HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » The Pope’s New Clothes

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 10:24 AM

The Pope’s New Clothes

THE IMAGE OF Pope Francis is that he is a breath of fresh air, more progressive on social issues than his predecessor and a kinder, gentler pope. But when the facts are examined, you see that he is none of these things. There is an enormous disconnect between who the pope really is in terms of his policies and his public relations image, as crafted by the Vatican’s PR man, previously with Fox News. The current PR mission is all about reversing the incredible decline in fundraising under the last pope from the U.S. Catholic Church in particular. Pope Francis has made any number of statements that seem to indicate change and progress that are not reflected in policy. In fact, in the wake of such comments from Pope Francis, the Vatican often makes a point to explicitly state that no church policy has changed.

While the pope transmits a populist vibe—particularly about the economy— he is an old-school conservative who, despite his great PR, maintains nearly all of the social policies of his predecessors and keeps up a hardline Vatican “cabinet.” He has done virtually nothing to change the policies of the church to match his more compassionate rhetoric. People excuse the pope, claiming that he doesn’t have much power to make changes, but this simply isn’t true. Further, it is ludicrous to suggest that a man who denies comprehensive reproductive health care (including all forms of birth control including condoms and abortion) and comprehensive family planning is a man who cares about the poor of this world. The bigotry of homophobia and sexism cloaked in religion are still bigotry and sexism. By giving to the church, American Catholics aren’t supporting “progress,” they are supporting oppression and in this way are complicit in the bigotry, sexism, and oppression of the church.

--snip--

Forbes points out that U.S. Catholics are responsible for almost a third of the charitable contributions that directly fund the Holy See, contributions that were down from $82 million in 2009 to 70 million in 2011. This time period overlaps the decline in Pope Benedict’s favorable numbers among U.S. Catholics and is widely attributed to Benedict’s lack of PR finesse, handling of the church’s sexual abuse scandal, and launching of an investigation into the practices of the American nuns. The same piece in Forbes points out that “as of the last Vatican financial report from mid-2012, the Holy See is in the red. The Church may be growing more rapidly in Africa and South America, but both the faithful and religious institutions in those nations simply do not have access to significant resources.” The U.S. Catholics are an imperative center of the funding picture for the church worldwide.

And these already staggering figures only account for money collected directly by the Catholic Church. Including the money raised by Catholic Charities paints an even more impressive picture of just how much money American Catholics are pouring into the coffers of the Church and Church-related organizations. According to Forbes, in FY 2012, Catholic Charities USA raised $4.39 billion dollars for its charitable and social service programs. Combine the facts that U.S. Catholics fund the majority of the Church’s activities worldwide, the decline in donations from U.S. Catholics, and how the drop in donations correlates with the decline in reputation of the Catholic Church in America over the same time period and the need for a serious PR campaign becomes clear: Improve the Church’s image with U.S. Catholics in order to improve the cash flow.

The new sexist, nun-hating, poverty-perpetuating, pedophile-protecting homophobe is the same as the old sexist, nun-hating, poverty-perpetuating, pedophile-protecting homophobe, but gosh how the media loves him.


http://www.theweeklings.com/amarch/2014/06/20/the-popes-new-clothes/




More at link.

69 replies, 9551 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 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Pope’s New Clothes (Original post)
cleanhippie Jun 2014 OP
skepticscott Jun 2014 #1
gtar100 Jun 2014 #2
Igel Jun 2014 #6
rug Jun 2014 #3
edhopper Jun 2014 #4
okasha Jun 2014 #5
Lordquinton Jun 2014 #7
okasha Jun 2014 #8
Lordquinton Jun 2014 #17
okasha Jun 2014 #18
trotsky Jun 2014 #9
Goblinmonger Jun 2014 #11
trotsky Jun 2014 #12
Goblinmonger Jun 2014 #13
rug Jun 2014 #14
pinto Jun 2014 #16
okasha Jun 2014 #23
MellowDem Jun 2014 #19
okasha Jun 2014 #20
MellowDem Jun 2014 #22
okasha Jun 2014 #25
MellowDem Jun 2014 #27
okasha Jun 2014 #29
MellowDem Jun 2014 #32
rug Jun 2014 #26
MellowDem Jun 2014 #28
rug Jun 2014 #33
MellowDem Jun 2014 #35
rug Jun 2014 #37
MellowDem Jun 2014 #42
rug Jun 2014 #44
MellowDem Jun 2014 #46
rug Jun 2014 #54
Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #57
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #59
Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #60
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #61
Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #63
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #64
Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #65
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #67
Starboard Tack Jul 2014 #68
rug Jun 2014 #24
MellowDem Jun 2014 #30
rug Jun 2014 #34
MellowDem Jun 2014 #36
rug Jun 2014 #38
MellowDem Jun 2014 #40
rug Jun 2014 #41
MellowDem Jun 2014 #43
rug Jun 2014 #45
MellowDem Jun 2014 #50
rug Jun 2014 #51
trotsky Jun 2014 #10
rug Jun 2014 #15
okasha Jun 2014 #21
Heddi Jun 2014 #31
rug Jun 2014 #39
Heddi Jun 2014 #47
rug Jun 2014 #52
okasha Jun 2014 #48
Heddi Jun 2014 #49
rug Jun 2014 #53
okasha Jun 2014 #55
mr blur Jul 2014 #56
okasha Jul 2014 #62
mr blur Jul 2014 #66
Heddi Jul 2014 #58
AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #69

Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 11:31 AM

1. Yes, but the "cautious optimism"

 

of the clique of papal apologists here outweighs any of this. As long as they like him, as long as they can find one fuzzy-wuzzy thing to cling to, as long as there are staged photo-ops for them to gush over, he deserves all of the slack they can cut him, and anyone who claims otherwise is just an anti-catholic crank and a bigot.

Nevertheless, I think this is a Great Read (r) and an Excellent Post (r), despite what the usual suspects will no doubt be lining up to spew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 01:48 PM

2. Isn't it interesting how they run to progressive liberal ideas in order to get the support of

the people. Once again proving that conservative ideology is of benefit to only a few, and generally only those willing to be despicable, selfish individuals.

Pope Francis started out with some very refreshing talk about economic justice. But at some point, the talk has to turn into action or it's nothing but hot air. If this article is accurate, apparently the "economics" they are so concerned with is their own. The bitter taste of disappointment this leaves is all too familiar and unfortunately not all that surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gtar100 (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 05:51 PM

6. Why assume it's a facade?

That he's "running to progressive liberal ideas" to get support for the policies he *really* believes in.

His beliefs are unrelated to American political ideologies. Arguably, they're only tangentially related to Argentine political ideologies.

The problem is that we assume that traits come in nice, neat predetermined packages or sets, and that if you have a trait that belongs to one set you must obligatorily have the rest of the set. We manufacture our own blinkers and then blinker ourselves, only to accuse others of blinkering us.

This is easy, sloppy thinking. We assume that the only way to package traits is into the sets that we've seen among our friends and enemies. This isn't something thought through; it's something we assume as a property of nature. When our implicit, easy assumptions don't turn out to be true, it's easier to blame somebody else than the sloppiness of our thinking and the mutability of our assumptions. If we make bad predictions, it's not the reasoning behind our predictions that is wrong but inconsistency on the part of the other person that's the problem. The only thing that we really get out of that kind of game is a renewed commitment to mental sloth--we can rest content that we really do have the right set of assumptions about how others are put together and we can go back to just being snarking and criticizing those we don't like (and don't understand). With a bonus--now we can be contemptuous of the other person for being inconsistent and slighting us.

Flip it around. Assume that Francis is being consistent, that all those alleged surface inconsistencies reflect an deeper, underlying consistency. Then work out what that has to mean for his belief system and values. As you do that, however, be aware of what linked choices you're assuming: Can you be in favor or X and still be against Y?

It's a good exercise in open-mindedness and critical thinking. Once you've done it a few times it becomes second nature and eliminates a lot of perceived inconsistencies. And you can turn the analytical tool on yourself. (Some inconsistencies still probably remain, but usually if you pose them the right way you can get the person involved to make sense of it or to say, "Yeah, that's not really consistent, is it?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 02:32 PM

3. It's a screed from an expected source.

 

Kent and I got to drinking there, and drinking HARD, with the locals until after sunrise. At one point a guy came in with a tuba. A guy came in with a parrot on his shoulder. Nobody blinked. A minister came by and said a prayer over all of us, but in a nice way. A guy came in a suit on his way to work and without saying a word, was served a shot of bourbon that he slammed. Then he left, leaving a ten spot on the bar. When the peep show girls came in before they started the day shift, we stumbled out and then went and had beignets and coffee from Café Du Monde.

Well, I’m an atheist, but it was a spiritual experience, I tell you. New Orleans is like that. Everything is crazy and beautiful, even when it’s not.

http://www.drinkingdiaries.com/2012/03/21/an-interview-with-anna-march-author-of-the-forthcoming-novel-%E2%80%9Cthe-diary-of-suzanne-frank-%E2%80%9D/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 03:51 PM

4. I don't understand what your quote

has to do with anything?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 05:17 PM

5. Kudos to the donors to

Catholic Charities. They provide shelter for homeless persons, three squares a day for the hungry, help low-income folks with rent and utilities, provide legal counsel for immigrants, run safe houses for battered women and their children, and that's just for starters. Yes, there's a good argument to be made that government should provide these services. Hard fact is that it doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 07:34 PM

7. What a nice libertarian standpoint you have there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 29, 2014, 07:41 PM

8. Really?

I thought libertarians were the guys who wanted government to stay out of everything but war.

Or maybe you're just confused about spelling. It's L-I-B-E-R-A-L.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:25 PM

17. No, you did not make a liberal statement

You said it was a "hard fact" that the RCC helps the poor when the government doesn't, ,which is so blatantly not true you'd have to be a L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N to even think of promoting such a bald faced lie. (hint, look down thread for suggestions about how you may be wrong, like tax subsidies and the "hard fact" that the government does help the poor, not enough, but then the catholic church really doesn't step up to the plate in that regard either)

Are you also suggesting that we just ignore the crimes listed above because they kinda help the poor to retain their government subsidies? Not that I'd want an organization that is embroiled in a massive pedophilia cover-up conspiracy anywhere near children. I mean is a L-I-B-E-R-A-L group did one of the listed things (heck, if they were accused of it) they would be raided by the FBI.

When we discussed secular organizations who don't have a wrap sheet as long as your arm you accused them of preying on the poor, so you're really no one to talk about this subject as your clearly biased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:59 PM

18. Reading comprehension, boyo.

I said it was a hard fact that the government doesn't fund a list of desperately needed social services in my community, and it's a stone fact that they don't.

It's also a stone fact that local government in my area--and, unfortunately it's Democratic residue of the patron system--is deeply, endemically corrupt. That means that resources allocated to the poor go to supporters of City Councilmen and County Commissioners. And it's not just my city. It's a problem throughout South Texas, where the county poverty rate runs as high as 35%.

And by the way, L-I-B-E-R-A-L religious orgs do in fact carry out similar programs to help the poor where they have the financial base to do so.

Maybe if our government stopping pouring 57% of the national budget down the military black hole, funds for more adequate social services would become available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:10 AM

9. Yes, kudos to the US taxpayer indeed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:18 AM

11. sssshhhhh

 

Don't let facts get in the way of making a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:40 AM

12. ZOMG if not for the wonderful work done by the religious...

our society would collapse! Our government is totally worthless and thank GOD the religious pick up the slack!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:56 AM

13. You know they are supported by taxpayers, right?

 

62% of their revenue comes from the US government.

If we add together community support and diocesan support, that is only 12% of their funds. The rest comes from program fees, United Way, investments, and in-kind contributions.

Media Matters made this clear when O'Reilly made a big deal about Catholic Charities kind of like you are.

So, what, exactly is the point you are making about the good that "religion" does in this case because I don't see it. Seems like a taxpayer funded charity. We could get rid of the religious aspect and only lose 3% of the money they get each year. 3%. YEAH FOR RELIGION.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:40 PM

14. Why isn't anyone else doing this instead?

 

They are publicly bid contracts to provide social services.

YEAH FOR SECULAR CHARITIES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:20 PM

16. The funding issue has come up before. Yeah, they receive $2.9 b from the federal govt.

62% of their revenue. Yet they state that 98% of that federal funding goes to direct services, either provided by catholic charities directly or through subcontracts with other community based non-profits.

I'm taking it at face value given that the feds have an oversight process to track usage of federal grants. How thorough that is may be debatable.



Some info -

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

Charity Navigator - Catholic Charities USA

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10656#.U7HS741OXIU

Safeguards on faith-based organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships

<snip>

Faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally administered social service programs to the same degree as any other group, although certain restrictions on FBOs that accept government funding have been created by the White House to protect separation of church and state.

They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.

Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.

FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13[3]).



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:55 PM

23. The oversight can be formidable.

I once wrote a law-enforcement grant for my county for improvements of the county section of the local firing range. The RFP explicitly stated that funds were not to be used for construction. I wrote that proposal verrrry carefully. Twice before the grant was funded, I had to explain to a DOJ lady in DC why what we were proposing wasn't construction.

So the money came in , and I transferred to another department. ( Escaping from a boss who was a horrible sexist, homophobic crook.) When the grant administrator submitted a quarterly report six monhs later declaring that "construction was almost complete," the shit hit the fan, the administrator showed up at my new office wailing that the DOJ was wanting the money back, and she was going to lose her job, etc. etc.. So I called the DOJ lady and swore on my mother's grave that no construction had been done, that the ga was an idiot who usually handled housing projects and couldn't find her own backside with both hands, went out to the site, took pictures, sent them to the DOJ lady--
and my new boss said "Gee, I see why you wanted out of there."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:01 PM

19. Very little percentage wise, goes to help others of Catholic donations...

And considering it's a bigoted, homophobic, sexist, hateful organization that caused misery and death around the world by promoting such wonderful ideas as contraception being bad, it's well worth any progressive's time to give to other charities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:17 PM

20. Having been in a CSS office

and seen the flea-market furniture, and knowing how low the ED's salary is, I call bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:35 PM

22. Anecdotes are bullshit...

http://www.economist.com/node/21560536

2.7% spent on charity in 2010. And 62% of that 2.7%? From taxpayers. Fuck this bigoted organization, and fuck trying to act like big charitable givers when they spend so little on charity and most of what they spend is tax payer money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:59 PM

25. Experience

beats invective, every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:05 PM

27. Intellectual dishonesty...

allows anyone to believe whatever they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:07 PM

29. You left out

"cognitive dissonance" and "delusion. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:11 PM

32. Those are a big part too...

After all, progressives identifying with a bigoted institution require it, along with loads and loads of privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:01 PM

26. You're conflating the RCCUSA budget with the CCUSA budget.

 

Probably due to your haste to type "bigoted" and "fuck".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:06 PM

28. Where did I conflate the two?

And the Catholic Church is bigoted as fuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:17 PM

33. Here.

 

"The Economist estimates that annual spending by the church and entities owned by the church was around $170 billion in 2010 (the church does not release such figures). We think 57% of this goes on health-care networks, followed by 28% on colleges, with parish and diocesan day-to-day operations accounting for just 6% and national charitable activities just 2.7% (see chart).

That is the Church budget. No government funds go to "parish and diocesan day-to-day operations" and its charitable activities are separate from those of Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities is an entirely different entity with an entirely different funding stream and budget.

And anyone who condemns an entire religion is bigoted as fuck. Not that I give two fucks about bigots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:23 PM

35. I never said that government funds go to parish or diocesan day to day operations...

And 62% of that 2.7%? From taxpayers. Fuck this bigoted organization, and fuck trying to act like big charitable givers when they spend so little on charity and most of what they spend is tax payer money.


That is entirely true.

Anyone who thinks it's bigoted as fuck to condemn a bigoted religion for being bigoted is either stupid as fuck or bigoted as fuck, or both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #35)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:29 PM

37. "And 62% of that 2.7%? From taxpayers."

 

Due to difficulties in analyzing data, anyone who thinks anyone who thinks it's bigoted as fuck to condemn a bigoted religion for being bigoted is either stupid as fuck or bigoted as fuck, or both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:35 PM

42. Word salad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:37 PM

44. I won't disagree. I only added eight words to it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:44 PM

46. Adding words to sentences to make word salad? That's you, I won't disagree!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:51 PM

54. No, it already was. I just added a little dressing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:41 AM

57. Sounds like you have a problem with Catholics

Care to clarify? Is your issue with the religion, as you state, or with the RC Church as an institution? Or is it with both and all catholics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #57)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:01 PM

59. That poster consistently specified. Not sure why you would ask that question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #59)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:18 AM

60. Why? Because sometimes it isn't clear if a poster is bigoted or just overly opinionated.

When you call an organization bigoted OK, but when you call an entire religion bigoted, then that is being bigoted, because it broad brushes all who subscribe to that religion. Catholics have enough on their hands, right now, dealing with the stigma of pedophile priests and trying to bring the Vatican into the 21st century. They are struggling with many issues, and kicking them while they are down is not helping anyone.
I used to detest the Catholic Church, but I have gotten to know many fine Catholics, several of them priests, who are fighting to liberalize the church. These are sincerely devout believers who are opposed to traditional Vatican teaching.
I spent a few days staying very close to the Vatican and I engaged in conversations with several Italians and a few priests. There is a very positive buzz in the air at present. This pope has given new hope to many who lapsed in their faith over the years. I will never be a believer, but it is a very refreshing time to be in Rome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #60)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:15 AM

61. I don't see a difference between

"an organization" and an "entire religion". Not in this context. That is not inclusive of the individuals that adhere to the religion. Religion is an idea, it is not people.

Catholic doctrine is bigoted. We've gone over that. Does that make all members bigots? No. Catholic doctrine forbids contraceptives, yet Catholic PEOPLE score higher than the average US population on approval of the use of contraceptives.
This has to be repeated entirely too often.

That poster didn't say word one about people, and as a bystander, I enthusiastically reject the association.

Edit: See post 32. MellowDem has a very solid grasp on the difference between the org/doctrine, and the followers who are members, yet don't necessarily reflect the values of the doctrine knowingly, or willfully unknowingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #61)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:47 AM

63. I see a big difference between an organization and a religion.

The organization, in this case the Vatican, is the government which sets forth policy, just as the government of any country does. The religion is way bigger than any interim government, just as the US, as a nation, is far bigger than any one administration, or series of administrations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #63)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:18 AM

64. Catholocism is bigger than the vatican?

An interesting assertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 05:40 AM

65. Absolutely! Just as Democratic politics is larger than the NDP

Catholicism has always been larger. The word means universal. But even in the context of Roman Catholicism, the religion is bigger than the Vatican, or even the Holy See. There are many devout catholics who disagree with the Vatican on a multitude of issues that have nothing, or little to do with the basic tenets of catholicism.
The Vatican does not own the religion, anymore than the government owns the peope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #65)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 10:44 AM

67. The Catholic church won't even acknowledge Protestant churches as 'churches' at all.

They are 'communities'.

The RCC (entity headquartered in the Holy See) holds itself forth as the single and ONLY source of fullness of sanctification and truth.
(2007 "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church."

I don't see the RCC pressing trademark lawsuits anywhere (perhaps they do and I am not aware) but they refuse to recognize other 'catholic' churches. They partially recognize orthodox churches due to certain rites they still perform that overlap.

"This Church [the Church of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him . . . "

Do you see the arrogance of the RCC there? Again, it holds itself forward as the single, true, and only church of Christ.


An aside, but for those holding out that it will change on certain issues. Lawl.

""What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?" The answer is not surprising to those who understand the Latin meaning of subsist or know that the Church cannot change fundamental doctrine: ""

Granted that was the opinion of the previous magical mammal at the apex of that org.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #67)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:15 AM

68. Yes, I have no sympathy for the RCC or any church

But I have a lot of empathy for Catholics and many other people of faith.
Everyone here in Italy is trying to be positive about Pope Francis, even those who never attend church, which is most people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:55 PM

24. What is "others of Catholic donations"?

 

I can't tell if it's your facts or your syntax that's more confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:10 PM

30. 3% of charitable giving...

comes from parishioners. Charitable giving makes up 2.7% of the American Catholic Church spending.

The Catholic Church is bigoted as fuck. And my money goes to them through taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:18 PM

34. See above.

 

And don't pay taxes. You don't want to be complicit in misogyny and homophobia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:27 PM

36. See above...

Paying taxes is the same as voluntarily identifying with a bigoted organization?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:31 PM

38. It is if someone knows and believes it goes to a bigoted organization.

 

Resist!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:34 PM

40. No, no it's not...

Your logic is terrible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #40)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:35 PM

41. I'm sorry.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:36 PM

43. You must say that a lot...

Apologizing for a bigoted organization requires it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:38 PM

45. Actually I rarely do. No need.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:45 PM

50. Just like the Catholic Church! How wonderful!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MellowDem (Reply #50)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:47 PM

51. It is, isn't it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:24 AM

10. It's 2002 all over again.

I was in the minority then, not believing or trusting George Bush or his troop that war in Iraq was necessary, or that we'd be "greeted as liberators."

Oh the names we were called. Oh the viciousness and the attacks. But we were right.

Deja vu all over again, only this time it's liberals defending a sexist, homophobic leader who opposes multiple planks in our party platform - some of the core ones like reproductive choice and equal rights. I've been reviled before, for opposing a "leader" doing the wrong things. I can handle it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:41 PM

15. Your stature is heroic.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:25 PM

21. Keyboard warrior.



Surely there are medals for such courage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:11 PM

31. The group is at a loss not having you as host

I'm sorry I didn't vote for you the first time around. You do so much to raise the level of discourse in the group. Your compassion and understanding of those with differing viewpoints is to be commended. Reading your posts makes me think this is what it would be like if Ghandi and Mother Theresa combined were posting on DU. You are a true ambassador between believers and non-believers alike. Your fair-handed way of dealing with those who have different beliefs is just...I don't even know the words. Every post of yours makes me shake my head at the loss of your divining hand as a host in this forum. IF anyone could wield that power fairly and evenly, I know it would be you.

How crushed you must be that you weren't chosen, and how chided we should be for not choosing you. Keep up the good work..you may get a second shot soon, and make this forum the absolute best it can be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heddi (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:33 PM

39. Thank Nothing the group still has you as a poster.

 

It would be reduced to discussing religion instead of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:44 PM

47. If it's okay for you and okasha, it's okay for everyone

Or the two of you were discussing issues while mocking Trotsky, right?

Pluck the beam in your own eye, etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heddi (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:49 PM

52. Mock trotsky? He would not approve of mockery.

 



Be the change, Heddi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heddi (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:44 PM

48. You should do this for money.



Really. Or you could start a page on Facebook. . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #48)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:45 PM

49. I've got a great page on Facebook

You should ask me for an invite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heddi (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:50 PM

53. A little slow on the uptake there.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heddi (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:16 PM

55. Sorry,

not interested in hate speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:57 AM

56. And yet you come here and defend the RCC.

 

Cognitive dissonance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #56)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:01 PM

62. How was your little vacation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #62)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 05:43 AM

66. Free of religious bullshit and self-righteous bores.

 

You wouldn't have enjoyed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:26 AM

58. There's no hate speech

Nothing like professed liberal atheists here, in this group, whom you pal around with, who happily compare gay marriage with marriage to a bicycle, vole, or dead grandmother. That's kind of hate speechey, right? I guess that's the anti-gblt bigotry you accuse atheists of all the time, right? I was looking for the posts where you called that poster out on his repeatedly made hurtful comments about gay marriage, but I can't seem to find them. The search function must not be working properly because you surely would have called out someone who made those comments, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heddi (Reply #58)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:35 AM

69. Don't forget 'women can buy rubbers at 7-11 like everyone else'.

That one was particularly tasteful and heartwarming. I see it still hasn't been addressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread