Conquer Club

Just announced.

Argentina, do you think the catholics are after the Falkland islands?

2dimes wrote:Argentina, do you think the catholics are after the Falkland islands?

Nope. Too small scale. Going for Disneyland and Disneyworld!

But seriously, it's the first time in history a new world pope has ever been elected.

2dimes wrote:Argentina, do you think the catholics are after the Falkland islands?

I don't know, I think 2dimes is onto something here.

Saxi, did you infiltrate the vote?


--Andy

Let's just put this here.

Critics have accused him of ignoring the plight of victims during the country’s military dictatorship from 1976-1983, despite victims and their relatives relating first-hand accounts of torture, death and kidnappings to the priests he supervised as the local provincial of the Jesuit Order.[31]
On 15 April 2005, a human rights lawyer filed a criminal complaint against Bergoglio, as superior in the Society of Jesus of Argentina, accusing him of involvement in the kidnapping by the Navy in May 1976 (during the military dictatorship) of two Jesuit priests.[32] The priests, Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics, were found alive five months later, drugged and semi-nude. Yorio accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over to the death squads by declining to tell the regime that he endorsed their work. Jalics refused to discuss it after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.[33] Horacio Verbitsky, an Argentine investigative journalist and author, wrote a book about this and other related events titled El Silencio: de Paulo VI a Bergoglio: las relaciones secretas de la Iglesia con la ESMA.[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Bergoglio#Relations_with_the_Argentine_government

I'm not happy that we have another old (for popes) pope. There were dudes in their 60s and we took a guy who is 77.

Let's appoint an antipope!!

crispybits wrote:

Nailed it.

BMO

who gives a shit? he's probably going to say some anti-muslim things then some anti-sex things and nobody is going to care.

He's already (before his election) made some fairly extreme statements about homosexuality:

"Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle. Marriage equality is a destructive pretention against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 36,00.html

Wont you pray for me Argentinian....

I wonder if he's going to call for a crusade.

I think he'll only be called "Francis the first" when there's a Pope "Francis the second", until then he's just plain "Francis".

And a little humour from the Daily Mash:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 3031462640

crispybits wrote:And a little humour from the Daily Mash:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 3031462640

Hilarious and sad because it touches a raw nerve in Catholicism's recent shameful past.I don't know which is worse the widespread paedophilia and cover ups of the guilty or the complicity with Fascism.

It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.

The fact that he is calling himself "Francis" gives one hope.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The fact that he is calling himself "Francis" gives one hope.

I'm not hopeful. Of the various papal candidates, I think he was the worst choice (or second worst choice). I'm not saying we needed to have an African pope for the first time in 1,500 years. I'm saying we needed to have a more liberal pope (at least a little bit). I thought they would go back to that after Benedict, but apparently not.

crispybits wrote:It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.

History shmistory...

chang50 wrote: don't know which is worse the widespread paedophilia and cover ups

This is worse.

chang50 wrote:the complicity with Fascism.

Because this is non-existent. History shmistory...

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The fact that he is calling himself "Francis" gives one hope.

I'm not hopeful. Of the various papal candidates, I think he was the worst choice (or second worst choice). I'm not saying we needed to have an African pope for the first time in 1,500 years. I'm saying we needed to have a more liberal pope (at least a little bit). I thought they would go back to that after Benedict, but apparently not.

I have hope, but I think that expecting the church to go immediately more liberal would be doing too much, too soon.
What gives me hope is that if he truly does take the church back to real fundamentals of caring about one's brother and poverty, it will begin to set the stage where those other issues can be considered.

Ultimately, liberalism is really just about putting your care for other people above structure or rules, looking for real answers from almost any source (not talking political liberalism which as we have discussed is often just left wing dictating). That is actually the very change Christ brought to the Jewish faith. You see that point over and over in Christ's teachings, whether it is healing on the sabbath or saying that Mary Magdelene was right to listen to his words instead of just helping with the dishes.

The vow to poverty is getting a lot of attention. It can be a very meaningful stance, or it can be a kind of arrogance, even competition. Sort of "praying on the street corner" instead of in private.

What I find interesting is things like his chastising priests who refused to baptise children of single mothers, and the way in which he apparently chastized them... as I understand it that they were putting rules and their own perceived [false] piety above people and serving God truly.

Anyway, time will tell.

crispybits wrote:It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.

No more than your idea that anyone with faith is obviously not thinking straight.

No single idea is fascism, fascism is about not allowing opposition. Most modern Christians are no less willing to let others be than atheists.

The article was humerous, and largely because it did have just enough truth in it to be painful.. but expanded. Trying to paint is as anything else is beneath you crispy.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The fact that he is calling himself "Francis" gives one hope.

I'm not hopeful. Of the various papal candidates, I think he was the worst choice (or second worst choice). I'm not saying we needed to have an African pope for the first time in 1,500 years. I'm saying we needed to have a more liberal pope (at least a little bit). I thought they would go back to that after Benedict, but apparently not.

I have hope, but I think that expecting the church to go immediately more liberal would be doing too much, too soon.
What gives me hope is that if he truly does take the church back to real fundamentals of caring about one's brother and poverty, it will begin to set the stage where those other issues can be considered.

Ultimately, liberalism is really just about putting your care for other people above structure or rules, looking for real answers from almost any source (not talking political liberalism which as we have discussed is often just left wing dictating). That is actually the very change Christ brought to the Jewish faith. You see that point over and over in Christ's teachings, whether it is healing on the sabbath or saying that Mary Magdelene was right to listen to his words instead of just helping with the dishes.

The vow to poverty is getting a lot of attention. It can be a very meaningful stance, or it can be a kind of arrogance, even competition. Sort of "praying on the street corner" instead of in private.

What I find interesting is things like his chastising priests who refused to baptise children of single mothers, and the way in which he apparently chastized them... as I understand it that they were putting rules and their own perceived [false] piety above people and serving God truly.

Anyway, time will tell.

I've never thought the Catholic Church got away from helping the poor. I think the layperson view is that more time is spent on social issues such as homosexuality and abortion, but I think that is a public perception more than reality. I would like for less time to be spent on those types of issues if only so that the public perception changes a little. I don't expect the church to say "gay marriage is okay" and I don't want them to say "abortion is okay." I also want the church to address, correctly, the pedophilia issues. I don't know what the new pope's stance on the latter issue is.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

crispybits wrote:It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.

No more than your idea that anyone with faith is obviously not thinking straight.

No single idea is fascism, fascism is about not allowing opposition. Most modern Christians are no less willing to let others be than atheists.

The article was humerous, and largely because it did have just enough truth in it to be painful.. but expanded. Trying to paint is as anything else is beneath you crispy.

The problem with crispy and chang is that they are ignoring history. They are using the support of some Catholics and some priests and some bishops in Nazi Germany for the Nazis to paint the Catholic Church, in its entirety, as supportive of Nazi Germany. That simply isn't true. They are going to point to Pope John Paul's apology as evidence that the Catholic Church acknowledged its support of Nazi Germany. But that wasn't what John Paul apologized for - he apologized for anti-Semitism promoted by the Catholic Church across history (i.e. from the founding of the Church forward).

Basically, there were some portion of priests and bishops (and Catholics) in Nazi Germany who supported the Nazis. There were a lot of other priests, bishops and Catholics who did not support Nazi Germany. Some or all of those people either escaped or were killed by Nazi Germany. The Nazis killed Catholics, because of their religion, in Poland. Catholics from all over the world, including priests, fought in armies against Nazi Germany.

In any event, this is a fun way for atheists to try to denigrate the Catholic Church. There are much better ways to do so that have some basis in fact.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The fact that he is calling himself "Francis" gives one hope.

on the other hand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMtvnAmfuf8