The Papal Visit

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:44 am

With Pope Benedict XVI about to make his visit to the US, I wondered if many people here are excited about it? Does the Pope mean much to you? Does his visit? I'm not Catholic, but to me there's something kind of neat about papal visits. Not really sure why. Any thoughts?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:14 pm

once upon a time in glasgow

kiwimum76 · Post by **kiwimum76** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:14 pm

I see the Pope sort as sort of a living figurehead for the Catholic Church. He is a very important part of the Catholic church for most Catholics.

I respect the fact that he is important to others and respected by many. But he doeasn't really do much for me. I just see an old man in white robes with a lot of power.

I don't really have any interest in him coming here to visit and I wouldn't be one of thousands lining the streets to see him, but thats just me. I have no problems with other people feeling excited and looking forward to a visit. All power to them!

My feelings about this may be different if I was Catholic and had more of an understanding of the Pope and the church in general.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:45 pm

RedGlitter;835955 wrote: With Pope Benedict XVI about to make his visit to the US, I wondered if many people here are excited about it? Does the Pope mean much to you? Does his visit? I'm not Catholic, but to me there's something kind of neat about papal visits. Not really sure why. Any thoughts?:-2Have a good visit.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:14 pm

rjwould;836971 wrote: Bill Mahr had some interesting comments this week on his show, 'Real Time", concerning the pope and his visit.

This pope, while an administrator of the Catholic religion (of which I was raised by my parents) had apparently suggested in a circulated memo that the clergy adopt a policy to avoid, delay and conceal the (at that time) impending charges of child molestation until the statue of limitations had run out.Can you provide a reference for this please, I'd like to follow it up. I've googled in various fashions and I can't find anything relating to it.

Ah. I've found out why. There's no Bill Mahr, that's why.During his April 11, 2008 live broadcast, Maher said of the Catholic Church:

In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God's infallible wingman here on earth, lock away the kids. Which is why I'd like to tip off law enforcement to an even LARGER child-abusing religious cult. Its leader ALSO has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he used to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats! That's right, the Pope is coming to America this week, and ladies: he's single!

Now, I know what you're thinking. "Bill, you can't be saying the Catholic church is no better than this creepy Texas cult. For one thing, altar boys can't even GET pregnant!" But really, what tripped up the little cult on the prairie was that they only abused hundreds of kids, not thousands all over the world. "Cults" get raided; "religions" get parades. How DOES the Catholic church get away with all of their buggery? Volume, volume, volume! If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a "cult leader." If you have a billion, they call you "Pope." It's like, if you can't pay your mortgage, they call you a "deadbeat," but if you can't pay a million mortgages, you're "Bear Sterns" and we bail you out.

And that's who the Catholic church is. The "Bear Sterns of organized pedophilia." When the current Pope was in his previous Vatican job, as John Paul's Dick Cheney, he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out. And that's the church's attitude: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

Which is fine -- far be it from me to criticize religion. But just remember one thing: if the Pope was, instead of a religious figure, merely the CEO of a nation-wide chain of day care centers, where thousands of employees had been caught molesting kids and then covering it up, he'd be arrested faster than you can say, "Who wants to touch Mr. Wiggle?"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/ap ... protection discusses the letter in slightly more analytical language.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:17 am

spot;839461 wrote: Can you provide a reference for this please, I'd like to follow it up. I've googled in various fashions and I can't find anything relating to it.

Ah. I've found out why. There's no Bill Mahr, that's why.During his April 11, 2008 live broadcast, Maher said of the Catholic Church:

In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God's infallible wingman here on earth, lock away the kids. Which is why I'd like to tip off law enforcement to an even LARGER child-abusing religious cult. Its leader ALSO has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he used to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats! That's right, the Pope is coming to America this week, and ladies: he's single!

Now, I know what you're thinking. "Bill, you can't be saying the Catholic church is no better than this creepy Texas cult. For one thing, altar boys can't even GET pregnant!" But really, what tripped up the little cult on the prairie was that they only abused hundreds of kids, not thousands all over the world. "Cults" get raided; "religions" get parades. How DOES the Catholic church get away with all of their buggery? Volume, volume, volume! If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a "cult leader." If you have a billion, they call you "Pope." It's like, if you can't pay your mortgage, they call you a "deadbeat," but if you can't pay a million mortgages, you're "Bear Sterns" and we bail you out.

And that's who the Catholic church is. The "Bear Sterns of organized pedophilia." When the current Pope was in his previous Vatican job, as John Paul's Dick Cheney, he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out. And that's the church's attitude: "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

Which is fine -- far be it from me to criticize religion. But just remember one thing: if the Pope was, instead of a religious figure, merely the CEO of a nation-wide chain of day care centers, where thousands of employees had been caught molesting kids and then covering it up, he'd be arrested faster than you can say, "Who wants to touch Mr. Wiggle?"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/ap ... protection discusses the letter in slightly more analytical language.

I always think it's more to do with the fact that in the UK anything criticising the catholic church very rapidly takes on a sectarian tinge. Just imagine the outcry if prince William starts going out with a catholic-or if Tony Blair had converted while in office. The scabs over sectarian hatred are pretty thin. People tread carefully It may seem irrational but when it comes to religion rationality goes right out the window.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:29 pm

RedGlitter;835955 wrote: Does the Pope mean much to you?
A person who claims to be God's one personal representative on earth has either got to be just that, or has to be treated as unwelcome, for one reason or another. There are plenty of people claiming to be Napoleon receiving medical help. Now Herr Ratzinger appears to be in sound mental health, very sound, in fact. So, if we do not think him to be the Vicar of Christ, as he claims, we have no option but to regard him as a deceiver, a person who has no socially acceptable agenda to offer.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:02 pm

xyz:-6

There are millions around the world who consider the pope to be the vicar of Christ on earth.

Shalom

Ted:-6

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:24 pm

Ted;842489 wrote: xyz:-6

There are millions around the world who consider the pope to be the vicar of Christ on earth.

Shalom

Ted:-6
There are millions around the world who say they consider the pope to be the vicar of Christ on earth.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:25 pm

xyz:-6

Your point?

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **spot** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:40 pm

xyz;842492 wrote: If we do not think him to be the Vicar of Christ, as he claims, we have no option but to regard him as a deceiver, a person who has no socially acceptable agenda to offer [...] There are millions around the world who say they consider the pope to be the vicar of Christ on earth.

Firstly it's hundreds of millions, secondly it's a title that's been continuously in use for over a thousand years and thirdly it's a form of language, it's communication, it's symbolism. The Napoleon in the mental ward is there because he has no social recognition, the Pope sits on the Vatican's throne wearing the triple tiara using the language he uses because several percent of the population of the planet for the last fifty generations have wanted him to sit there. It's all down to group consensus. I don't think he's God's one personal representative on earth and neither, I'm sure, does he, but I'm perfectly happy that he's using the language he uses. Anyone who claims that a religious vocabulary is a sign of mental breakdown is going beyond the conventions of polite discussion.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:06 am

spot;842514 wrote: Anyone who claims that a religious vocabulary is a sign of mental breakdown is going beyond the conventions of polite discussion.
Quite so. It is for that reason that the claim must be a lie. (And argumentum ad numerum is a classic false argument, even if it applies, which it doesn't.)

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:04 am

The Popes supersonic fly-past was a real crowd pleaser.

Attached files

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:16 pm

xyz;842549 wrote: Quite so. It is for that reason that the claim must be a lie. (And argumentum ad numerum is a classic false argument, even if it applies, which it doesn't.)

I wasn't arguing that numbers make truth, I was simply correcting your facts.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:33 pm

spot;843273 wrote: I wasn't arguing that numbers make truth, I was simply correcting your facts.
Facts? Plural? You do seem to like adding, when it suits.

That's anyway vile falsehood, to add to the fawning drivel and misrepresentation. You know very well that I was merely re-phrasing Ted's sentence, which was not incorrect, numerically, anyway. The only purpose of being more exact was to employ argumentum ad numerum.

Thank you for displaying with such amazing panache the true nature of the religion of the inquisitors. With friends like you, the Vatican needs no enemies. :guitarist

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:43 pm

xyz;843281 wrote: Facts? Plural? You do seem to like adding, when it suits.Did I not reach a thirdly?

On whom have I fawned?

xyz wrote: With friends like you, the Vatican needs no enemies.You regard me as antithetical to the Vatican? I don't see how you reach that conclusion. You're discussing the nature of words like God and represent and vicar of Christ, they're imprecise. Within the context of religious imagery I don't see how you get to anything so hard and fast as "lie", though you might discuss a misinterpretation of the nature of the universe I suppose. What the Roman Catholics have is an interpretation which they express through the tradition of dogma. Truth or lie is a meaningless distinction to try to make in that arena, it always has been. Some interpretations resonate more for an indicidual than others, that's as far as anyone can reasonably go.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:52 pm

spot;843303 wrote: On whom have I fawned?
Your little mate Ratso, of course!

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:58 pm

I apologize, I edited my previous post to expand my thought and took longer about it than I expected.

"little" and "mate" and "Ratso" all tend toward my finding you rather obsessed, you know.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:01 pm

Thank you JAB. I suppose if one equates "God's one personal representative on earth" with "vicar of Christ" you have a perfectly good point there. I'm not sure why one would, though.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:03 pm

spot;843308 wrote: Thank you JAB. I suppose if one equates "God's one personal representative on earth" with "vicar of Christ" you have a perfectly good point there. I'm not sure why one would, though.
Because people here don't understand what the word 'vicar' means.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:06 pm

spot;843306 wrote: "little" and "mate" and "Ratso" all tend toward my finding you rather obsessed, you know.
But would your face split if you told the truth?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:09 pm

spot;843303 wrote: You regard me as antithetical to the Vatican?
Either you have serious English comprehension issues, or you are lying absurdly.

Still waiting to find a poster here worth a discussion.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:11 pm

xyz;843309 wrote: Because people here don't understand what the word 'vicar' means.

Someone - I'm doing this from memory, I may well be mistaken - someone who has no right to the tithes in his parish but is paid vicariously by the body which appointed him, as opposed to a rector who takes the tithes by right?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:13 pm

spot;843315 wrote: Someone - I'm doing this from memory, I may well be mistaken - someone who has no right to the tithes in his parish but is paid vicariously by the body which appointed him, as opposed to a rector who takes the tithes by right?
Any adults here?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:14 pm

JAB;843314 wrote: I'm sure there is something romantic to the idea of a papal lineage from St Peter to our current Benedict. I'm just not sure that the role of the pope hasn't become more of a figurehead rather then one of spiritual enlightenment to his flock of believers.
A figurehead for scoundrels and dunderheads of every sort.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:16 pm

xyz;843313 wrote: Either you have serious English comprehension issues, or you are lying absurdly.Explain it to me?

"With friends like you, X needs no enemies" means what, in your mind?

In most people's it's "you may think you're helping X but in fact you're doing him more damage than any enemy could manage", which I'd take to be an antithetical stance - one failing to support X's thesis.

I was brought up to use words the way the dictionary told me to.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:17 pm

JAB;843318 wrote: OK, and your point is what?
Never mind. See if you can address my first post in this thread, sensibly, intelligently, constructively. Be the first poster I've met here to do that, in any thread.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:17 pm

xyz;843317 wrote: A figurehead for scoundrels and dunderheads of every sort.

The word you're straining for is "saints".

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:19 pm

xyz;843316 wrote: Any adults here?
People here don't understand what the word 'vicar' means, you wrote. If vicar doesn't mean someone who has no right to the tithes in his parish but is paid vicariously by the body which appointed him, as opposed to a rector who takes the tithes by right, what does it mean?

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:20 pm

JAB;843323 wrote: Ah so now, not only are you an expert on what a Christian is, now you profess to know what all Catholics are like?
I said nothing about Catholics. Most Catholics are sincere and decent people, outside the USA, certainly.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:32 pm

JAB;843327 wrote: I beg to differ as I don't see it in the extremes that you do.
It's no use leaving it there. You have to give a reason or reasons for other posters' reasoning being faulty.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:34 pm

xyz;843331 wrote: You have to give a reason or reasons for other posters' reasoning being faulty.I missed something. You've reasoned?

And what's a vicar?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:35 pm

xyz;842484 wrote: A person who claims to be God's one personal representative on earth has either got to be just that, or has to be treated as unwelcome, for one reason or another. There are plenty of people claiming to be Napoleon receiving medical help. Now Herr Ratzinger appears to be in sound mental health, very sound, in fact. So, if we do not think him to be the Vicar of Christ, as he claims, we have no option but to regard him as a deceiver, a person who has no socially acceptable agenda to offer.

That's an interesting argument. My only question would be on the excluded middle. If we want to be charitable towards the religion, there are really more than just two possibilities. Perhaps he's self-deluded but means well. Deception involves malicious intent, not just falsity of a claim.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:47 pm

yaaarrrgg;843333 wrote: That's an interesting argument. My only question would be on the excluded middle. If we want to be charitable towards the religion, there are really more than just two possibilities. Perhaps he's self-deluded but means well.
Debate, at last. Thanks.

Now if we do not believe that he is who he says he is, we don't believe the evidence that he uses. Now if we don't believe that evidence, if it is not factually and logically compelling, why should he?

Deception involves malicious intent, not just falsity of a claim.
Indeed. That is understood.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:49 pm

JAB;843341 wrote: I did. I offered my opinion that I disagreed with your "if/then" characterization.
:) That's not debate.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:02 pm

JAB;843349 wrote: But it is my opinion of which I'm allowed to have.

Of course.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:03 pm

xyz;843342 wrote: Debate, at last. Thanks.

Now if we do not believe that he is who he says he is, we don't believe the evidence that he uses. Now if we don't believe that evidence, if it is not factually and logically compelling, why should he?

Well, honestly I do see him as a bit of a fruitcake in little ruby-red slippers.

Although I could see him reaching different set of conclusion from the same evidence. Can we assume that our point of view and his allow the same type of analysis? Some things are difficult for a person to see in themselves (like faults), but the same person can easily see them in others. If we assume he is just human, he might suffer from common blind-spots of self-analysis. This could explain a different conclusion from the same evidence. IOW, the frame of reference might be significant.

Of course, I cannot prove this is happening, but I'm only working towards establishing a third possibility.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:29 pm

yaaarrrgg;843353 wrote: Well, honestly I do see him as a bit of a fruitcake in little ruby-red slippers.

Although I could see him reaching different set of conclusion from the same evidence. Can we assume that our point of view and his allow the same type of analysis?
I think we must. Factual evidence and logical necessity are universal.

Some things are difficult for a person to see in themselves (like faults), but the same person can easily see them in others.
But it isn't just this guy, and of course he assented to existence of papacy decades before he claimed it for himself. There have been many to make this claim, and personal 'fruitiness' or whatever is not in common among them (I don't think so, anyway!).

Of course, I cannot prove this is happening, but I'm only working towards establishing a third possibility.
I'm very glad you brought it up, because I wouldn't want this argument to go by default.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:58 am

xyz;843365 wrote: I think we must. Factual evidence and logical necessity are universal.

Perhaps, but not all people think logically.

Factual evidence and logic don't exist in a vacuum, but require a person to do (or process) that reasoning. Along with that package comes differing levels of proficiency, emotion, wishful thinking, and questionable self-honesty towards critiquing themselves and the groups they belong to.

xyz;843365 wrote: But it isn't just this guy, and of course he assented to existence of papacy decades before he claimed it for himself. There have been many to make this claim, and personal 'fruitiness' or whatever is not in common among them (I don't think so, anyway!).

That's a good point.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:24 am

yaaarrrgg;843964 wrote: Perhaps, but not all people think logically.
That's very true, but surely an organisation that claims to have been the sole valid authority on Earth for two millennia should have worked out something by now!

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:07 am

xyz has not responded to my question. Also he keeps using the term "we" but I'm not the least bit sure who this "we" is.

Another point to make is that anyone who thinks they have all the answers is living in a delusion.

Shalom

Ted:-6