Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pope Francis: Totally Cool and With the Times
#71

Hey, that's our parallel-universe Vice President you're talking about, mister!

Reply
#72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 


Is televangelism really a Catholic thing?



I'm not a cheerleader for the Vatican or anything, but the leader of the Church just came out with a sweeping, public, detailed renunciation of the entire world's financial system, in order to remain truer to the letter and spirit of the teachings he is sworn to promote.  Doing so will no doubt cost him a ton of political support from within and without the Church, make enemies of many of the most powerful people and organizations in the world, and probably increase his risk of assassination by several hundred percent.



If your first response to that is to brush it off because he didn't also bankrupt the entire Church and citizen's arrest the farting preacher, then you're being an asshole.



Edit: why not?



Televagelism may not be Catholic per se, but a stern condemnation of televangelists coming from the Vatican might put a bug in the ear of some of those that count themselves as followers of the Hagee's and Osteen's out there. I'd love to see some of their followers raise their hands up and start questioning why these 'pastors' need to have super expensive suits, houses, etc.



As far as bankrupting....I doubt that the catholic church would be affected if the 'local' charlatans were knocked down a couple financial notches (at least).



This 'Evangelii Gaudium' is pretty damn radical and I do see it as calling out the televangelists in an indirect way.



Don't get me wrong, I dig the path that this Pope is taking and I realize that in order to get any sort of legitimate change to take hold with his followers, it will have to come in incremental steps...but they have a really long road ahead before they can clear off all the shit (and gold) that's caked on the churches shoes.

Reply
#73

I'm all for ruining a televangelist's day however that shakes out, I just wouldn't have filed it under papal jurisdiction.

Reply
#74
Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 

Televagelism may not be Catholic per se, but a stern condemnation of televangelists coming from the Vatican might put a bug in the ear of some of those that count themselves as followers of the Hagee's and Osteen's out there. I'd love to see some of their followers raise their hands up and start questioning why these 'pastors' need to have super expensive suits, houses, etc.





Fundies don't consider the Catholic "real" Christians. I had that fact brought home to me once when I asked a colleague if he was Catholic. "No I'm a CHRISTIAN" he snarled.

Reply
#75
AVTRan and I finally agree on something. I'm all for taking people like Osteen to task. With the amount of ridiculous, saccharine BS that spews from that man's mouth in the name of God, and the amount of money it pours into his pockets... it just makes me really angry. Reminds me of when Jesus physically removed the money changers from the temple.
Reply
#76

Regarding the whole Church selling its riches thing:



The Vatican is pretty much one the world's biggest museum and most of what it earns from tourism actually goes to restoration/maintenance of the whole place; same goes for the Vatican archives (which are actually not all that secret; sure, there are secret documents regarding Vatican politics and so on, but pretty much any academic with enough credentials can access the archives; the real issue is that the archives are valuable as heck, and thus are kept under lock and key); while the Vatican is clearly monumental and ostentatious, is the product of thousands of years of history and development, and its value and riches comes from the real state  value and the tourism/academic worth of the place and its treasures. The one real problem the Vatican has with money is that as its own nation and having its own bank, the place has come under (much needed) scrutiny by the Italian Government, and Pope Francis has already started a massive reform and investigation to clean up the Vatican Bank's procedures and bookkeeping.



As for the gap between Pope Francis opinions/works and that huffpost piece:



The Church is an institution with thousands of years of history, laws and bureaucracy; The Pope isn't an emperor or dictator in it, and pretty much must deal with the Council of Cardinals and a lot of inner investigations and discussions when it comes to cases like that; plenty of radical priests with liberal ideas have been suspended or expelled, only to be re-ordained or reincorporated into the church after months or years of investigations and dialog; you wont see the church suddenly approving of gay marriage or abortion, or even female clergy or priest marriages while under Francis leadership, but the guy's Jesuit and political background will bring a lot of analysis, discussion and might even trigger a new Vatican Council in the future; change comes slow to the Church, but  a popular and headstrong Pope is all thats needed for it to begin.

Reply
#77

Folks, if you're waiting for a Pope to contradict the church's stance on abortion, you'll be waiting until there are no longer Popes. His assertion that maybe the church spends too much time focusing on abortion (and birth control and homosexuality) is probably the best you will ever get.



VTRan, protestants (including Evangelicals and televangelists) would sooner recognize Barack Obama's authority over their church than the Pope's.



Harford, learn something about the Catholic Church and the Jesuit Order before making sweeping statements about magic and lack of intellectual rigor.

Reply
#78
Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post
 


Sarah, ahem...THAT'S WHAT JESUS WAS DOING, YOU IGNORAMUS! HE WAS A LIBERAL! DO YOU THINK THIS IS SOME FUCKING GAME ABOUT SOULS? NO, THIS BULLSHIT IS ABOUT THE FUCKING ECONOMY AND JESUS WAS ALL 'HEY, MAYBE SHIT'S FUCKED UP.' THE OLD WAYS WERE ABOUT ORDER, CONTROL, MONEY AND POWER (they still are) AND JESUS WAS THE DUDE THAT SAID NO MORE AND THEY FUCKING KILLED HIM FOR IT BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT NO MAN SHOULD GO HUNGRY OR WITHOUT SHELTER AND THAT THOSE WHO HAVE SHOULD GIVE TO THOSE WHO AREN'T AS FORTUNATE. How is this difficult to understand?



And if my source, Neal Stephenson is to be believed, it took 50 days for his followers to fuck it all up. Good show.



Sorry. Lost it a little there.



Actually, it took 50 days for the followers to disperse and go their own ways, since they were pretty much persecuted by the romans and seen as heretics by the Jewish Authorities of the time; the Church itself didnt get its shit together until the moment when it became the religion of the Roman Empire and spread across Europe.


If you can tolerate some fiction with your history, give Johhny Cash's (yep that Johhny Cash) "Man in White" a look; the book really nails just how controversial (and justly so) jesus followers and their ideas were at the time.


Also, every religion has a massive disconnection after the death of its founder/disciples; hell, im pretty sure modern catholics, jews or muslims would have a stroke if they would follow more of the men they believe in rather than their teachings (fun fact: Muhammad's first wife, Khadija, was 25 years his senior, was a merchant and had been married 3 times already; Jesus never considered himself the leader of a new religion, nor ever renounced his jewish origin/faith; and Abraham....well, he kinda invented divorce while he was at it)

Reply
#79
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeI View Post
 

Folks, if you're waiting for a Pope to contradict the church's stance on abortion, you'll be waiting until there are no longer Popes. His assertion that maybe the church spends too much time focusing on abortion (and birth control and homosexuality) is probably the best you will ever get.



This....although I think that in time, the Church might be more open to non abortive birth control methods and perhaps civil gay unions.

Reply
#80
ABefore everybody get too worked up thinking rhetoric like this is some kind of radical U-turn, here's what a few minutes of googling turned up:

Quote:Pope Benedict XVI, 2009

Without doubt, one of the greatest risks for businesses is that they are almost exclusively answerable to their investors, thereby limiting their social value.

Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end ... Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.

[e]conomic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good
Source

Quote:Pope John Paul II, 1987

Moreover, one must denounce the existence of economic, financial and social mechanisms which, although they are manipulated by people, often function almost automatically, thus accentuating the situation of wealth for some and poverty for the rest.
Source

Quote:Pope Paul VI, 1967

What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice.
Source
Reply
#81

I wish I knew how to quit this Pope.  Best Pontiff ever.  It's about time the highest profile priest took a real stand on what vulture capitalism is doing to the poor (and everyone else).

Reply
#82

I hear you on that.  I'm not really Catholic anymore, but I would totally get high with Pope Francis.

Reply
#83

A good article from Salon on how efforts to truly address economic equality must also tackle reproductive justice/LGBTQ rights:



http://www.salon.com/2013/11/27/sorry_po...ssues_too/



Francis is without a doubt an improvement over his more stiff predecessors, and he is being rightly praised for his remarks (which were, it must be said, also spoken by his predecessors, if not quite as forcefully), but his statements on the scandals within the church, women in the priesthood, LGBTQ individuals and reproductive justice aren't exactly more progressive in any meaningful way.  It's perhaps too much to expect modest reforms at this particular time, but they have to be part of the discussion when we consider economic issues.  That's why I'm mildly uncomfortable when I see nothing but endless praise for Francis (at its worst following his comments about the LGBTQ community, which were hardly radical) at the expense of a more nuanced analysis of how he's continuing to embrace, or at least remain silent on, these matters.



It's not enough to ignore them.  It's not enough to say a few nice things about them.  They're part of the solution.

Reply
#84

IMO, if the Vatican/Pope really wants to take one relatively small step in the right direction, throw out any and all obstruction to the use of contraceptives.



They get to choose...if the church wants to rail about the evils of abortion, they can't also be against the use of contraception.



Embracing the use of contraception could be a win/win for them. It might actually end up lowering the abortion rate and it will help in preventing the spreading of disease, HIV specifically.


Quote:

The Catholic Church is the largest private provider of care to HIV AIDS patients in the world. In relation to the sexual transmission of the disease, the Church holds that sexual-abstinence before marriage and monogamy inside marriage are a better means of limiting the spread of the epidemic than is the use of condoms.



In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI characterized condom use as not a "real or moral solution" to the spread of AIDS, but potentially a "first step" in the direction of moralization and responsibility, when used with "the intention of reducing the risk of infection".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_AIDS



Sorry, Benny....but that's bullshit. Abstinence education has been shown to be completely ineffectual. People like to fuck and waving a finger saying "don't do it" just doesn't work.

Reply
#85

I absolutely agree as a matter of public policy. But the Pope is not a policy maker, he is the leader of a religion which was founded when having as many children as possible was critical to the survival of the tribe. That culture is deeply ingrained and is not going to change, regardless of whether or not it is the most logical policy.



Many of the Catholic Church's least progressive rules come from that same root... more kids with a family unit to support them was important for the survival of the society.

Reply
#86

  While I remain a lapsed Catholic I do thinks its a good thing The Pope has spoken out on economic disparity. Hopefully someone who is considered a moral voice will help help counter those who are anti-union, and think trickle down economics still works. I'm curious as to what Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum think of Pope Francis. However since both of them could care less what the Catholic Church thought of invading Iraq, it wouldn't be the first time they ignored them when they where told what they didn't want to hear.




Quote:


Originally Posted by Art Decade View Post
 

Hey, that's our parallel-universe Vice President you're talking about, mister!


 I hear she actually looks good with a goatee.

I've got good news and I've got bad news. The bad news is that I have lost my way. The good news is that I'm way ahead of schedule.
Reply
#87
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

Once again the dim cunt can't even speak using proper sentences.



You'd do her, admit it!

Reply
#88
ARight from the start I thought her supposed appeal was something only sex starved repressed republicans could pick up on, like how only dogs can hear certain types of sound, but now I delight in the fact that she's visibly withered into a dried up old crone and yet still dresses and styles her hair as if she had a ounce of sex appeal left. No one wants to fuck grandma, sorry Palin.
Reply
#89
AOuch. Doc, I love you man, but a bit more decorum would not go amiss. You used the c-word first and now you're defining her by whether she's worthy of getting boned.

Again, not saying SHE is a great face for the feminist movement in general, but you shouldn't have to stoop to her level to insult her. The "sex appeal" stuff is fine, but maybe you've sorta taken it a bit too far?
Reply
#90
A[quote name="Aurora Vampiris" url="/community/t/148647/pope-francis-totally-cool-and-with-the-times/50#post_3627279"]Ouch. Doc, I love you man, but a bit more decorum would not go amiss. You used the c-word first and now you're defining her by whether she's worthy of getting boned.

Again, not saying SHE is a great face for the feminist movement in general, but you shouldn't have to stoop to her level to insult her. The "sex appeal" stuff is fine, but maybe you've sorta taken it a bit too far?[/quote]

I am not the first person nor the last on this board to call her a cunt. She has more than earned it with her race baiting anti intellectual incitement.

Also, it was neocons who drove the "OMG Palin is so hot, she's a starrrr!" rhetoric during 2008 and still try to prop her up with that stuff. Forget it, she's not the least bit sexy. When she's the one winking at debates and shit, and conservatives pundits are talking about how she gives them tight pants syndrome, it's fair game.
Reply
#91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurora Vampiris View Post

Ouch. Doc, I love you man, but a bit more decorum would not go amiss. You used the c-word first and now you're defining her by whether she's worthy of getting boned.

Again, not saying SHE is a great face for the feminist movement in general, but you shouldn't have to stoop to her level to insult her. The "sex appeal" stuff is fine, but maybe you've sorta taken it a bit too far?

Amongst many of the jingoistic, mouth-breathing, yeehaw!-2nd amendment-forever crowd, SP is/was considered "really hawt".



SP fulfills this fetishistic fantasy of many conservatives....it's the stereotypical "A wife must be a maid in the living room, a cook in the kitchen and a whore in the bedroom."  Coulter, Pam Geller, Michelle Malkin, Female Fox News commentators, etc. all fit this pattern.



The GOP is pretty damn retrograde when it comes to embracing 'equal rights'. In fact, I would argue that the the level of sexism within the GOP is pretty damn high given many of their political positions. Negative attitudes toward women might also exist on the progressive side of the aisle but it's minimal and nowhere near the level that it is on the right.



IMO, if SP hadn't been considered attractive by many in the GOP/conservative community, she would have never have gotten as far as she did.

Reply
#92

I heard she apologized for what she said about the Pope.

Reply
#93
AExactly what I'm saying. Criticize the substance and all that. Rather than capitulating on the crudeness (unless you're being subversive - of course, I personally don't really like post-modern ironic subversion... I don't think it affects the status quo in any way).

Maybe I'm the only person here that thinks so. In that case, I apologize for being overly sensitive. Just thought I'd weigh in.
Reply
#94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rylander View Post
 

I heard she apologized for what she said about the Pope.


Probably because someone told her she should.




And then there's this tub of goo....


Rush Limbaugh vs. Pope Francis


Quote:

Revved up, Limbaugh then upbraided Pope Francis in language he has used to go after Bill and Hillary Clinton, and President Obama:



“I’ve gotta be very caref(ul). I have been numerous times to the Vatican. It wouldn’t exist without tons of money.  But regardless, what this is — Somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him.  This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope.  There’s no such (thing as) ‘unfettered capitalism.’ That doesn’t exist anywhere.”

Reply
#95
A[quote name="Aurora Vampiris" url="/community/t/148647/pope-francis-totally-cool-and-with-the-times/50#post_3627279"]Ouch. Doc, I love you man, but a bit more decorum would not go amiss. You used the c-word first and now you're defining her by whether she's worthy of getting boned.

Again, not saying SHE is a great face for the feminist movement in general, but you shouldn't have to stoop to her level to insult her. The "sex appeal" stuff is fine, but maybe you've sorta taken it a bit too far?[/quote]

You'll never hear me say word one about Elizabeth Warren's appearence because she ws never marketed as a "hottie" and she doesn't try to skirt by on her looks the way Palin has used it as part of her image since day one. The winks. The tight skirts and heels. All that shit. Sarah Palin wants credit for being a former beauty queen - well ok, honey, I'll judge you on those merits, and in this case I'd ask the Empress to please for the love of god keep her clothes on.

VT is right. She's such an inane, vacuous bimbo that if she wasn't 'hot', she would never have gotten anywhere at all in the GOP. That was the entire foundation for her image since day one.
Reply
#96
AAgain, I see nothing wrong with criticizing her superficiality or her rhetoric. But there IS a way to go about doing so (like you are doing now, which is the "right" way to go about it). Nonetheless, I see no point in dwelling on what were throwaway remarks. So let's move on. Like I said, I apologize if you think I was being over sensitive.
Reply
#97

I'm right on board with not sinking to the level of the opposition. Aurora, you're never going to convert Harford or VT about the value of moral authority.

Reply
#98
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeI View Post
 

I'm right on board with not sinking to the level of the opposition. Aurora, you're never going to convert Harford or VT about the value of moral authority.



At the risk of drawing this out and sounding like Rodney Dangerfield.... : )



It's a question of 'respect'.



IMO, there is a basic level of respect that can be given freely in regards to acknowledging an individuals opinions and statements.



Past a certain point, any respect must be earned.



Based on previous statements and actions, SP deserves little to no respect. Her opinions don't deserve thoughtful consideration as, more times than naught, there was no thoughtful consideration involved in forming them.



Is SP stupid?.....no, but she is a poster child for the ignorance that infects much of society these days and people like her need to be derided at every opportunity.

Reply
#99
AAlso just wanted to add that I wouldn't comment on Mary Landaru or Kay Bailey Hutchinson's appearence. Both are politicians I loath but I'll leave the question of their sex appeal to their husbands.


The difference is that Pailin's supporters and Palin herself have built an entire legacy around her supposed sex appeal, and so it's very much fair game to point out that she isn't the least bit attractive - certainly not now in 2013.
Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

Also just wanted to add that I wouldn't comment on Mary Landaru or Kay Bailey Hutchinson's appearence.


The difference is that Pailin's supporters and Palin herself have built an entire legacy around her supposed sex appeal, and so it's very much fair game to point out that she isn't the least bit attractive - certainly not now in 2013.


Remember though....beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 


At the risk of drawing this out and sounding like Rodney Dangerfield.... : )



It's a question of 'respect'.



IMO, there is a basic level of respect that can be given freely in regards to acknowledging an individuals opinions and statements.



Past a certain point, any respect must be earned.



Based on previous statements and actions, SP deserves little to no respect. Her opinions don't deserve thoughtful consideration as, more times than naught, there was no thoughtful consideration involved in forming them.



Is SP stupid?.....no, but she is a poster child for the ignorance that infects much of society these days and people like her need to be derided at every opportunity.



I give Sarah Palin's public statements zero credence. She's a demagogue with little concern for actual policy, loose regard for the facts, and a stunning ability to pontificate (irony!) without full information. She is not a person I respect. But I can do all of this without calling her a bimbo or referencing her real or perceived attractiveness.



The fact that she winks (!) and wears tight skirts and heels (!!) are not in the Top 50 things that are wrong with her. When they are the things that are pointed out, it makes her opposition rightly look shallow and all too personal.

Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeI View Post
 


I give Sarah Palin's public statements zero credence. She's a demagogue with little concern for actual policy, loose regard for the facts, and a stunning ability to pontificate (irony!) without full information. She is not a person I respect. But I can do all of this without calling her a bimbo or referencing her real or perceived attractiveness.



The fact that she winks (!) and wears tight skirts and heels (!!) are not in the Top 50 things that are wrong with her. When they are the things that are pointed out, it makes her opposition rightly look shallow and all too personal.



I can agree with this but I don't think it's out of bounds to discuss the idea that her appearance was a huge factor in her appeal to many of the conservative base.



Just like the conservative media played up the "he's a good 'ol rancher" aspect of GW Bush shouldn't discount the discussion that GW actually came from money and grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth....but the fact that it was downplayed in order to appeal to the conservative, blue collar voting base.



Admittedly, the line between criticism being construed as being a 'personal attack' and 'legitimate concern' is blurry.


 

 

Reply

It doesn't need to be either. W's folksy, rancher persona is the least of his sins, too.

Reply

  While I enjoy swearing even I use the C word sparingly. The best way to describe Palin is that she is as unpatriotic as she is ignorant. If she was a patriot she would have finished her term and not told the Alaska separatist group to keep up the good work. If she was smart, or at least had half a clue, she would know what the Vice President does.



  If Rush doesn't like Pope Francis, then he is OK in my book. For me Pope Francis is like Stryper. Neither of them will make me a believer, but I like them. I do give the edge to Stryper because they rock and the Pope as far as I know hasn't addressed the child molesting problem. Turning his predecessor over to the police would have been a start.

I've got good news and I've got bad news. The bad news is that I have lost my way. The good news is that I'm way ahead of schedule.
Reply

Dude, I totally want Stryper to play at the Vatican one of these days now. Thanks for the image, jackass!

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)