Pope francis already spouting bullsh1t

the culture of deference

Here is a quote from the new pope about the important value of mandatory celibacy for Catholic priests.


"For the moment, I am in favour of maintaining celibacy, with all its pros and cons, because we have 10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures."



However, he also said:


"It is a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change."


In the same interview he praised the "zero tolerance" approach to clerical abuse in Ireland of his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI.


Pope Francis considered quitting his vocation after being "dazzled by a girl" at a wedding.





Early media reports suggested that Pope Francis had been engaged to be married before entering seminary.


However, the woman in question, Amalia Damonte (76), said they had a friendship when both were 12-years-old but "these were childish things, nothing more".

eyescreamcone

I'd like to hear his views on

- public health (contraception and use of condoms)
- homosexuality and homosexual sex
- We already know his views on gay marriage (he fought tooth and nail against it being brought in in Argentina - and lost)
- women's menial role in the church at present

If he's in favour of a poorer church perhaps he might arrange payment of monies owed (and overdue) to the Irish State for rape and abuse of our citizens by his priests.

New face but the same ol' same ol' I'm afraid.
No rocking of the boat here I'd imagine.

krudler

yeah because celibacy never lead to anything bad happening in the church, sweet jesus..

Penn

krudler wrote: »

yeah because celibacy never lead to anything bad happening in the church, sweet jesus..

Yeah, but in fairness, with regards child abuse by the church in Ireland, Pope Benny had a zero tolerance approach.

Zero tolerance for state laws.
Zero tolerance for the victims.
Zero tolerance for doing what was right.

im invisible

failing to see the bull**** myself, unless its the thread itself

ShooterSF

Ah good old zero tolerance. Who did Palpatine replace Brady with again, I forget.

CerebralCortex

the culture of deference wrote: »

Here is a quote from the new pope about the important value of mandatory celibacy for Catholic priests.


"For the moment, I am in favour of maintaining celibacy, with all its pros and cons, because we have 10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures."



However, he also said:


"It is a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change."


In the same interview he praised the "zero tolerance" approach to clerical abuse in Ireland of his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI.


Pope Francis considered quitting his vocation after being "dazzled by a girl" at a wedding.





Early media reports suggested that Pope Francis had been engaged to be married before entering seminary.


However, the woman in question, Amalia Damonte (76), said they had a friendship when both were 12-years-old but "these were childish things, nothing more".

I'm sorry, were you expecting something new?

Lucena

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm sorry, were you expecting something new?

Yeah, give the guy a break, he's just doing his job.:p

CerebralCortex

Lucena wrote: »

Yeah, give the guy a break, he's just doing his job.:p

People are truly irrational. I'm so tired of the clowns on Newstalk etc. ask "Will he change anything?" No! He can't the doctrine is set, either that or become a protestant Church. For example if they back peddle on celibacy it's like admitting God has changed his mind and his values, which opens, correction, should open a whole can of worms philosophically speaking (it has already for those who are atheists). A man who has spent his life celibate is hardly going to turn around at the end of his life and say "Ooops that was wrong" clergy aren't able for that kind of honest rationality, if they were they probably wouldn't be priests. If people want change they should look to why they believe what the believe, leave the Church or join another. Stop expecting the Church to change itself to suit your needs so you can label yourself Catholic.

Don't even get me started on the craziness that is a homosexual Catholic.

magicbastarder

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm sorry, were you expecting something new?

exactly. man appointed to head of organisation whose teachings you are in almost complete disagreement with says something you disagree with.
hardly remarkable.

Dades

im invisible wrote: »

failing to see the bull**** myself, unless its the thread itself

I'll admit apart from the "10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures" remark, I don't see much interesting about anything quoted there either.

FloatingVoter

It turns out the pope is a catholic. We learn something new everyday on the interweb.

Penn

im invisible wrote: »

failing to see the bull**** myself, unless its the thread itself

"For the moment, I am in favour of maintaining celibacy, with all its pros and cons, because we have 10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures."

With the number of priests involved in sexual activity (whether with minors or adults), including the sexual activity of some of the former popes themselves, it is incredibly clear that they have not had 10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures, and that celibacy is likely a factor (not the only factor or dominant factor, but a significant factor nonetheless) in the sexual scandals which have embroiled the catholic church.

Bullsh*t.

In the same interview he praised the "zero tolerance" approach to clerical abuse in Ireland of his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI.

Pope Benedict most definitely did not have a "zero tolerance" approach. Most recent case in point being that Cardinal O'Brien from England was told by Pope Benedict not to be part of the Conclave as he had been engaging in sexually harassing other priests. Cardinal Brady was given no such order, despite his role in the cover up of sexual abuse of children.

Bullsh*t.

keane2097

I thought the fact that he said "for the moment", admitted to cons and suggested it wasn't a faith thing but an exercise in discipline were all pretty positive tbh.

Sarky

FloatingVoter wrote: »

It turns out the pope is a catholic. We learn something new everyday on the interweb.

You never can tell. There were a fair few popes labelled as heretics down through the years. Usually after they were long dead so that they couldn't defend themselves.

CerebralCortex

Sarky wrote: »

You never can tell. There were a fair few popes labelled as heretics down through the years. Usually after they were long dead so that they couldn't defend themselves.

Well according the Mel Gibson the Catholic Church isn't Catholic enough!

Dades

In fairness we know most catholics aren't catholic either!

(Witness the busiest day of the year in the off-licence next Thursday!)

the culture of deference

im invisible wrote: »

failing to see the bull**** myself, unless its the thread itself

"because we have 10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures."

maybe if I had highlighted in a neon box you would have noticed

Penn wrote: »

Pope Benedict most definitely did not have a "zero tolerance" approach. .

He did, he had a zero tolerance approach on reporting abuse externally.

wretcheddomain

the culture of deference wrote: »

"because we have 10 centuries of good experiences rather than failures."

He never said what good experiences he was talking about? Is he referring to child molestation? Homosexual relations? We all know he's not referring to good experiences with women of course.

biko

You know how long it takes for a big company to change policies?
Well, the catholic church is one of the biggest companies in the world.

I'm actually baffled he even said "for the moment" instead of just killing the notion outright. Not to mention "It is a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change."

No earlier pope has come close to statements like that.

Undergod

krudler wrote: »

yeah because celibacy never lead to anything bad happening in the church, sweet jesus..

Child abuse happens regularly among clergy of all religions, and people of all professions, most commonly those who are in positions of care or power. It's happened among the non-celibate Anglican clergy, and it's a huge problem in Pakistan, where clerics are also allowed to marry.

The problem with RCC child abuse is the constant enabling of offenders - which isn't much to do with celibacy.

Sarky

We've had clergy try to tell us it was the fault of sexy children. The pope's stance is hardly surprising.

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

In fairness we know most catholics aren't catholic either!

(Witness the busiest day of the year in the off-licence next Thursday!)

Nitpick: There is no Church rule prohibiting drinking alcohol on Good Friday. There never has been.

Lucena

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: There is no Church rule prohibiting drinking alcohol on Good Friday. There never has been.

Where is the actual rule book? We were told a lot of stuff in religion in school, and I sometimes wonder if the nun wasn't making it up or exaggerating.

Stuff like not eating an hour before communion, not playing with yourself, not having sex as a married couple for purposes other than procreation.

Any way to check whether an activity is ok or not?

Mr. CooL ICE

Lucena wrote: »

Where is the actual rule book? We were told a lot of stuff in religion in school, and I sometimes wonder if the nun wasn't making it up or exaggerating.

Stuff like not eating an hour before communion, not playing with yourself, not having sex as a married couple for purposes other than procreation.

Any way to check whether an activity is ok or not?

DON'T QUESTION IT!!! Now say 10 hail marys for your outburst.

Pawwed Rig

biko wrote: »

You know how long it takes for a big company to change policies?
Well, the catholic church is one of the biggest companies in the world.

Exactly. Because of the way people are 'promoted' in large organisations you end up with more of the same each time.
People who fundamentally disagree with the previous administration would not be in a position to take over barring some sort of coup.

oldrnwisr

Lucena wrote: »

Where is the actual rule book? We were told a lot of stuff in religion in school, and I sometimes wonder if the nun wasn't making it up or exaggerating.

Stuff like not eating an hour before communion, not playing with yourself, not having sex as a married couple for purposes other than procreation.

Any way to check whether an activity is ok or not?

Well there's two rulebooks, kinda.

The first is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is basically a synopsis of Church teachings designed to inform and teach Catholics what they are expected to believe and to do.

The other is the Code of Canon Law. This covers the actual rules codified from the catechism. There's a fair degree of overlap between the two but a simplistic view of it would be that the code of canon list of rules of what you're supposed to/not supposed to do and the catechism is an explanation of why this is so.

It's kind of confusing, but that's what you get when you make up your religion as you go along.

Nodin

Lucena wrote: »

Where is the actual rule book? We were told a lot of stuff in religion in school, and I sometimes wonder if the nun wasn't making it up or exaggerating.

Stuff like not eating an hour before communion, not playing with yourself, not having sex as a married couple for purposes other than procreation.

Any way to check whether an activity is ok or not?

The hour before communion is a "real" rule, as is entertaining yourself. Now the 'no shaggin without tryin for the babby' bit I've never been too sure on.

....but, having spent a while googling......
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

The ban on "masturbation" extends to performing same on an other and - like oral sex - is not seemingly gender specific.......These people are weirder than I remember.

Lucena

FloatingVoter wrote: »

It turns out the pope is a catholic. We learn something new everyday on the interweb.

Yes, but I think the real question here is "Does he sh1t in the woods"

Kevcol

Does a bear sh1t in the woods?

Does the Pope protect paedophile priests?

Nodin

Lucena wrote: »

Yes, but I think the real question here is "Does he sh1t in the woods"

Not in appearance, but in substance, yes.