General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPope Francis Rejects Kim Davis’s Account Of Meeting And Refuses To Endorse Her Bigotry
Pope Francis Rejects Kim Daviss Account Of Meeting And Refuses To Endorse Her Bigotry
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/02/pope-francis-throws-kim-davis-bigotry-bus.html
The Vaticans version of events is the opposite of what Daviss supporters are claiming happened. The anti-gay marriage crowd claimed that the Pope met with Davis in secret and expressed his support for her bigotry. The right has been using the imaginary meeting as an endorsement of their out of step views.
The extremist conservative movements attempt to use Pope Francis for propaganda purposes has fallen apart. Daviss invitation had been extended by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the envoy in Washington. Viganò is well known to have gone further than others in the church in his campaign against gay marriage. The Pope did not invite Davis to meet him. In fact, according to the Vatican, Pope Francis had not been briefed on the situation and knew nothing about Davis.
also:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/before-kim-davis-the-pope-hung-out-with-a-gay-couple/408718/?utm_source=SFFB
madamesilverspurs
(15,784 posts)Our priest, sometimes accompanied by a visiting bishop, would stand at the door to shake hands with parishioners and exchange brief greetings with them. Its a pleasant courtesy, but no one would ever try to spin it as a private audience. Well, almost no one.
trumad
(41,692 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)of the Vatican enough to know how feasible it would be to can him.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)as soon as is "reasonably feasible."
You don't embarrass the Big Boss in public.
madaboutharry
(40,153 posts)This woman and her nutter lawyer need to shut up and go away.
kevinbgoode1
(153 posts)my suspicion would be on the DC Cardinal giving them to her rather than the Pop
I find it rather unusual that, if her parents are devout Catholics, that she ended up something else - or even a Protestant denomination that is fundamentally opposed to Catholic doctrine. I've thought from the beginning that the meeting was orchestrated and Cardinal Hate-The-Gays doesn't surprise me if he's the one behind the arrangements.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)and be absolved of sins. They are somewhere between limbo and excommunication. Not any Catholics I can think of who have divorced 4 times and had children out of wedlock. Henry VIII, and he had to become a Protestant. So did Ms. Davis.
demosincebirth
(12,518 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)One could argue only twice, since she remarried one of the ones she divorced.
Your points are all valid, just the count of divorces is off.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)She should go hide out with Josh Duggar.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)You only get one marriage, everything else is adultery. Except if husband dies, wife can marry brother and become a baby vessel for him.
senz
(11,945 posts)that was not the core of his teachings and not what he emphasized. So he would quote from the Torah and then add a twist that pulls everyone up short and makes them think differently. Because Jesus did not come here to load us up with a bunch of rules. He came here to open our minds and hearts, and that, which is the core of his teaching, is what gets lost when people try to turn him into a some disgusting rightwing taskmaster.
Here's the twist (from the Sermon on the Mount):
Jesus wasn't concerned with sex and certainly not with gender issues and homosexuality. But he did want us to understand that who and what we are is more a matter of what's in our hearts than our outward behavior. Similarly, in the same chapter he says that feeling anger is on a par with committing murder.
Did he expect human beings to quit feeling lust and anger? Doubtful. But he did want them to become self-aware and stop feeling morally superior to others.
rug
(82,333 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)so I am assuming she was once a Catholic girl. Until her many falls from grace. Then she went to the Duggar church of fundie extremism to be washed clean.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)her if she did show us the rosaries. Anybody can buy rosaries. It's not like they're a rare item.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)That's the real question.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)ballabosh
(330 posts)Without the flashing.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I did not think she would stay in jail until the judge changed his mind, it was a sham.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)off her slacking and lying
good on her!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)would sell out the catholics in 2 seconds flat if it suited his purposes but has no compunction about using the pope (and davis as a willing) as props
real "Christian" of them.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)What about the OUTRAGE?!?! The OUTRAGE is more important than FACTS!!!! What about the "Fuck the pope" thread with 68 Rec's? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027214856
(and for those as perceptive as a stoner Tyberian bat, )
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Why would she even be on his list at all? He's either an easily duped idiot or a willing bigot, and idiots haven't gotten to be Pope for the last 3 or 4 centuries.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)when Davis was sent through with dozens of other guests.
And it isn't CYOA revisionism. It's correcting the false record put out by the rightwingers behind Davis.
Just use your common sense.. If he HAD wanted to make a pro Kim Davis or anti-LGBT statement while he was here, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. And he studiously avoided them. Why would have have colluded with them in this big show after he left?
dakota_democrat
(374 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)but not without a touch of irony!
Iggo
(47,489 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Fuck the pope regardless.
Even if it turned out that Frank never came within shouting distance of this little shit, that wouldn't change a thing.
He still maintains that gays and lesbians who unapologetically act on their sexuality are doomed to an eternity of suffering.
Same with women who have abortions.
Same with anyone using any form of contraception.
He's no less an asshole because some much smaller asshole concocted a fiction with him in a leading role. If anything, it just lets him add "world-class sap" to his credentials.
Meanwhile, a very large gaggle of child rapists remains under the protection of the institution he leads.
Fuck him.
Happy now?
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)You know nothing. No priest, no Bishop, No Cardinal, nor Pope would EVER claim to know who is damned and who is not. That is alone is only known to God. A priest will not even say that Hitler himself went to hell.
I do so love me those who think they know the Catholic faith when in fact they do not.
bvf
(6,604 posts)with your prodigious knowledge of the Catechism.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm
A Jesuit education and a stay in a Trappist monastery weren't completely lost on me, friend.
On edit:
You do know what "unapologetically" means, correct? (Hint: I used it for a reason.)
bvf
(6,604 posts)in southern New York.
Want me to tell you about Brother Elias?
rug
(82,333 posts)I thought it might have been St. Joseph's, the jelly monks.
How long was your stay?
bvf
(6,604 posts)But I never got to help with the bread.
Interestingly, shortly after I returned to real life, I reclaimed my previous job as a clerk in a convenience store, where they had just started stocking "Monks' Bread." It wasn't a mover, and Millbrook dropped out as distributor shortly thereafter.
But we were talking about eternal damnation.
rug
(82,333 posts)You should have asked Brother Elias if God has damned anyone.
Paragraph 133 at yor link states the teaching, that the rejection of God is one's own choice, not damnation.
In my high school, Brother Watkins, a mere Irish Christian brother, often said that while the Church from time to time will declare someone to be a saint, it has never stated that anyone is in hell, including Judas
The concept of hell is a deliberate, knowing and conscious rejection of God. To do that, one does not deny the existence of God, but knows God, and then rejects.
As Bro. Watkins said, that is an enormously difficult, if not impossible task.
I believe that's what Francis meant when he remarked some time ago that atheists can go to heaven.
That said, I'd rather discuss bread and jelly.
bvf
(6,604 posts)
The concept of hell is a deliberate, knowing and conscious rejection of God. To do that, one does not deny the existence of God, but knows God, and then rejects.
See? This is the very kind of attempt at mind-fuckery that I find particularly galling.
Children of catholic families (in the main) certainly fall into the category of "those who know god," assuming the delusion holds sway into their adult years.
The message reads: think for yourself, and you're fucked.
---
I was especially fond of the Raisin Wheat loaf.
Brother Elias not only didn't (as I remember being told) utter a word, ever, but was also very selective about the visitors he allowed into his trailer in the woods, where he lived apart from the community.
rug
(82,333 posts)That is not mind-fuckery at all.
What I find galling is restating what is either misunderstood or disagreeable.
Regardless of whether or not anyone is in hell, the Catholic teaching is not at all that a psychopathic god is hurling people into hell for thinking.
I like raisin bread as well, preferably with icing.
Good night.
Response to rug (Reply #75)
bvf This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvf
(6,604 posts)avoidance of the term "psychopathic" to describe their whatchamacallit. That would be stupid.
"Know god, and deny him, and well, fuck you for eternity"?
That seems a pretty harsh thing to teach a six-year-old, but millions are doing so as we speak. No denying that.
Religion is the single biggest reason the world is as fucked up as it is.
rug
(82,333 posts)You misused them.
Off the top of my head I can think of four greater reasons why the world is as fucked up as it is (although punctuation is not one of them).
senz
(11,945 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)but they also seem to overlook this nugget:
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."
Millions of kids have wretched shit like this shoved down their throats every day. It's contemptible.
That's why I'm glad I was raised without religion. Much better to research these matters as an adult and then make up your own mind/heart with no parental or church interference.
bvf
(6,604 posts)of someone who came to believe in the absence of childhood indoctrination.
That may sound haughty, but that's me.
In the words of the immortal Tom Lehrer:
To be an atheist is almost as arrogant as to be a fundamentalist. But then again, I can get pretty arrogant.
senz
(11,945 posts)from those delivered by childhood authorities. Basic moral/ethical instruction is necessary, but a broader comprehension of the world, one's existential place in it, what it's for and what it means, comes more naturally and genuinely through observation, reason, contemplation, and lived experience. My parents and siblings were entirely materialistic (no religion and no one went to church), but I had a constant sense of "something deeper" in life and felt compelled to seek it. The resulting journey went from vague childhood feelings of love and gratitude toward something unseen and frequent encounters with intelligence in nature, to wide reading in the areas of spirituality, eastern religions, related philosophies (primarily existentialism), agnosticism, existential atheism (finding one's own meaning and moral system), brief, limited exposure to psychedelics with occasional visions and insights, and New Age explorations. I had no interest in Christianity, having observed Christians throughout my life. Then there was a fallow period underscored by slogging, undifferentiated faithfulness, when suddenly, unexpectedly, a shocking theophany left me in tears and changed my reality for good. I encountered and experienced the existence of a loving, personal, extremely powerful, suprahuman being. "God" is only a word, but it's a good enough word for it, for me.
I lived in that new reality for several years, letting it wander through me while continuing the ordinary activities of life which eventually led to a bit of reading in the New Testament and, to my amazement, falling in love with the astounding and perfect character of Jesus. I would never have expected this. Eventually that led to joining a church, getting baptized -- with a vague, troubling sense of making a mistake -- and after a decade of giving more than I had the energy to give, getting chewed up and spat out. Now I am gratefully unchurched again, still enriched by a continuing relationship with "God." Sometimes we have to go through these things; it's all a part of growing up, which, of course, continues into the foreseeable and unforseeable future.
Like they say, it's all good. Currently, my only spiritual reading is the emailed meditations of Richard Rohr, who is on pretty much the same wave length and admirably committed to sharing the beautiful insights that life brings into his mind and soul.
What I don't like is the assumption, based in millennia of organized religious activity, that one's personal experience/relationship/understanding of a suprahuman reality should ask or require anything whatsoever of anyone else. This is where I think all the friction and warfare come in. Afaic, all of that is crap, probably based in ego and dominance but possibly in simple human loneliness that wants to make everything into a group experience But when requirements enter the picture, it's crap. No one has the right to tell anyone else what to think, feel, or believe.
And don't worry about being haughty; it's just an attitude and probably won't last.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Where the Pope gets to judge on earth, and gets to tell everyone they are damned. Maybe you were not paying attention, or maybe you just had that classic Jesuit education on theology. Apparently the jokes are true?
bvf
(6,604 posts)what "unapologetically" means. I think you missed it, despite my helpful hint.
And please review the link I provided. You must have missed that, too.
As far as jokes are concerned, I long ago dismissed the whole of religion as one, immense, tragic one, continually played on most of humanity, and usually starting in early childhood.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)My point is, the Pope does not go around condemning people to hell as you purport. Especially this Pope. In fact, just the opposite has happened. He has provided dispensation for ALL priests worldwide to give absolution for abortion (which is a big thing even though U.S. priests have had this for year). He speaks of social justice He has said there is more to talk about than abortion.
I am sorry you hate all religion. While there is bad, there is certainly much good to be gleaned from the teachings of Jesus. The Golden Rule pretty much espouses the Democratic platform.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I never said Frank "go(es) around condemning people to hell."
I'm done doing research for you. Have a look around and let me know if you think Frank's OK with gay sex, or whether he thinks dying without saying "I'm sorry for having it" doesn't send one straight to eternal fire.
As for absolution for abortion, it's tantamount to saying to women who have had to deal with the mental anguish that attends it that all can be forgiven by a man, as if there were anything here that required forgiveness at all. Fuck Frank for a PR move that only attempts to reinforce the subjugation of women. To utter pretty words about social justice while taking such a stance is unadulterated hypocrisy.
You speak of the golden rule as if some nonentity in a silly children's story owned rights to it. It's a distillation of a philosophy that is more or less culturally universal, and certainly predates some guy who supposedly hung around a lot of fishermen and made a name for himself performing party tricks.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)And you did say the Pope goes around damning people, so own your own shit please.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Remember all those headlines reading, "Pope Francis Rejects Church Doctrine"?
Me neither.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)in an attempt to assert dominance, but then are completely clueless that their current Pope literally travels the world fighting against LGBTQIA rights.
rug
(82,333 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)To vote for Bernie.
Love him, hate him, he's making economic justice a moral imperative, and many, many Hispanic voters are dedicated Catholics.
This Pope may help Bernie get elected. This Pope may help bring economic justice to America.
This must have some value to you?
bvf
(6,604 posts)In my experience, they basically adhere to the teachings of the church only when it proves convenient to do so. I grew up in a practically homogenous catholic neighborhood (OK, "parish," for those wishing to split hairs). Lots of abortions. Very few familiar faces at Sunday mass (which, as the son of a local businessman, I learned was merely a ritual observed by those wanting to keep up appearances).
American catholics are a shallow lot when it comes to their faith. Odd as it may be to say, I find that positively encouraging.
As for the throngs who turned out last week for Frank's visit, my guess is that most didn't have Clue #1 what he stands for. Just some famous, most-important god-believing guy who says what we already know: the climate is a mess, and rich people make too much money at everyone else's expense. Plus he doesn't wear the red shoes, which the guy on TV said is good for some reason.
When Frank says, "Vote for Sanders!" I'll pay closer attention. (Note to the thick: I know that's not going to happen, any more than that he'll be sporting a weathervane beanie anytime soon.)
treestar
(82,383 posts)how does the Pope or other people believing it have any meaning whatsoever?
And how are you going to convince them otherwise? Saying "fuck you" does not seem like it's going to work.
The progress that was made thus far was not made by people saying that kind of thing to those who they needed to evolve.
bvf
(6,604 posts)
If you don't believe that stuff yourself,
how does the Pope or other people believing it have any meaning whatsoever?
In the sense that I don't believe the LGBT community deserves second-class status in a civilized society. I can cite at least five more examples, if you'd like.
And how are you going to convince them otherwise? Saying "fuck you" does not seem like it's going to work.
My post was in response to bobclark86, who snottily wondered where the "fuck the pope" posts were. I was happy to oblige (though I note he seems to have run off without responding).
The progress that was made thus far was not made by people saying that kind of thing to those who they needed to evolve.
What progress is that? I see a bunch of people gloating about how one homophobe tried unsuccessfully (maybe--the jury seems to be out on this) to game another homophobe. That's the opposite of progress, if you ask me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)nuanced, "hit-the-right-notes" delegation of that size executed in a nearly flawless fashion--ever. From the speech to the mass and everything in between and afterwards, he just seemed to have everything scripted--but not over-scripted--to perfection. The spontaneous acts/comments just hit EVERY right note.
I just couldn't believe he'd leave on a cloud of goodwill, only to drop a turd the minute he got airborne. It just didn't resonate with me as believable, because no one who is that skilled at PR would fuck up that profoundly!
When the Vatican started using words like "exploited" and basically called her a liar, I thought to myself, "I'm betting at least two guys get some very 'interesting' assignments ... real soon."
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Trying to claim otherwise as this headline does is beyond dishonest.
Faux pas
(14,583 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Reichwinger makes up bogus story, screams to media.
Then it's completely debunked within 48 hours.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)not that that will make much difference to you. Have a great night.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Right now I don't trust any of our candidates, this Party nor many of my fellow Democrats. They went with the bigot and did not even do due diligence. They just do not care what the truth is.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Carlie Liarina must be around
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)who wrapped his arms around davis and this pope story. Wonder what he has to say about it now.
longship
(40,416 posts)Sitnexto Kim Davis ?@nexttokimdavis
Not saying that @libertycounsel tricked @Pontifex into meeting #KimDavis. I am saying that we found a LOT of fake mustaches in her office.
This twitter account remains high art.
Another:
Sep 30
Sitnexto Kim Davis ?@nexttokimdavis
#KimDavis is holding communion in the break room. THOSE LOOK LIKE MY GODDAMN OREOS.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)They deliberately made it sound like the Pope supported her actions. Now we know that he had no idea who she was. And those rosaries he gave her that she so proudly presented to her parents? He gave them out to all the anonymous visitors he received.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I think they are like $14.95 or some such.
NonMetro
(631 posts)Based on previous announcements, I guess the Pope doesn't know what the Vatican is doing? How do we know whether the Vatican knows what the Pope is doing? When is the Pope going to call Kim Davis and her lawyer liars about this meeting? When?
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)the thinking public knows that Kim Davis is a grifter who took her "religious" stance as a way to make big money...and thanks to the pinheads who support her, she will...
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Have you ever looked into the history of the RCC? It is literally a story of rape, pillage and plunder. Control of women and gays is high on the agenda, and always has been. Why pretend otherwise? Because Frank seems like a nice guy?
gvstn
(2,805 posts)Who might actually change the RCC into what it should be. Visit the sick and prisoners and the poor and give them kindness.
Frank may not be perfect but he has the balls to actually go out and preach the message. Plenty of Popes have been given the little black pill for speaking out of turn. Frank seems to not give a shit and is trying to change things for the better.
Hate him if you will but I think he is the best thing to happen to the RCC in a long time.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)My point was about "religious" grifters like Kim Davis. I was not speaking about the Pope. I study religions; I do not like any of them.
rug
(82,333 posts)What's your point, that rape, pillage and plunder was invented in 33 CE?
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]She Claimed all of the following:
1. That she briefly met the pope for less than 15minutes
2. They breifly discussed bravery
3. They hugged and promised to pray for each other
4. He told her to stay strong and thanked her for her courage
5. Finally he gave her two rosaries
What statement by the Vatican contradicts any of this?
The Vatican's only claims have been to NOT deny that the meeting took place, and to say that even if they did mean that doesn't necessarily mean he supports her.
The only thing that is really questionable is was it a private visit or not.
The statement about not "necessarily" supporting her being kinda of dumb seeing as he explicitly made a statement of support for her when he discussed conscientious objectors...so he already stated he supports her. Further, given that the vatican is against gay marriage should not surprise anyone.
So again, how was her account rejected?[/font]
NonMetro
(631 posts)And now, we learn, a week since this controversy surfaced, that the Pope met with his gay friends? Why didn't anyone know about this before now? I guess it's: ignore Kim Davis and look: Pope Francis has gay friends!!
I'm still waiting for the pope to say Kim Davis and her attorney were lying. Like you, I haven't heard that yet.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)Pope Frank musta had a divine insight that he would be meeting with Kim Davis in person in a ratfucking attempt to discredit him during his US visit - so he had his gay friend request a private meeting in DC weeks ago...and met with this friend the DAY BEFORE he saw Kim Davis who was planted in a receiving line set up by the local Vatican dudes to ratfuck him.
Yup, he covered his ass before the event even happened. That is one fucking miracle!
Seriously - that Right Wing Nutcase Kim Davis and her attorney are telling a fib. A fish story. A tall tale. a FUCKING LIE!!!!!!!!!!!
There - I said it.
NonMetro
(631 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that this was an attempt to "discredit" or "undermine" or "ratfuck" the pope, or some such? Davis's position and actions regarding same-sex marriage are perfectly in line with the pope's and with Catholic doctrine. So how is meeting with her an embarrassment for Francis?
If someone had snuck a rabid same-sex marriage advocate into a highly publicized meeting with the pope, THAT might have been an embarrassment for the pope and the church, but that's exactly the opposite of what happened.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)dae
(3,396 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Is that not bigotry?
If not, why not?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Why do his defenders always make false assertions and refuse to learn the actual facts?
Vatican Strengthens Ties with Evangelicals and Mormons Against Gay Marriage
http://time.com/3597245/vatican-evangelicals-mormons-gay-marriage/
Any group that organizes against a minority and then denies it when found out is bereft of any sort of ethical sense at all.
WestSeattle2
(1,730 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)Kim Davis makes me sick to my stomach.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Behind the Aegis
(53,833 posts)But speaking out against her homophobia is A-OK, speaking out against his makes you a "hater", "an ingrate", "unwilling to let go of the myth he is a bigot", and too stubborn "to apologize for calling him a bigot."
The message: Homophobia is BAD!**
**Unless you can make another homophobe look bad and have a gay friend...that you hug!
Ahpook
(2,747 posts)I have a few of these so called devout in my family that act very much the same. They will openly make racial slurs about almost anyone. And of course Obama is some covert Muslim hell-bent on destroying our country.
I dated a girl years ago who's parents were Pentecostal and just about as full of shit. Her mom was caught fucking the pastor and he was busted for some drug scandal, then the church burned down
These people are a joke
mdbl
(4,972 posts)Don't forget, the sin is the work of Satan. That releases them from all responsibility for their awful behaviour.
Ahpook
(2,747 posts)They prayed and all was forgiven.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)want. There is no morality. All they have to do is confess and pray and they are forgiven. There is no incentive to be a decent human being.
Prism
(5,815 posts)No matter what the dimensions of the meeting were, he is still allied with her against LGBT equality.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)that lie.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)about this stupid theocratic puppet, her string pullers and all the religious frauds that support her. They are lying, snake oil peddlers on a nation scale. Their targets are self-righteous, low IQ religious bigots and other venomous haters. They are feted by commercial mass media because that narrative sells, is simple, emotive, and cheap to produce. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religious or any other kind of liberty worth the name. The only question here should be who puts up the big money for it all and why?
REP
(21,691 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Oh yeah, Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)a mortal sin or just a venal one?
bvf
(6,604 posts)and deliberately lied about having done so, you win a place in one of the circles of hell.
Unless of course you say "sorry" at some point.
Ain't it a mystery, though?
treestar
(82,383 posts)trolling the Pope probably isn't a sin. I suppose lying is bearing false witness though. But for nonbelievers, it is arguably irrelevant.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)a mortal sin or just a venal one?
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)What happened to Ratzie? I hear he's in a Papal dungeon.
You really think it is all about damage control now? That he actually admires Kim Davis? That he's throwing her under the bus to avoid embarrassment? That makes him look pretty bad if it is true, so I can understand your skepticism.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Francis and Davis share their views on marriage equality, in fact I hear the Pope just opened the synod with a speech against it, so it's really hard to tell.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)I am not going to defend him or the church, but I do think the fundie Protestants purposely played him because they thought they would get away with it. It's really up to him to mend the fences. I am not a religious person, so my opinion means nothing. I do defend LGBT rights and women's choice which has always put me at odds with most church doctrine anyway.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)would always watch midnight mass and all that. I was able to hold onto that innocence until Benedict was elected, and then it became easy to dislike him, he started life literally a Hitler youth, and didn't progress much further (And he looked like an evil sorcerer) I had been speculating for a while that they would follow JP with someone horrible, then follow that Pope with someone who was great to kinda reset the papacy in terms of public perception.
Who comes next? Probably someone forgettable who will let the power structure recover from the scandals that have been rocking the church for decades (Longer, really. Has it ever been scandal free?) I really don't understand how anyone can look at what's happened and not turn around immediately.
The Pope isn't a good man, and that is not a specific charge against Frank, it's part of the role. They claim the hate is part of unchangeable scripture, and there hasn't been one to buck it in ages. Like I've said before, when he performs a marriage ceremony for two female priests we can talk progressive actions.
catbyte
(34,174 posts)climate change, but I still don't trust him to make any significant changes. I'm Ojibwe, so I'm naturally skeptical of the church. I hope I'm wrong.
niyad
(112,436 posts)Vatican fires gay priest on eve of synod
VATICAN CITY (AP) The Vatican on Saturday fired a monsignor who came out as gay on the eve of a big meeting of the world's bishops to discuss church outreach to gays, divorcees and more traditional Catholic families.
Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa, left, and his boyfriend Eduard, surname not given, pose for a photo as they leave a restaurant after a news conference in downtown Rome, Saturday Oct. 3, 2015.
The Vatican took action after Krzysztof Charamsa, a mid-level official in its doctrine office, came out in newspaper interviews in Italy and Poland saying he was happy and proud to be a gay priest, and that he was in love with a man whom he identified as his boyfriend.
"The decision to make such a pointed statement on the eve of the opening of the synod appears very serious and irresponsible, since it aims to subject the synod assembly to undue media pressure," the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said in a statement.
As a result, Charamsa could no longer work at the Vatican or its pontifical universities, he said. Despite his dismissal, Charamsa remains a priest, although Lombardi hinted that his superiors could take further action.
. . . .
http://www.mail.com/news/world/3863332-vatican-fires-gay-priest-eve-synod.html#.23140-stage-hero1-8
senz
(11,945 posts)and said so here on DU, for which I got two replies insisting that he did.
Kim Davis is self-righteous, judgmental, oppressive, and cruel. So too, in many respects, is the Catholic Church. But Pope Francis has already shown us over and over again that he is not like that. That is why so many people instinctively love this man and it is also the reason why conservatives don't trust him and don't like him.
It's ironic (and interesting) that both conservatives and virulent atheists share a rejection of this Pope's best qualities.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and advocates publicly and vigorously that an entire class of adult beings should be deprived of their full human rights, simply because of who and what they are. Decent, thinking people unhesitatingly condemn that as bigotry, no matter how nice a face you or he try to put on it. Is that one of those "best qualities" that you accuse us "virulent atheists" of rejecting?
senz
(11,945 posts)First, you need to understand that church doctrine cannot be changed by a Pope. So if he's going to keep his job (and his major identity in life), he cannot clearly and openly defy doctrine. Secondly, he has already said that the church has been talking too much about gays and abortion. When asked about gays, his response was, "Who am I to judge?" That's meaningful. As much as you might want to hang on to your safe and familiar hate object, it's out there and it's meaningful.
Secondly, he had a private meeting with a gay couple that was actually warm, personal, meaningful and accepting, unlike the Kim Davis lie.
?1443806943
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/before-kim-davis-the-pope-hung-out-with-a-gay-couple/408718/
mr blur
(7,753 posts)who doesn't really know what's going on but wanders through life inspiring people to "love" him? Kind of like. . . well, a Forrest Gump or George W. Bush?
senz
(11,945 posts)Enjoy your straw man.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The denial is very strong among some here. Sad, on a progressive web site.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the black and white if you're not with me on this one issue, you're not to be considered a fellow human, doesn't work anyway. How did we get as far as we have? By treating the ignorant and bigoted with hate and disdain? People must have changed their minds over the years - I've seen it happen over the last 40 years or so. How did that happen? And how can we enjoy the progress made if we are still going to hate people who ever thought wrongly?
Rage against the Catholic Church is not likely to make it any better. It changes very slowly, being an ancient institution. Up to 30 years ago, it was no different than most of society. How we change that is a question to be considered.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and advocates publicly and vigorously that an entire class of adult beings should be deprived of their full human rights, simply because of who and what they are.
You don't even attempt to dispute that (probably because, as we both know, you can't). And apparently, it doesn't disturb you at all, though it's hard to understand how anyone who claims to be a progressive could fail be outraged by it.
As far as church doctrine, so what? Does it REQUIRE every representative of the church to campaign actively for human rights violations? No. And if you think otherwise, WTF are you doing supporting or defending such an organization?
And tell you what...why don't you put that cherry-picked "who am I to judge" quote in its full context? It's been mis-used so often that I'm amazed people still try to slip it by. As far as it being "meaningful", apparently not so much:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141223768
Vatican fires gay priest on eve of Catholic bishops meeting
Apparently that qualifies as "not judging" to you.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)as is her nitwit lawyer. This was nothing but a bogus publicity stunt, as has been made exceedingly clear.