no nuance. That Christ might have himself sinned and lived a normal life before finding his ultimate path is a far more compelling story than Mr Infalliable with blonde hair and perfect teeth. It also reflects a life us puny mortals might realistically aspire to.

    Is any of the above Catholic, or would it fall under some heretical movement?

    Muddypaws on
  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Definitely under a heretical movement -- which I don't say as an evaluation of the belief's accuracy or worth, just of its category.

    And I'm not really saying anything about spiritual "currency", I don't believe it works that way and I don't think it's an idea faithful to Christ's teachings. But you hit the nail on the head when you say that you find something more relatable in the idea of a man with failings who later found the path, than the idea of an always-perfect man. If one were to choose a man to represent the ideals of Christianity to the world, one might hope for the former as a practical example of the core tenets of forgiveness and redemption.

    So while I think the new pope, same as the old pope, is dead wrong on several moral issues, I don't feel like their experiences re:Hitler or The Troubles in Argentina are instant disqualifications.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I went to a Lutheran Church when I was young and before I became the agnostic that I am now (slowly moving to the belief that there might not be a god at all). I don't know if my Church was just weird or if it was a Lutheran things but "What Would Jesus Do" aka WWJD and "Love the sinner, but hate the sin" where big things at my old Church. My Pastor also tended to focus on social justice that dealt with fighting poverty, corruption and discrimination against people. As far as I can remember, I don't think he ever touched on homosexuality or if he did, no idea if he was okay with it or not.

    I suspect with Christianity in general that there are lots of people that are just looking for another way to shit on others, by ignoring the bigger part of the message and only focusing on little bits that they like; especially, if they can use it as an excuse to find others to shit on.

    Anyways, Pope Francis wants Church to be poor and focus on helping the poor.

    I briefly got my hopes up that maybe this pope would direct the Church to focusing the lion's share of its resources on being useful, by fighting poverty and spare us his backwards views on homosexuality, abortion and contraceptives, but then I remember his comment on the Falklands.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Of course we're ignoring that the pope is a figurehead not a king. The conference of cardinals runs the Catholic Church

    TheBlackWindzagdrob
  • TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    At media meeting, Pope Francis didn't speak apostolic blessing; he offered it in silence out of "respect for the conscience" of nonbelievers.

    That actually strikes me as kind of big gesture. Thought that was cool.

    PAD ID - 328,762,218
    Gandalf_the_CrazedEdith Upwards
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    I'm more interested in how the next massrape will turn out, after this.

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Mill wrote: »

    Just like Jesus. So that's cool.

    I had a conversation with a friend recently about how the estimates of "money required to end extreme poverty worldwide" and "money the Catholic Church spends annually" are very, very close to each other. And that doesn't even take into account money spent by individual believers outside the institution itself, or money spent by other large denominations.

    Poverty is a problem that can be solved, and it can be solved by the Church even if nobody else helps -- which isn't a situation that would ever happen, or should ever happen, it's just a mathematical fact though. The problem isn't that we're out of money, just that we're out of give-a-damn.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    On the night he was elected he shunned the papal limousine and travelled on a bus with other cardinals. He went to the Church-run hotel where he had been staying before the conclave and insisted on paying the bill.

    Neato.
    ... he loved nature and preached to animals.

    Funny.
    On Friday, Francis hugged cardinals, slapped them on the back, broke into animated laughter and blessed religious objects one cardinal pulled out of a plastic shopping bag.

    So pope-magic actually does include party-tricks.

    Gandalf_the_CrazedTheBlackWindzagdrob
123457»
Sign In or Register to comment.