Vatican Embassy Protestor

[Crossless2.0]

Jesus entire life was a PR stunt.

So close . . . keep going.

[vorlon13]

My comment about making child rape a sacrament was intended to highlight that such an action would only be construed as a difference in degree as to what is currently being done.

Not as hyperbole.

[FatAndFaithless]

Sure.
I can concede that Francis might be out to make the Church look 'good'. Any organization would prefer that. I mean, I live in the United States, "Not Sorry" Central. I believe he could also be running out of clergy.
But the notion that if the pope is fighting tooth and nail to maintain the facade of a perfect church, and if he doesn't the "Aha!" moment comes to non-Catholics around the world is preposterous, especially when said pope goes on and on about how much of a sinner he is.

And about Pope Francis sleeping in a hotel room, of course it's a PR stunt, but he's doing it, isn't he? His level of sincerity is impossible to know, because none of us know the Pope personally. But it's not somehow undermined. Jesus entire life was a PR stunt.

And again, I'll be awaiting his co-operation with the authorities to prosecute the pedophiles and their protectors. He knows it's happened and is happening. Until then he can wash as many feet and sleep in as shtity a bed as he can, still not even close to impressed with this church 'leader'.

[StealthySkeptic]

Jesus entire life was a PR stunt.

So close . . . keep going.

Soon, he may join us.

[Purplundy]

Jesus entire life was a PR stunt.

So close . . . keep going.

Jesus performing PR stunts to get a message across still doesn't undermine his sincerity or his message.
Of course, Jesus and Francis aren't in the same shoes. Jesus didn't have a billion-person following, but, if he did, by the doctrine of his own church, his refusal to act would give him a share in the injustice that is going on.
I doubt Francis is evil or hates kids. He just is a powerful man making a HUGE mistake when he is in the optimum position to stop it. So yeah, fuck that guy.

[StealthySkeptic]

So close . . . keep going.

Jesus performing PR stunts to get a message across still doesn't undermine his sincerity or his message.
Of course, Jesus and Francis aren't in the same shoes. Jesus didn't have a billion-person following, but, if he did, by the doctrine of his own church, his refusal to act would give him a share in the injustice that is going on.
I doubt Francis is evil or hates kids. He just is a powerful man making a HUGE mistake when he is in the optimum position to stop it. So yeah, fuck that guy.

Such as for instance Jesus saying that his followers couldn't take time to bury their dead parents?

[Purplundy]

Such as for instance Jesus saying that his followers couldn't take time to bury their dead parents?

That was probably more of a Jesus short story (it was pretty short), and would be an interesting policy for the Church to adopt.
So far as this guy in the tale didn't have ailing family to take care of, it's not as if he would have hurt anybody by leaving rotting corpses in their deathbeds. I'd charge the Son of God with perhaps being insensitive. The man who came to Jesus was there for his parents when they died, wasn't he? Besides, the story's probably been mythicized. Was this guy so unlucky that both of his parents died at the same time?
Of course, this is not addressed to anyone with actual deceased family members.

[StealthySkeptic]

Such as for instance Jesus saying that his followers couldn't take time to bury their dead parents?

That was probably more of a Jesus short story (it was pretty short), and would be an interesting policy for the Church to adopt.
So far as this guy in the tale didn't have ailing family to take care of, it's not as if he would have hurt anybody by leaving rotting corpses in their deathbeds. I'd charge the Son of God with perhaps being insensitive. The man who came to Jesus was there for his parents when they died, wasn't he? Besides, the story's probably been mythicized. Was this guy so unlucky that both of his parents died at the same time?
Of course, this is not addressed to anyone with actual deceased family members.

What? A Christian criticizing Jesus? Say it ain't so!

[Purplundy]

Well, actually, I hold fast to the notion that, as far as the Gospel accounts go, Jesus was infallible, in the literal sense of the term.
With the dude with the dead parents, I can't peg Jesus with doing something wrong. There's just too little information.

[Ben Davis]

Actually, it's the bishops who independently cover them up, not the pope himself.
But let's say that Pope Francis was personally responsible for the legal protection of every priest on the face of the earth. Papal infallibility, as a Church doctrine and not a set of two words, doesn't mean that the pope can't make mistakes. He can say and do a lot of stuff, like allow the ordination of future child rapists, but very rarely does the Catholic Church take some of it and say, "This is right." Twice in its history, actually.
And, considering that absolutely none of his actions, let alone his words, let alone official Church teaching, indicates that child rape is morally acceptable, except that he's afraid to take it on, his infallibility is nowhere close to coming into play.

...and you're either missing the point or trying to side-step it. In principle, the Cardinals are selected infallibly by the Pope who, in turn, infallibly select the bishops and so on. The processes & actions of the church are a reflection of Papal infallibility . If the hierarchy can fail, in process or action, the Pope is fallible. Consequently, to protect the concept, the entire foundation upon which the authority of the church rests, any failures mut be covered up. Whether the church officially endorses failures or not is beside the point. The bare existence of failures negates the possibility of Papal infallibility.

In reality, we see that infallibility is a joke because of the blatant corruption that exists and the various conflicting pronouncments made by different Popes. It's a despicable and insulting motive for the act of covering up child-molestation.