HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Pope, on Good Friday, bla...

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 09:12 PM

Pope, on Good Friday, blasts indifference to suffering.

Source: La Prensa

Pope Francis presided Friday over the Way of the Cross rite in Rome's Coliseum, where he invoked the plight of refugees and victims and denounced terrorists, pedophile priests and arms merchants, among others.

"O Cross of Christ, today we see you in the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas which have become insatiable cemeteries, reflections of our indifferent and anesthetized conscience," he said, referring to refugees from Middle Eastern wars who die trying to reach Europe.

The crucifix, he told the tens of thousands in the Coliseum, represents those who suffer and those who try to relieve suffering, but also the "doctors of death" who cause violence and other woes.

Francis, 79, likewise had harsh words for some within the Catholic Church, excoriating pedophile priests as "unfaithful ministers who, instead of stripping themselves of their own vain ambitions, divest even the innocent of their dignity."

Turning to the persecution of Middle Eastern Christians by Islamic militants, the Argentine pontiff spoke of "our sisters and brothers killed, burned alive, throats slit and decapitated by barbarous blades amid cowardly silence."

The pope decried "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions which profane the name of God and which use the holy name to justify their unprecedented violence."

Francis echoed his own comments earlier this week following the deadly terror attacks in Brussels when he blasted "arms dealers who feed the cauldron of war with the innocent blood of our brothers and sisters."

Read more: http://www.laprensasa.com/309_america-in-english/3710485_pope-on-good-friday-blasts-indifference-to-suffering.html

22 replies, 2565 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pope, on Good Friday, blasts indifference to suffering. (Original post)
forest444 Mar 2016 OP
longship Mar 2016 #1
forest444 Mar 2016 #3
longship Mar 2016 #4
pnwmom Mar 2016 #6
msongs Mar 2016 #9
pnwmom Mar 2016 #11
Major Nikon Mar 2016 #12
cprise Mar 2016 #10
Viva_La_Revolution Mar 2016 #2
longship Mar 2016 #5
Viva_La_Revolution Mar 2016 #8
pnwmom Mar 2016 #7
greymouse Mar 2016 #13
pnwmom Mar 2016 #15
greymouse Mar 2016 #17
pnwmom Mar 2016 #19
greymouse Mar 2016 #20
pnwmom Mar 2016 #21
Socal31 Mar 2016 #14
pnwmom Mar 2016 #16
proverbialwisdom Mar 2016 #18
forest444 Mar 2016 #22

Response to forest444 (Original post)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 09:20 PM

1. First, search in your own closets.

Then one can condemn suffering.

Justice! Apparently a term the Catholic Church still does not yet understand.

Come out, come out, wherever you are.

Here's Rachel Maddow in one of her best of her best:


Love her. And all Popes are the same damned thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 09:48 PM

3. To be fair, John Paul and Ratzo were both said to be closet cases. But not Francis.

The young Bergoglio was known to have an eye for women during this youth in Argentina. To his mother's chagrin (and his girlfirend's) he gave it all up.

That said, whilr Francis has made positive steps toward uncovering child molesters more needs to be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forest444 (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 09:52 PM

4. Yes. Much more needs to be done.

Starting with not sheltering the monsters.

Let's start there.

Apparently Francis is not to that level. Yet. We will see. I don't hold out much hope for those who have suffered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 10:59 PM

6. Try reading his actual words. He's been excoriating pedophile priests and the bishops who

protected them.

For example, from that link:

Francis, 79, likewise had harsh words for some within the Catholic Church, excoriating pedophile priests as "unfaithful ministers who, instead of stripping themselves of their own vain ambitions, divest even the innocent of their dignity."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:37 PM

9. so how many did he report to the cops? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 12:31 AM

11. In a change from previous Popes, Francis has directed all the Bishops to report these cases

to the local authorities.

In response to an earlier statement that such reporting wasn't required, the Pope's commission has strongly affirmed that Bishops MUST report sex and child abuse.

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/02/15/papal-commission-bishops-must-report-sex-abuse-charges/

February 15, 2016

Papal commission: Bishops must report sex abuse charges

SNIP

However, in a strongly worded statement Monday, the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, a body created by Pope Francis in 2014 and led by Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, insisted that Catholic officials should make such reports.

The commission includes a cross-section of the Church’s leading experts on the detection and prevention of child sexual abuse, including an Irish abuse survivor.

“As Pope Francis has so clearly stated, ‘The crimes and sins of the sexual abuse of children must not be kept secret for any longer. I pledge the zealous vigilance of the Church to protect children and the promise of accountability for all’,” the statement said.

“We, the president and the members of the commission, wish to affirm that our obligations under civil law must certainly be followed, but even beyond these civil requirements, we all have a moral and ethical responsibility to report suspected abuse to the civil authorities who are charged with protecting our society.”

SNIP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 09:52 AM

12. In other words, do the minimum required in order to protect the church from lawsuits

Meanwhile the beloved pope makes John Paul II a saint after he spent decades covering for child rapists. Very telling that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:59 PM

10. A depiction of Catholic indifference to suffering:


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Viva_La_Revolution (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 10:00 PM

5. Is this a lesson on a way to highjack a thread?

I think you fail.

And I voted for Bernie in MI. Your post is an embarrassment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:11 PM

8. when the Pope says don't deal arms

Right up there in the post, how is that highjacking? The first poster says to check our own closets.. So i did. The US is a major source of the arms used all over the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_La_Revolution (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 25, 2016, 11:00 PM

7. Horrors! As Secretary of State she facilitated Boeing selling its aircraft to an ally. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 09:55 AM

13. the U.S.

has stinking dirty hands, selling arms to disgusting states all over the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymouse (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 10:43 AM

15. Blame President Obama then. She was doing her job.

Oh, and while you're at it, you should blame Bernie Sanders, because he supported Obama. And he also supported the F-35 because of the jobs it would produce in Vermont.

And don't forget the other militaristic positions Bernie's taken. And, looking at violence from a different perspective, he got pretty dirty shaking hands with the NRA, and voting against the Brady bill and for the bill to overturn manufacturers' liability.

Gee, maybe he isn't Bernie-so-pure after all.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

The presidential candidacy of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has excited many liberals throughout the country, but there's been very little analysis of his foreign policy positions. This past Sunday Sanders criticized Hillary Clinton for her support of the Iraq war, declaring, “On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq…Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster." Sanders assertion about Clinton is obviously true, but the difference between the two candidates on war is hardly substantial and his political closet is filled with as many skeletons. Notably he supported NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, a stance which caused one of his staffers to resign in protest.

In his resignation letter to Sanders, former staffer Jeremy Brecher explained the Clinton administartion's position at the time. "While it has refused to send ground forces into Kosovo, the U.S. has also opposed and continues to oppose all alternatives that would provide immediate protection for the people of Kosovo by putting non-or partially-NATO forces into Kosovo," wrote Brecher, "...The refusal of the U.S. to endorse such proposals strongly supports the hypothesis that the goal of U.S. policy is not to save the Kosovars from ongoing destruction."

Brecher's note to Sanders closes with a set of rhetorical questions, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support? Where does that limit lie? And when that limit has been reached, what action will you take? My answers led to my resignation."

SNIP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 02:19 PM

17. there is a long disgusting U.S. history, far longer than Obama

supporting Israel, Batista, the Saudis, taking down the democratically elected government of Iran. The list goes on and on.

I'm glad to know there is no significant different between voting yes and no on war, though. That hadn't occurred to me. (rolls eyes).

As to Yugoslavia, Bernie's decision was an attempt to bring that conflict to a close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymouse (Reply #17)

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 03:35 PM

19. As to Iraq, Hillary's decision

was to vote for an IWR to enforce the UN resolution with regard to weapons of mass destruction because she thought it would give Bush bargaining power with the Iraqis. Saddam Hussein allowed the inspectors in and they didn't find any WMD's, but Bush ignored the terms of the IWR and went to war in Iraq anyway. Bush acted in bad faith -- not Hillary, or Joe Biden, or John Kerry, or the other Dems who voted for the conditional IWR.

And by the time Bush went to war, both Houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP. There was nothing the Dems could do. But if they hadn't passed the conditional October IWR, the new GOP majorities would have given Bush a blank check IWR anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #19)

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 05:40 PM

20. Actually it has never been clear to me

if Hillary was taken in by Bush or if she knew the WMD stuff was a bunch of garbage and thought if she voted against war she would look weak. Lives, of course, were of no importance.

It certainly was totally clear to me that that vote was war or not war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymouse (Reply #20)

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 05:59 PM

21. Ted Kennedy voted against it but he said he didn't blame the Dems who voted for it

because he had access to classified information that they didn't have (as a member of the Armed Services Committee.) Unfortunately, he wasn't allowed to share this info.

Back in those days Colin Powell was considered to be a person of some integrity, an Independent who some Dems even tried to recruit for a Presidential run as a Dem. I can understand why people like Hillary and Biden were taken in. They never expected Colin Powell to be lying through his teeth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forest444 (Original post)

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 10:03 AM

14. Although I agree with the message....the messenger makes it seem disingenuous.

This is coming from an organization worth billions that preys mainly on the poor in the form of a collection plate.

I also wonder how many children and families are suffering world wide in sub-standard living conditions, due to the "no birth control" edict?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 26, 2016, 10:53 AM

16. This is coming from a messenger who's doing his best to turn the organization around.

But he's only one person and he's not a dictator, despite what his detractors think.

And in the US, Catholics are more likely to use birth control than non-Catholics. So I think the lack of birth control use in the third world is more related to poverty and accessibility than to fervent following of the Church's teaching on B.C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 27, 2016, 11:48 AM

22. Thanks, proverbialwisdom!

Very nice indeed. Happy Easter to you and yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread