Who would have thought, Catholics are still evil

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29677779

So no matter how charming and nice pope Francis is he still can't convince his church to stop being evil. Side note, everybody knows that the Catholic church is the gayest church in the world. So who the fuck to they think they're fooling? Answer. Nobody.

 

[Potoooooooo]

I was never fooled

 

[Underseer]

Interesting. I thought the pope was a dictator, I didn't know he could be overruled on matters of policy.

And of course the old men who run the Synod are evil.

My opinion of the new pop improved slightly. My opinion of the church itself remains the same as a result of reading this article.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Interesting. I thought the pope was a dictator, I didn't know he could be overruled on matters of policy.

And of course the old men who run the Synod are evil.

My opinion of the new pop improved slightly. My opinion of the church itself remains the same as a result of reading this article.

Any institution that has survived for 2500* years, has to be quite robust. No organisation built for survival puts all the eggs in one basket.

* The Catholic church and papal seat is just an extension of the Pagan Roman College of Pontiffs and the Pontifex Maximus. They transformed into Christianity without much of a bump.

 

[Potoooooooo]

VATICAN: Pope Slams "Bastardized" Marriages That Are Mere "Associations"

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...riage-pope-calls-for-defense-of-family-12766/

"The family is being hit, the family is being struck and the family is being bastardized. What is being proposed is not marriage, it's an association. But it's not marriage! It's necessary to say these things very clearly and we have to say it! So many families are divided, so many marriages broken, (there is) such relativism in the concept of the Sacrament of Marriage. There is a crisis in the family because it's beat up from all sides and left very wounded!" - Pope Francis, speaking yesterday at a Vatican event to mark the 100th anniversary of Germany's Schoenstatt Movement, a group that calls for a "profound devotion" to the BVM.

 

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...riage-pope-calls-for-defense-of-family-12766/

"The family is being hit, the family is being struck and the family is being bastardized. What is being proposed is not marriage, it's an association. But it's not marriage! It's necessary to say these things very clearly and we have to say it! So many families are divided, so many marriages broken, (there is) such relativism in the concept of the Sacrament of Marriage. There is a crisis in the family because it's beat up from all sides and left very wounded!" - Pope Francis, speaking yesterday at a Vatican event to mark the 100th anniversary of Germany's Schoenstatt Movement, a group that calls for a "profound devotion" to the BVM.

So they want to go back to the situation where women were little more than property? Where intermarital rape was not considered a crime, and neither was physical abuse of women and children? Maybe marriages are less "sacred" today because it requires both parties to be happy in it? Sorry if I'm beating down an already wide open door. The catholic church is so fucking psycho it's not even funny. It's like they don't even realize that what they are saying is evil.

 

[dx713]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...riage-pope-calls-for-defense-of-family-12766/

"The family is being hit, the family is being struck and the family is being bastardized. What is being proposed is not marriage, it's an association. But it's not marriage! It's necessary to say these things very clearly and we have to say it! So many families are divided, so many marriages broken, (there is) such relativism in the concept of the Sacrament of Marriage. There is a crisis in the family because it's beat up from all sides and left very wounded!" - Pope Francis, speaking yesterday at a Vatican event to mark the 100th anniversary of Germany's Schoenstatt Movement, a group that calls for a "profound devotion" to the BVM.

So they want to go back to the situation where women were little more than property? Where intermarital rape was not considered a crime, and neither was physical abuse of women and children? Maybe marriages are less "sacred" today because it requires both parties to be happy in it? Sorry if I'm beating down an already wide open door. The catholic church is so fucking psycho it's not even funny. It's like they don't even realize that what they are saying is evil.

What's funny is that they've actually been quite progressive on the issue at the time, one of the conditions of a valid catholic marriage being that BOTH spouses are freely committing. (other conditions being that the spouses should want kids by "natural" means and understand contraception is a sin, so yeah, not so funny)

Actually, I have no problem with them stating that's some marriages cannot be sanctionned as catholic marriages. They manage their private club the way they want. My problem is for them to try to apply their definition of marriage to a whole country.
I'd tell them to use the latin word to differentiate, if it's the social use of marriage that disturbs them, but I suspect they confuse the two on purpose. I'd even support my government stopping to use "marriage" and use "intimate association", "union", or whatever nice word our elites can find in its place, sometimes it's less costly if the reasonnable ones cave in on an issue even if it means bearing the other's cries of triumph. It could help speeding the acceptance of non-sexual unions or multiple-spouses unions. But as the demonstrations against PACS (civil union also opened to homosexual couples) have shown ten years ago, I suspect the "devaluation of marriage" is actually just the current line of attack, and that for the average catholic hardliner, the problem is actually "how do people dare be happy without putting the same constraints on their life than me?"

 

[dx713]

Interesting. I thought the pope was a dictator, I didn't know he could be overruled on matters of policy.

And of course the old men who run the Synod are evil.

My opinion of the new pop improved slightly. My opinion of the church itself remains the same as a result of reading this article.

The Pope can be a dictator, but he has to state he wants to be one. (i.e. invoke his infaillibility by declaring something ex-cathedra on a matter of doctrine)
And then weather the kickback from the "wronged" party and the schism risk.
Still reading catholic-aligned news at the time, I remember the embarassment and the many tries to dance around the issue when JP2 tried to do it about contraception. (and I suspect the door is still slightly open for a future Pope to reverse the ban on rubbers by declaring it was not really a doctrinal matter, although I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime)

Francis, as a good Jesuit, is too politically astute to risk that, he prefers to air "opinions", "reflections" and "drafts", and "welcome discussions", like politicians use "blunders" to test the backlash on some subjects.
Despite this synod's failure to achieve progressive results, the good news is that a majority of the attending bishops actually aligned with the Pope - the synod is a conservative organisation by design, needing a 2/3rd majority to vote on a change.
(the bad news is that I suspect western countries bishops were over-represented, while the most catholic countries are drifting southwards, so future synod might not be more progressives, even as old western conservatives retire)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Interesting. I thought the pope was a dictator, I didn't know he could be overruled on matters of policy.

And of course the old men who run the Synod are evil.

My opinion of the new pop improved slightly. My opinion of the church itself remains the same as a result of reading this article.

The Pope can be a dictator, but he has to state he wants to be one. (i.e. invoke his infaillibility by declaring something ex-cathedra on a matter of doctrine)
And then weather the kickback from the "wronged" party and the schism risk.
Still reading catholic-aligned news at the time, I remember the embarassment and the many tries to dance around the issue when JP2 tried to do it about contraception. (and I suspect the door is still slightly open for a future Pope to reverse the ban on rubbers by declaring it was not really a doctrinal matter, although I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime)

Francis, as a good Jesuit, is too politically astute to risk that, he prefers to air "opinions", "reflections" and "drafts", and "welcome discussions", like politicians use "blunders" to test the backlash on some subjects.
Despite this synod's failure to achieve progressive results, the good news is that a majority of the attending bishops actually aligned with the Pope - the synod is a conservative organisation by design, needing a 2/3rd majority to vote on a change.
(the bad news is that I suspect western countries bishops were over-represented, while the most catholic countries are drifting southwards, so future synod might not be more progressives, even as old western conservatives retire)

Papal infallability is actually a lot younger than what most people think. It was first declared by Pope Pius IX 1868. It was also not for any religious reasons. At the time Italy was divided up into a serious of minor states. The Papal states being among the largest. There was a growing nationalistic movement for the unification of Italy. Pope Pius supressed this using his secret police. Today we would identify this as standard tactics of a fascist police state. They employed torture, jailed dissidents, had gangs to beat up dissidents and everything. But not unique for the papacy. This was a growing trend among European rulers. Being an Italian nationalist within the Papal states was illegal. His draconian measures made the pope unpopular. When Cardinals started speaking up and questioning the Pope he simply came up with Papal Infallibility. Simply as a way to end the discussion. Two years later it became very clear to everybody that the Pope had been super wrong. No pope had been so wrong about anything before. And Pope Pius IX's erroneous actions doomed the Papal states. And that is why all that is left of it is the Vatican. Which is absolutely bizarre considering that Garibaldi was very much a Catholic and wanted work with the Pope. But his pig-headedness and unwillingness to see where the wind was blowing doomed the church.

It's exactly the same thing happening now with gay marriage. The Catholic church is obviously on the wrong side of history. They're too pig-headed and stupid to understand even when they've lost.

Trivia: Papal infallibility was never into play when Galileo had to recant. The Pope just said Galileo was wrong. Not that the Pope was infallible or couldn't later change his mind.

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

 

[braces_for_impact]

How anyone can still count themselves as a Catholic and support the church is beyond me. Any secular institution that behaved as the catholic church has done would be without members, even if they weren't prosecuted into oblivion.

 

[doubtingt]

Despite being well aware of the Church's crimes against humanity, my recent viewing of "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the house of God" solidified my view that Paul II, Benedict, Francis, and most of the Church hierarchy should be/have-been executed for crimes against humanity. The Vatican protects itself from secular law via its absurd assertions of "statehood" which it was only granted by Mussolini in exchange for the Church endorsing his fascist state. If they are a state, then they are a state that has orchestrated the torture of probably close to 500,000 children in other "states" just in the last 50 years. We would and should have violently dismantled any other "state" for doing this, especially a state like the Vatican that has no actual citizens, only the state officials guilty of these crimes.

One thing is for sure, nothing that Dawkins, Hitchens, or other harsh critics of the church have ever said has come close to being too extreme.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How anyone can still count themselves as a Catholic and support the church is beyond me. Any secular institution that behaved as the catholic church has done would be without members, even if they weren't prosecuted into oblivion.

I've actually had the opportunity to ask a Catholic man about just this. Whenever the church does something good, it's the Catholic church as a whole that did it (which includes themselves). Whenever the church does something bad, it's individual rotten eggs within the church ruining it for everyone (ie they are not external to the bad elements in the church).

It's the same mechanic for sports teams you support. We won or they lost.

So basically mental trickery