freedom of speech is freedom of speech. No religion - including Satanism or others - and atheism should be off of the table for mockery.

However, core belief would have him preferring to perform an exorcism on Satanists. He would respect the believer rather than respect the religion. Jesus Christ would expect him to love the Satan worshipper but abhor the practice. Jesus's ministry after all was about performing miracles, healing the sick and casting out devils. If you read the gospels you will see that. There is a whole field in Catholic theology called Demonology that studies Hell and it's denizens.

On a broader scale, Catholics believe the church is universal so the true religious path to God and salvation. It's untrue that they think you will go to Hell if you are not a Catholic. Most theologians, except perhaps the conservative nut faction, do think you can reach God by being a good person and not be Catholic. They just think it's harder.

So I doubt if he will attack any other religion, nor has he. As a Jesuit he is well trained in Aristotelian logic and rhetoric. He is well aware of slippery slopes.

Satanism is for all intents and purposes a secular humanist ideology. Between Christianity and Satanism, the only one of those that believes in demonic possession and a real existing figure called Satan is the former.

socialists but were in fact the opposite.

socialists. They had rent control, the state built homes for the homeless, provided food and income subsidies, child care payments, medical care and all sorts of stuff. They just also happened to be batshit crazy racist eugenicists and went about invading other countries.

whenever he could with the same enthusiasm he killed Jews. The socialist programs you mention were implemented under the Weimar Republic, which the NAZIs never dismantled. They just corrupted the parts of it that were useful to them, like our industrialists are doing here with our Constitution. The shell of the Weimar Republic still existed in Germany until the allies defeated Germany and ended it. Also, those programs were directed to pure Aryan Germans after a time. Anyone else was excluded. Well, they probably had been imprisoned, executed on trumped up charges or were in concentration camps by then.

Do read Willaim L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," a fascinating look into that historical period by an American journalist and foreign correspondent who lived in Nazi Germany, from the beginning of Hitler's rise, up until WWII.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338


______________________________________________________________________________________
Given the link, I suspect we can consider this a bit more authoritative

Ihttp://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM

in Catechism is very dogmatic and useful for indoctrination of children. The Baltimore Catechism was compiled by Cardinals for use of Americans. The new catechism was compiled by the last Pope, when Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal law and reflects their conservatism. It is not written in stone. Frankly I hope Francis asks the Curia to put together another catechism to correct the errors in the present one, and to revise it because it's not really what the Church stands for. I believe he is paving the way with his statements.

Theologians actually differ in approaches and are as divided as political ideologies as political parties. I believe Jesus would not have taught that and many Catholic theologians will agree with me because I learned it from them.

that differ from the official version. He wouldn't publicly say it, of course, although he may
subtly and gradually try to use different ways and means to influence change in them.

Some don't realize this, but the authority of the pope is limited. In order to make any
changes in official Catholic doctrine, it would be about as time- and pains- taking as it would
to make amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

I've only read some excerpts, it's kind of outside my area of interest, but happened upon it while studying the Christian slaughter of Pagans. One of the ideas Hernandez expressed was the reason the Christians were so brutal toward the Pagans was actually that their larger concern of was of destruction of Pagan temples and writings that existed, and killing Pagan priests was necessary to destroy Pagan's knowledge base. Why? Because it would have shown people what The Devil or Satan was based upon, and that would have somehow threatened the Myth of Jesus Christ that was in process of creation, the basis of their new religion.

In the various kinds of Christianity that I've been exposed to, the devil, satan, evil, whatever label, is actually a projection of Christians more than it is something that is inherently bad or "evil."

they died if they didn't die in battle making them eligible to go Valhalla. So it wasn't so much a place of suffering for sins as it was a place for non-heroes.

He is offensive, insulting and his influence on others creates a world that is unsafe for the innocent people he spews his filth at.

Why don't you be honest and just say you hate the Papists and the Pope and be done with it.

I'll work on it and get more disrespectful and offensive in my insulting curses of the Pope.

In fact, I was disappointed with myself for expecting such a post sooner in the thread.

is doing what he can to stop this old Church-practice of protecting pedophile clergy.
There are Catholic clergy facing prosecution in court today as a result. This pope
isn't nearly as bad as you seem to think. You may be a little behind the times.

http://www.catholiconline.com/news/international/europe/story.php?id=50401

I cannot respect any man who suggests those who mock religion should expect violence.

I rather doubt the Pope advocated physical assault.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

-- Matthew 5:44

Since Spanish is a second language to me, the word golpe or punch is often used to illustrate something like that but not meant to actually assault someone. The closest I can come in English is gobsmacked.

that? You will claim it is his right to attack us but that he must never be criticized for his vulgar shitty words?

We use phrases like "smacking down" a troll for instance. I present. You decide.

You're so funny!

Dontcha hate it when somebody shows your personal interpretation was completely wrong?

because, a comedian you aint. You aren't even clever.

Whereas the story proved you wrong. He was being literal about punching.

you believe whatever you like.

I've seen it on the floor of Congress and in other public places people are speaking to emphasize a point. You guys are starting to be like Fox News picking on every little gesture and word President Obama says trying to find something that isn't there.

Any other attempt to interpret it is really ridiculous.

Have a nice day.

should expect violence in return.

just sayin'

You should know we don't do nuance here.

one can not respect without first accepting but, one can accept without respecting a thing/idea.

even to turn away from something one must first admit there is something from which to turn away.

One could even go into the realm of respect for an adversary/enemy.

and this might be where the OP lives.

le shrug.