Should Pope Francis sell the family jewels?

although the pope and his handlers should be smart enough to know that even a meeting w/ the pope will be construed as a kind of endorsement and so perhaps they meant it to appear that way. who knows...

i mean a meeting with this particular person. obviously a meeting w/, say, castro or putin isn't necessarily going to be spun that way by most folks.

maybe speculating too far here, but it also occurred to me that the meeting with Davis might have also included others and that the Pope might not have even necessarily known he was specifically meeting with her, and/or may not have known who she was in advance.

I would totally not put it past some well-connected GOP heavy to invite Davis to a meeting and pull a fast one in that way

so basically it's like this, only instead of selling a cell phone they're selling "kim davis, champion of personal liberty"

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/02/david-ortiz-selfie-distributed-with-help-samsung/s2tU35cVQJYMeI6FMXspOJ/story.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/30/444671535/kim-davis-and-pope-francis-reportedly-had-a-private-meeting-in-dc

"On his flight back to Rome, the pope was asked during a press conference if he would support government officials who say they cannot in good conscience discharge their duties — for example, issuing same sex marriage licenses.

"Without referring to Kim Davis, the pope said conscientious objection is a right that is part of every human right."

except she is not that

http://www.cruxnow.com/papal-visit/2015/09/30/what-it-means-that-pope-francis-met-kim-davis/

except she is not that

― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius),

a human?

Lol

that cruxnow.com article i posted is more or less telling francis' liberal american fans to suck it up a deal, he's still a pope:

Taken together with his unscheduled stop to see the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Davis encounter means Francis has expressed personal support to leading symbols of the two most contentious fronts in America’s religious freedom debates – the contraception mandates imposed by the Obama administration, and conscientious objection on gay marriage.

but charles pierce speculates that the ratzingerites set him up:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a38440/pope-francis-swindled-kim-davis-meeting/

Why so much hand-wringing? He's a Catholic, these views are hardly a surprise, and he can be on the progressive side of some issues while being on the conservative side on others.

Easy article to write. "Does the pope shit in the woods?"

It doesn't surprise me that Francis would be against same-sex marriage, but it doesn't seem like he's so invested in the cause that he would make a special point to meet with a politically divisive (and non-Catholic!) gay-marriage opponent. Agree with Pierce that there's something weird and sneaky about it.

it's so strange to me that dogma that were originally derived by clearly tribal goals of expanding the tribe's population - no birth control, no abortion, no homos - are still clung to in the modern era. Given that all of them are based (afaik) on interpretations of Old Testament directives that the majority of Jews have long since abandoned. Like, isn't it obvious there are enough people in the world? the risk of Xtians running out of Xtians is pretty low... and yet this is third-rail type stuff for the clergy that can in no way be abandoned or put up for debate, ever (even though the Jewish tradition has a loooooooong history of doing exactly that with the very same source material)

derived FROM arggh

I think you're touching on the reason there: the animus against gays is first and foremost a deeply tribal response, and then they're just using doctrine and other reasons (increasing population) to justify it.

also the bible is the word of goddamn god and if you start to pick it apart youre left with anarchy and moral relativism

Try those arguments on a Catholic and you'll get nowhere, because you'd be omitting what they consider to be the first and most important principle: God wills it.

i have to admit that part of me has a certain respect for the pope for trolling his liberal fans by capping his visit w/ a meeting w/ kim davis. the other part of me wants to throw up.

Try those arguments on a Catholic and you'll get nowhere, because you'd be omitting what they consider to be the first and most important principle: God wills it.

― Aimless, Thursday, October 1, 2015 1:14 PM (31 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

except most lay catholics in the USA have more liberal positions on those issues than the Church...

Many lay Catholics in the USA are notably apt to resemble Unitarians. Not that that's a bad thing.

Old Testament directives that the majority of Jews have long since abandoned

Eh this is a simplistic way to put it. It's not like for religion it's all or nothing for everybody. Maybe people like Kim Davis. But I think there's a tradition of ideas and concepts evolving. I'm reading some mainstream Rabbinic studies and there is a lot about evolving, realizing these things were written down in a historical context. Faith in a God that is still kind of mysterious and yet you respect enough (believe in) to allow for Him to have multiple viewpoints. Not an inflexible tyrant.

They still follow some laws, they have long since thrown out others. There is a sense that one can learn from the bad laws as well as the good laws. Is this a concept explored in Catholicism at all?

What each individual person believes in should be their own choice. To me that is the ultimate religious freedom. It isn't an acceptable view in corporate Christianity though. Not from the way evangelical politicians and figureheads portray it. It is about bowing down to a dusty and unchanging book. It's about self victimization and self glorification.

If you question the party line you are attacking their religion which only fuels their victimization. To have a non-normcore belief in Christ or the Bible and express that is to enter a shouting match and they are the first ones to claim God's authority.

The GOP say they love small businesses and their policies support violence towards the poor. It makes sense they embrace evangelical Christianity. The main defining ritual is drinking of blood of a small business owner. The main identifier is a device of state torture and capital punishment.

I see it as two separate religions. One contemplates the moral and philosophical underpinnings of these ancient writings. Another says there is only one way to interpret this stuff. This includes atheists who paint certain religions as "morally" bad or evil.

In the end people do the things they do. They will blame it on a book or on a king or on their boss or anyone but themselves.

If the pope wants to be posi to a hater that is probably for the best anyways. Like Doctor Who showing mercy to the Dalek, maybe she will see the light too one day.

It's funny, people being upset that the Pope isn't telling people what to do. Oh, he's just being nice to everyone! Oh!

I'm reading some mainstream Rabbinic studies and there is a lot about evolving, realizing these things were written down in a historical context. Faith in a God that is still kind of mysterious and yet you respect enough (believe in) to allow for Him to have multiple viewpoints. Not an inflexible tyrant.

They still follow some laws, they have long since thrown out others. There is a sense that one can learn from the bad laws as well as the good laws.

I was simplifying but yes this is absolutely what I was referring to, this tradition of examination and refinement in Jewish theology

One contemplates the moral and philosophical underpinnings of these ancient writings. Another says there is only one way to interpret this stuff.

also agree with this and in the latter case it would seem that that position is a direct result of being such a hierarchical, centralized organization dedicated to preserving (above all else) it's own authority

They still follow some laws, they have long since thrown out others. There is a sense that one can learn from the bad laws as well as the good laws.

buffet Catholicism in a nutshell

latin christianity is highly legalistic and emerges from a history of vast mutli-ethnic administration where to large extent it was the only extant source of authority or literacy

the same seems true of islam to some extent

eehhhhh Islam is not like Catholicism in some really basic and obvious ways

i mean most major religions are strongly political in that fashion, i guess.... the sharp distinction between secular and ecclesiastical authority is a pretty recent development in human history.

well islam isn't (now) centralized in the same fashion obviously

yeah that's the biggie. also the shi'a/sunni split (I guess the eastern orthodox church split is kinda analogous, except the EO church is tiny by comparison)

it wasn't when the split happened!

i don't even think the sunni/shia split is analagous; both trace their origin to an event that happened within the founding generation of islam but a separate shia consciousness only emerged as part of the islamicization of persia a few centuries later (look i'm no islamic historian tho obv!), it's a different kind of difference.

the great schism has, like, a date on it.

i mean most major religions are strongly political in that fashion, i guess.... the sharp distinction between secular and ecclesiastical authority is a pretty recent development in human history.

― wizzz! (amateurist), Thursday, October 1, 2015 3:07 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm it's kind of in their blood. Main difference maybe being a thousand years ago we couldn't conceive of a ruling class that did not invoke ecclesiastical authority. Now we can imagine it even if it's still not come true.

I guess being rich or on TV is the new form of Indulgences.

but charles pierce speculates that the ratzingerites set him up:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a38440/pope-francis-swindled-kim-davis-meeting/

― goole, Thursday, October 1, 2015 3:16 PM (7 hours ago)

yeah this seems pretty plausible to me

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/3728-the-pope-s-movie-picks

no bunuel though

lotta splainin itt

Vatican denies meeting was an endorsement. "We like to keep it surprising. We're not your father's Vatican."

just to clarify there are significantly more eastern orthodox christians that shia muslims, maybe twice as many

*than shia

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/europe/pope-francis-kim-davis-meeting.html?_r=0

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis’ encounter with Kim Davis last week in Washington, which was interpreted by many as a subtle intervention in the United States’ same-sex marriage debate, was part of a series of meetings with dozens of guests and did not amount to an endorsement of her views, the Vatican said on Friday.

Ms. Davis — the Rowan County, Ky., clerk who defied a judge’s order and refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples — was among the guests ushered into the Vatican’s embassy for a brief meeting with him, the Vatican said.

“The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement released on Friday morning.

Ms. Davis’s case has become a focal point in the debate over the tensions between religious liberty and marriage equality in the United States. Her lawyer said in a telephone interview on Friday morning that a church official had initiated the meeting and that he had been told it was at the request of Pope Francis.

Father Lombardi, in his statement, played down the meeting and said it had been arranged by the Nunciature, the Vatican Embassy, in Washington.

“Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City,” Father Lombardi said.

lmao this is so great. "persons."

whoah really ogmor? I had no idea. where are the big population centers that outdo Iran?

cool pope - "the bitch set me up"

really really cannot work out why so many otherwise normal-thinking ppl seem so invested in the idea of ~cool pope just bc he seems incrementally more progressive on select issues than the usual pathologic evil of the institution he heads (and on many other ways perpetuates that evil just fine)