According to a senior Vatican official, the Holy See worries that any photos of the pope with these guests at the White House welcoming ceremony next Wednesday could be interpreted as an endorsement of their activities.There are 15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?
१८ सप्टेंबर, २०१५
"On the eve of Pope Francis’s arrival in the U.S., the Vatican has taken offense at the Obama administration’s decision to invite to the pope’s welcome ceremony..."
"... transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an activist nun who leads a group criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७१ टिप्पण्या:
He could skip the ceremony and go to the streets of Baltimore instead.
A good host would not invite people that their guest would object to.
There are 15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?
Because the photo-ops put out by the US Govt will be engineered so that such an interpretation is possible.
this was invitation was clearly meant as spit in the face of the American catholic church.
keep up politicizing every single thing in America, Obama. which is why I absolutely do not care if trump is elected president. we deserve it after Obama.
President Jerkass strikes again.
"Silence on abortion and euthanasia"? What part of it's wrong does Sister Clueless not understand?
"There are 15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?"
Yeah, because the news is just FILLED TO THE Brim with descriptions of the other 14,997 guests.
Sheesh, how much work is it to maintain that blind spot.
15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?
Because that's the entire reason that Obama invited them in the first place. He's trolling. On purpose, in case that was not clear. So apparently the President of the United States sees exactly that interpretation. How could a sane person not make that interpretation?
Funny how we never have this issue with Muslim dignitaries....
At least there's no Bogomils and Cathars around to invite. The Pope can rest easy on that score.
"There are 15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?"
There are about 319 million people living in the United States. Which means that 15000 is an extremely small percentage of the population, and an extremely small percentage of Catholics. Every one invited got invited for a reason.
We were warned about the culture war trolling, did the Wall Street Journal say which Senior Vatican Official?
Remember this is the same administration that refused to have any Cuban dissidents on hand when reopening the Cuban embassy.
MadisonMan said...
A good host would not invite people that their guest would object to.
There are 15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?
Because the photo-ops put out by the US Govt will be engineered so that such an interpretation is possible.
9/18/15, 12:10 PM
This! Absolutely this and/or it will be "arranged" for there to be some sort of confrontation that will either be politely tolerated by the Pope (hence an endorsement) or a minor incident will occur (and the Pope's intolerance will be MSM highlighted). It is a lose/lose proposition.
It is also a inconsiderate thing for the WH to do. Not the first for this admin and not the last. They have no class and no manners.
Gosh, with 15,000 invited guests, how did anyone even notice? Maybe because they were special and loaded with political significance? Yes, it's politics, and you are playing that game here, so don't be cute.
"But the game is not actually about challenging the pope: it’s about keeping the culture wars flaming and political divisions alive; it’s about manipulating the angry right into pitching a fit because the pope didn’t pivot away from Obama’s guests, shouting “Arrepentirse! Repent!”; it’s about cueing the angry left to cry, “Shame! See how these hateful Christians shove one another!” while the press shuffles forward chanting that Francis is, “one of us; one of us!”
This opinion piece isn’t about the people Obama is introducing to the pope. Francis wants to meet everyone, as he should, and he goes out of his way to do so, time and again. It’s about Obama’s own cynical move to exploit Peter, for the sake of the culture wars."
http://aleteia.org/2015/09/18/obamas-game-manipulate-culture-warriors-by-exploiting-a-pope/
Ann Althouse said...There are 15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?
I think too much of you to believe you're genuinely expressing disbelief, Prof.
For Obama Dems it's win-win: if the Pope's team or religious righties make a stink about it the Obama Dems and Media get to run stories about those intolerant religious righties; if the Pope's people and righties don't object then the Obama Dems and Media get their pictures of transgender activists with the Pope and Obama gets credit for making it happen.
Turns our all you need to win in America is a compliant Media and a cynical commitment to politicize everything possible.
He's a Christian.
Let's face it. Obama and the Argentine Jesuit claiming to be another Francis of Asisi are both Marxists jockying for leadership of the post Capitalist WORLD. So a co-ideologists war is always simmering under the surface.
May the best Eco Socialist Tyrant win.
Did Obama invite Westboro Baptist Church to, say, his most recent meeting with LGBTQ Advocates?
Would the invited presence of these rabid denouncers of homosexuality be taken by the advocates for the LBBTQ Advocates as a slap in the face, a direct insult to their mission? Would they perhaps cancel their meeting, or protest the inclusion of a group antithetical to their goals, at their meeting with the president?
The pope should cancel his meeting with Obama, or make a point to mention the Church's position that homosexuals are welcome in the Church, as long as they don't commit the sin of homosexual sex.
At this point, all you can do is just say that this President is so bizarre, and lives in a completely illusory world, full of unicorns and SJWs. No one else exists. Nothing exists but Obama and a handful of SJW causes.
In the meantime…the world roils the economy continues to snail along, and he smiles and declares, "Fore!"
A bigger putz has never sat in the Oval Office. Never.
Renee highlights Elizabeth Scalia's reasonableness toward the whole thing. I have to ask, are there any of the traditional Catholics who would actually decry the Pope embracing a sinner or are they more upset about the MSM reaction to such a scene?
this is one of the most tiresome Althouse posts I've ever seen. For a blogger that prides herself on parsing words, photos, and situations for meaning, intended or otherwise, to pretend that perceptions cannot be altered regardless of volume of attendees, is just trite. I expect better, Professor.
@Birches
Journalism isn't responsible to evangelize the Gospel, but jounalism does have a responsibility not to distort it for the glee of the 1% that controls both politics & media outlets.
Juvenile............
Have some respect.
Obama raised the Rainbow flag, the flag of congruence, of selective exclusion, the symbol of pro-choice ideology.
That said, the real mystery is how anyone could mistake Obama for Christian. Not since the Islamic Caliphate's invasions, and later the spread of left-wing regimes, have so many human lives been lost in service to a State-established cult.
Was the Texas clockmaker and his millionaire Dad invited?
I would have thought that a Nobel Peace Prize winner would have been able to negotiate a controversy free dinner with the Pope. This isn't up to the high standards we have seen in Obama's Middle East peace initiatives and racial healing maneuvers in this country. Well, we all have off days. I just hope the Pope has sufficient humility to accept Obama's suggestions on how to be a better person.
Are any KKK Grand Kleagles or Aryan Nations leaders invited?
There are about 319 million people living in the United States. Which means that 15000 is an extremely small percentage of the population, and an extremely small percentage of Catholics. Every one invited got invited for a reason.
Paddy O nails it.
Evidently the Althouse paradigm of sanity is a credulous fool who's unable to see the subtext for the trees.
That those freaks get in to see the Pope has me hoping I'll still be able to attend wearing my Satan costume.
At the end of this Administration, will there remain a single eye unpoked?
In your face, Pope-y!
There are 15,000 invited guests
Whose nephew has the hot-dog concession?
At least there's no Bogomils and Cathars around to invite. The Pope can rest easy on that score.
Nah, Cathars would be better than LGTBT activists or heretical nuns.
It's easier to light up a Cathar.
Since, etymologically speaking, the verb "to bugger" comes from unnatural acts associated with the Manichean Bogomils by the Orthodox, maybe it would be appropriate to have a Bogomil or two there. It could be a gathering of LGTBTB activists.
It seems to me Althouse is questioning the sanity of the Holy See since it is he who apparently believes that such photos might be interpreted as an endorsement.
Because the media shoves in in our faces.
It's just Obama, being an asshole. That's really his only refined skill.
This Pope deserves Obama.
A church that survived The Roman Empire's Diocletian (and Julian the Apostate), The Holy Roman Empire's Henry IV, England's Henry VIII and France's Philip IV will probably survive the USA's Obama.
As usual, our President, again, is being churlish.
"There are 15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?"
True, no sane person could make such an interpretation, only insane Catholics and conservatives.
I'm pretty sure that when the Reagans hosted the Gorbachevs, they did not invite Lech Walesa or some Russian dissidents to join them. If I can criticize the President's Caucasian one-half, this was just a little white trashy.
I forget if Obama invites dissidents to the State Dinners of the various heads of State.
Sometimes smart people are just really dumb and this case fits the professor to a tee.
Plus Obama is the biggest jackass we gave had as a President since I can even remember. Was Nixon even this big of an asshole?
God, I just want him gone, and dropped on his own Hawaiin island here he can kayak off into the sunset! Oh, and don't firget to take Michelle with you!
Remember when Althouse asked Meade if she reflexively defends Obama?
@paminwi,
My parents who are of Prof. Althouse's age, think President Nixon was actually a good president in retrospect. He was just paranoid about losing the election.
This is the same President that tried to dump Caroline Kennedy on the Vatican. Poor Japan got stuck with her.
How could any sane person invite these people to a reception for the pope? Here's an idea in keeping with the invitation list. How about screening a X rated movie while he's there.
Maybee @ 2:28 +1000
If there isn't already an "Obama is an insufferable jackass" tag, this post cries out for it to be created.
Birches, Renee, I fit into the category 'traditional Catholic', and have read Mrs Scalia's essays over the past couple of days. I don't doubt that it belongs to Peter's office to meet sinners wherever he finds them and since that's all of us in one way or another, from that specific perspective this is all media nonsense. But I think ES's analysis about the repercussions of the media depictions of this manipulative behavior at the White House is imperfect. Surely she doesn't want us to remain silent in the face of Mr Obama's patent abuse of his status as host to advance his own change-the-religion! agenda?
MayBee @ 2:28, Only if he has a secret plan to throw the dining head of state under the bus.
screening a X rated movie
The full series of unedited Planned Parenthood footage from conception to torture, abortion, harvesting, and trafficking. This should have a special appeal to our president, who can raise the PP flag to commemorate another win for pro-choice doctrine.
I would love to see the Pope cancel his meeting at the White House and instead invite Obama to join him in the impoverished city that is most of the people in D.C.
It's fine for them to be invited. Heck, as a Christian, I've got no problem with the Pope has photos and spending time with them - Jesus' photo ops were filled with sinners and he specifically AVOIDED spending all his time with the clean and powerful.
But I also would expect the Pope, like Jesus, to try to bring them to his way of thinking too.
"President Nixon was actually a good president"
I think he was competent in foreign policy, especially Vietnam.
He was weak on economics and domestic policy. He founded the EPA, for example.
He was certainly no more dishonest than most presidents, especially Johnson.
Watergate was a coup d'etat by Mark Felt using the two young reporters as cover.
Obama is a dick. A lying, slandering, corrupt, lawless dick. Of course, he would crap on the pope. It's a very dickish thing to do. Right in his wheelhouse.
Anyone think that Obama would pull this kind of dickish move on a Muslim ayatollah? Of course not. Remember that the next time someone raises the very reasonable question of what Obama's real faith is. Or questions whether he really is a Christian.
Althouse voted for this dick and still defends him.
There are 15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?
Finding a sane person amongst these groups is the issue.
I'm dreading the commute into Manhattan next week. Maybe I'll work from home. :(
@Mark Puckett- I think Elizabeth Scalia is right, although I (in my imperfection) can't help but feel angry at the situation. I took her point to be that any reaction only serves the cause of feeding animus toward the Church.
It's like a kid who is dealing with a bully- yeah, it's unfair to tell him to ignore the bully but sometimes that is the appropriate advice since reacting only encourages more bad behavior. It's also asking for that most Christlike response of turning the other cheek- just as, for example, the members of the church in SC did when they forgave the murder of one of their own. If they can do that, then we can shrug off our president being a putz. It doesn't mean that the action being ignored or forgiven is right.
Come to think of it, maybe a good response would be for Catholics to show up outside the meeting with signs saying, "President Obama, we forgive you for exploiting the visit of Pope Francis."
stan at 3:08 PM
Anyone think that Obama would pull this kind of dickish move on a Muslim ayatollah?
This is a good thought experiment. I say the next batch of Muslims that Obama brings to the WH should include an invitation to Pam Geller and Robert Spencer.
I'm sure a beneficial discussion will follow.
Now first off, I'm Catholic.
Second off, the Pope is coco for cocoa puffs on a lot of issues.
Keep in mind folks, the Pope is only considered 'infallible' in CHURCH DOCTRINE. That is the religious doctrine, not 'Global Warming'. Not 'Gay Rights'.
And certainly not GAY MARRIAGE.He is a embarrassment right now with a lot of church members.
So the White House thought they could pull a stunt on him and get these nutjobs to meet him? Not surprised. He has invited this very kind of action.
Were all 15,000 invited by the White House? I would think that the Church and not the State is handing out most of the invites.
As a palate cleanser, President Bush welcomes Pope Benedict:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irZmknvOB4I
The Obama administration made a point of publicizing these particular invitations of people who engage in or support people engaged in biblically sinful conduct.
Is it possible that any normal person could see that as other than compromising the Pope and the Catholic faith - even this Pope?
It is perfectly reasonable for the Vatican to assume Obama would want some selfies for posterity featuring himself, the Pope and the deviants. He's that kinda guy.
I thought this pope did endorse these activities? This is the pope who lectured everyone about having compassion for gays, right? Don't tell me this cocky pontiff is afraid to walk the walk.
Gay people. Not the gay lobby.
"So much is written of the gay lobby. I still have not met one who will give me the identity card with “gay” . They say that they exist. I think that when one meets a person like this, one must distinguish the fact of being a gay person from the fact of doing a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. That’s bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in such a beautiful way, it says, Wait a bit, as is said and says: “these persons must not be marginalized because of this; they must be integrated in society.” The problem isn’t having this tendency, no. We must be brothers, because this is one, but there are others, others. The problem is the lobbying of this tendency: lobby of the avaricious, lobby of politicians, lobby of Masons, so many lobbies. This, for me, is the more serious problem. And I thank you.'.
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/francis-press-conference-on-return-flight-from-brazil-part-2
Word on the street is the Pope's Philadelphia visit is a clunker. A campground trying to make a quick Pope buck canceled its plans.
Francis seems to be an idol, like Obama.
I was trying to be good today. Instead I bought more bullets. It's coming.
They apparently want it to. Real bad.
@Bob
Why would anyone camp or even stay at a hotel? People can hire a private bud as a church group. People can't afford hotels.
I've never seen such a divisive "leader". Can anyone give me a historical anology that didn't end in mass violence?
Renee, I have no idea why anyone would get a hotel room to see the Pope. I am not inclined to idolatry.
Philadelphia, however, planned for a big giant Popapalooza. Hotels, restaurants, city officials, traffic cops-- everyone planned, and it's not happening.
Bob, aren't your remarks contradictory? If people are not flocking to see the pope, then they are not idolizing him....correct?
Renee....thank you for posting the quote. Funny how the things Francis says and does seem much more correct and Christlike when they are not misrepresented.
Perhaps Francis is about to meet those card carrying gay lobbyists, and perhaps the Spirit will be at work.
CStanley, yes, you're right, somewhat. I noticed that after I clicked.
They're not flocking as much as predicted. It's still idolatry. The guy's not Jesus or Justin Bieber.
Only another symptom o his Anti-Christianity war (Jihad?) as paralleled by his support of Islam to and above the level of TREASON.
What sane person believes in an infallible Argentine?
You and others are right, too, to point out that a good Christian would meet people with love and respect first. It's foolish to think that Francis would be offended by who sits at the table.
stan said @ 9/18/15, 3:08 PM
You are a factually challenged idiot. Had to say it.
Anyway, I don't see the big deal here. The Pope should always be in a position to be able to stand next to every living human on the planet. He's the Pope! Humanity is the name of the game - not political b.s.
Bob, his words make the issue more clear though- it's not offensive to him to sit at the table with those who are gay or who have other inclinations that are considered sinful. The issue is that these are people who are activists, agitating for the Church to not forgive their sins but instead to pronounce that forgiveness is unnecessary.
"Philadelphia, however, planned for a big giant Popapalooza. Hotels, restaurants, city officials, traffic cops-- everyone planned, and it's not happening."
Francis isn't JP2. Much of JP's popularity stemmed from giving Commies his middle finger. Liberals probably don't get that. A Pope is a Pope is a Pope.
CStanley, yes, hate the sin, love the sinner and all that.
This pope is a bit of an ass, though. He doesn't like money, but lives surrounded by gold and Michelangelo paintings. He weeps for the environment, but takes a big jet to Philadelphia with a big entourage.
Not a good pope. We haven't had a good one since John Paul II.
Also from the linked WSJ article:
The presence of these figures is especially irritating, the Vatican official said, because it isn’t yet clear if the White House has invited any representatives of the U.S. anti-abortion movement, traditionally a high-priority cause for the U.S. bishops.
It is to laugh. Or maybe cry.
And there's also this:
Pope Francis is likely to speak several times during his U.S. visit about environmental protection and to call for lifting the economic embargo against Cuba.
It's like Francis was expecting a little quid pro quo or something. He obviously doesn't know the Obama way.
CStanley:
Exactly. From a scientific perspective, it is analogous to avoiding the normalization or promotion of orientations and behaviors antithetical to fitness. Transgender orientations and behaviors, including homosexuality, can be reasonably tolerated when they do not reflect a progressive condition. Indiscriminate killing, including elective abortion, however, cannot only not be tolerated, but for the sake of conserving the exceptional value of human life and thereby human rights, sacrificial rites must be rejected.
That said, whether is selective-child, congruence (e.g. "="), or class diversity, the State establishment of pro-choice doctrine reflects negative progress.
Let the pope wear a banner that says: I do not agree with any Amerikan "civil liberties" whether gay rights, women's rights, or the right of kids to be free of sexual abuse by priests.
Reporter with the Galilee Tribune - "Can we get another drawing of Jesus with the adultress and the tax collector! C'mon smile for the artist."
I have no problem with this, but it's all what the headline says the next day.
Is it "JESUS HAS MEANINGFUL DIALOG WITH PUBLIC SERVANT AND SEXUAL ACTIVIST" or is it "TAX COLLECTOR VOWS TO STOP BULLYING THE PUBLIC AND ADULTRESS SINS NO MORE."
I forgot to mention that Herod portrait-bombs the above drawing.
At some point the old man is going to have to decide if he really does favor not judging, loving and welcoming all people or not. Do the Mel Gibson types run the Vatican or does he? (Or is it "He"?) Sometimes choices have to be made - even if you are just another coddled Catholic with no freedom to develop any moral or intellectual independence whatsoever.
The use of language such as "deviant" and "normalization" indicates that the commenters here DO endorse a sort of gay self-hatred, their false protestations against hate notwithstanding. They obviously want people not born heterosexual to think of themselves as abnormal, strange, cast out, etc., and in the most abusive way - internally. With no recourse to any discussion or challenge or even questioning of the arbitrary authorities when it comes to explanations for why one kind of consensual, non-procreative love or romantic relationship is inferior to any other.
Christianity's greatest shortcoming (apart from blind faith) is passive-aggressiveness. Admit that you don't love these people. You are disgusted by them. And you conveniently hide behind the moral helplessness of Catholic dogma to codify it.
Wow Ritmo,
Right up there with my neighbor who thought that the Vatican itself determined what parish I should attend.
Come on Ann, how many times has the media in general used the "here's person X meeting with person Y and therefore this must mean something" crap? I guarantee if the Pope ends up in the same frame as any of the people mentioned in this article as objectionable to the Vatican, it will end up featured in a lot of places with some bogus captioning or commentary. It's not the first time progressives have tried pulling shenanigans with a papal visit, but I'll point out that a previous try in Denver in 1993 didn't turn out so well for them.
That said, this is a somewhat dangerous move for the administration to advertise in advance. This Pope is known for speaking off the cuff, and particularly with a Synod coming up addressing the family, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Pope engages in a little pushback that the media will not have a chance to filter if they cover things live (for those who doubt he would be that politically incorrect, check out the "Christmas greeting" delivered in front of the Vatican's staff last year).
No other form of Christianity that isn't a cult discourages moral or intellectual independence as much as Catholicism does, and you know it, CWJ.
Moral and intellectual independence are not its concerns. In their place, it has dogma. Stricter dogma than any other sect. Everyone knows this. That's how it retained so much power over people throughout the centuries, and how it retained its appeal as an institution - by hearkening back to massive power it held over people.
No other Christian sect was ever as concerned with political power as The Catholic Church. And this is just one of the many ways that it retains that power: By being impervious to reason, empathy, and any modern form of moral suasion outside of its priorities - which are, anyway, usually crowned by a fixation with the body so fierce, that only someone deathly afraid of it can even begin to understand.
These are the people telling transgenders, gays, hell - even sexually active adults who aren't trying to make babies - that they're WRONG.
I've been away all day, but I was thinking about this controversy. I am reminded of the adulteress being brought forward caught in the act. No doubt Obama, though he probably doesn't even know it, was channeling his inner-Pharisee with this thing. But the Pope should do what the Pope should do. If one can't figure out how to get out of the traps set for you by the World, then what's the use of being the Head of the Church?
I am not a Catholic, but I am a respecter of all people of goodwill and faith. So I root for the Pope, even when his idea of the necessity of A/C strikes me as someone who has never visited Arizona.
I like TreeJoe's idea of asking the President to meet him to minister.
R&B @ 6:45
You're confusing moral and intellectual independence with epater les bourgeois.
You wouldn't recognize moral and intellectual independence if it spit in your face.
I seem to remember the NYT taking care to crop GWB and Laura OUT of the Selma picture. Oh yeah, I forgets, they didn't crop the picture, the picture was "framed" so that President Bush didn't attend the march. Musta been 15,000 or so marchers on that day!
CStanley, Good idea re the 'We forgive you' signs. But if I were in DC, happily enough I would be preparing to welcome the Pope, doing my best to ignore Mr Obama's nonsense.
No, bunster. If that were the case then Catholics would be allowed to amaze someone other than the "bourgeois".
And you would be capable of understanding the difference between reason and a pathetic ad hominem attack.
Obama is a dick. A lying, slandering, corrupt, lawless dick. Of course, he would crap on the pope. It's a very dickish thing to do. Right in his wheelhouse.
Absolutely untrue! I am shocked... shocked and mortified that Stan, a characteristically insightful and upright Althouse commentator would so gratuitously venture into R&B territory.
@Mark- I agree- that was just an off the cuff remark and I don't think I would actually do the signs either. It would just be nice if there was a way to signal that the Pope's acquiescence to a political stunt is a sign of mercy, not weakness. As I think it through though, I guess the point is that we should not care about appearances.
Damn, imagine a hooker in attendance there, with reputation tarred by appearing with the troglodyte Pope!
Damn, imagine a hooker in attendance there, with reputation tarred by appearing with the troglodyte Pope!
Static Ping wrote: Because that's the entire reason that Obama invited them in the first place. He's trolling. On purpose, in case that was not clear.
Ha ha. And so when it's all said and done -- when the trannies and the abortionist nun have their "the Pope endorses me too photo-ops" -- think of all the Pope Francis good will that was destroyed in the doing.
Ha ha, you guys kill me.
Pope RuPaul I is the goal here, right?
"No other form of Christianity that isn't a cult discourages moral or intellectual independence as much as Catholicism does, and you know it, CWJ....
No other Christian sect was ever as concerned with political power as The Catholic Church."
This is deeply ignorant about the history of the Catholic Church as well as other forms of Christianity. And I say this as someone who is entirely not a Roman Catholic for all sorts of reasons.
Catholicism really is a big tent in all sorts of ways, providing significant variation on assorted topics. Much more than Protestants in a lot of respects, who separate into different churches rather than coexist with differing perspectives (and I'm a very committed Protestant).
That there are issues and approaches that lie outside any scope of historic Christianity is simply how things are. At a certain point, someone is just doing something that's not what the Church (in its catholic sense) is about, or has been about for its 2000 years. Issues like sexuality and abortion/infanticide go back to the earliest days of the church and really are part and parcel with Christian anthropology.
Well - it is a weak and bigoted behavior by our administration.
They would not invite these people to meet the Ayatollah, if he were coming. No, they push on those who aren't aggressive and are not hostile. But G_d forbid someone set up the CAIR leaders with these people. That will not happen.
This administration has been somewhat hostile to Catholics all along.
Weak, worthless and no damn good, that's my impression of this administration. They kowtow to the bullies and then get passive-aggressive with the meek. Nothing makes you look weaker!
not born heterosexual to think of themselves as abnormal, strange, cast out, etc.
Of course they are Monty and you know it. Don't bother trying to lie, the idea of a f***** touching you gives you creeps. I know that because you're straight, any straight man would. Please, if I, or since I am doubtless flawed, if the most attractive man on this board or in the universe tried to f*** you, you'd tear his throat out with your teeth.
Ritmo: would you rather be raped, or lose your pinky finger?
Now, Althouse, same question.
IOW Rhythmeen, you're as anti as any normal man and cynically use this to flog foes.
Buster,
You wouldn't recognize moral and intellectual independence if it spit in your face.
9/18/15, 7:07 PM
Which it would, if it was ever in the same room with him.
Because Obama's people made a big deal about it.
Obama is not a nice person, Althouse.
This is the kind of cheap moral courage we conservatives have come to expect from this administration. You will never see, for example, Obama brag about sending a transgender negotiator to deal with the Iranians. That would take courage. This is just cheap and tawdry. The only reason Obama didn't invite one of the PP vivisectionists is because it wouldn't play well in the US.
I wasn't going to do this, but then I changed my mind. This is a very good blog and it is so because the author actually does care deeply about distinctions of meaning.
So if this seems like a nasty quibble, please understand, it's more of a tribute to the spirit of this blog.
The last sentence in the post "There are 15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?" only makes sense to non-Catholics, and of course the Vatican statement is aimed at Catholics.
There have been a series of directions from the Vatican about not placing persons (most of whom, of course, are heterosexual) who are living in open violation of basic Catholic doctrine in leadership positions. Thus, in the context of Catholic life, the Vatican statement makes all kind of sense. Persons living in sin (even if they are married, but their marriage is not valid under Catholic doctrine) can't be in teaching positions or leading positions in the parish.
Mind you, this does not imply that Catholics who are in these positions are not sinners. From the Catholic POV, the problem is that the church must not seem to endorse unrepented, public, continued sin. These directives have been given to parishes, and the Vatican spokesman is trying to clarify that they still stand. Pope Francis, of course, will greet these people warmly.
There are 15,000 invited guests so how could any sane person make an interpretation of endorsement?
What was the point of inviting them if not to receive, or bestow an endorsement?
CStanley, On second thought, I think I wouldn't do the signs because the truth probably would be that I want Mr Obama to be ashamed of himself and trudge publicly through the snow to seek Peter's mercy-- and am sufficiently self-aware that I wouldn't want to be such a hypocrite in public. If there's hope for me, however, there's hope for him.
Paddy O: Can you identify for me a sect of Christianity that has both a dogma as rigid and a mechanism for demanding compliance as strictly with it as does Roman Catholicism?
I think you underestimate the power of three things that Catholicism has at its disposal that offers it a worldly power over its adherents that other sects can only dream of:
1. Numbers
2. Historical power (especially over states). Something that you even use to endorse a sort of "veto" power over what is or is not "legitimate" Christianity - even despite having left it!
3. A clergy that, for reasons of sexual paranoia, is more cloistered from an understanding of normal concerns having to do with relationships than any other.
4. Affiliation with entire ethnic groups
Some sects (perhaps Mormonism, due to how closely it "protects" its own hierarchy and community) come close. But I have never met as many Christians as traumatized by an upbringing as threatening of its adherents' needs as I have that were Catholic.
"No other Christian sect was ever as concerned with political power as The Catholic Church."
This is deeply ignorant about the history of the Catholic Church as well as other forms of Christianity.
Ok. Then please accept this correction:
No other Christian sect was ever as concerned with political power for as long as The Catholic Church has been.
Jesus made a point of meeting with sinners. Square that with any endorsement theory. And these are Obama's invitees, not the Pope's,
Relatedly, th U.S. Government is not supposed to endorse religion, so that is an important counterweight here.
Nichevo's dreck simply doesn't even merit anything as dignified as a response.
That he can't tell the difference between discussing someone else's sexuality or sexual orientation without imagining being a part of it says something.
It says something pretty creepy about him, really.
Curiously, it seems the best person Obama could find to be Secretary of the Army is also gay. What are the chances?
Oh you're such a fucking liar, Ritmo, how can you live with yourself?
Actually to be fair you have not denied what I've said, and by Ann's standards I think that's a hit. So fine, you concede my point, teh ghey is not quite right. So you may have to put up with it, but must it really be fed like this? You should be hoping there's prenatal vitamins or such that can keep your kid from what apparently is now regarded as a birth defect caused by lowl/high T, or such, in utero. Not bending civilization around it.
But your second sentence is not grammar. Please redo it.
As for deserving... Ha, ha, ha. The whole concept of the left is transfer from the deserving to the undeserving. What else is redistribution? Who are you to decide who deserves anything? Ha, ha, ha.
Ann, I read your comment multiple times and, forgive me, I cannot parse the true meaning of your statements. I come up with two competing, contradictory interpretations.
Regardless, the Pope is not only a religious leader but also a head of state. There is supposed to be some decorum involved in such visits. Making a public statement that the President is inviting individuals who are openly hostile to the Pope and making it at the last minute as to try to maximize the ruckus is unprofessional and poor form. Frankly, given diplomatic protocols, this cannot be seen as anything other than an intentional insult. Historically, wars have been fought for less.
If the President felt that the Pope was so distasteful that he needed to go this route, he should have declined to meet with him. Condemn his positions openly. This passive-aggressive nonsense is embarrassing not only to the President but the entire country.
To put it another way, Ace would describe this as a "F*** Y**!"
Of course, the Pope is willing to meet with sinners as Jesus did. For some reason I doubt these activists were invited in the hope that they would repent.
This passive-aggressive nonsense is embarrassing not only to the President but the entire country.
My candid observation is that Althouse respects and encourages passive-aggression.
Why do we have to fete the Pope anyway?
Is it because Vatican City is it's own state, so technically he's the head of a state?
I don't know who molested young Nichevo but it seems it left his brains as fucked-up as his diddler.
Don't worry. Not all gays would molest you. Actually, none of them would.
But you can still dream. Fantasies are still ok.
"Relatedly, th U.S. Government is not supposed to endorse religion, so that is an important counterweight here."
So the special guests are pointless?
C'mon. This is just dumb.
"Paddy O: Can you identify for me a sect of Christianity that has both a dogma as rigid and a mechanism for demanding compliance as strictly with it as does Roman Catholicism?"
Eastern orthodox. You don't know much about Christianity, R&B. You should stop commenting on it.
The Pope thinks he knew thug politicians in South America. Welcome to Chicago politics, Padre!!
With 1500 guests, maybe the WH could fit in a bloated, bleached, washed up law professor as well.
Maybe you should stop, Terry. You present Eastern Orthodox Christianity as being as dogmatic and restrictive as Catholicism, and yet it has married priests. So give an example of what you mean or raise something else you don't know about as if anyone cares or had addressed anything to do with it.
@R&B,
You present Eastern Orthodox Christianity as being as dogmatic and restrictive as Catholicism, and yet it has married priests.
So does the Roman Catholic Church, R&B, except not the Latin Rite. Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome can have married clergy, like the Orthodox. You know that only "secular" clergy (meaning non-monastic) Orthodox clergy marry, right? In the Orthodox church, monastic clergy take a vow of celibacy also, & the bishops & higher ranks are drawn only from the monastics. You're the only human being on the planet who finds the Orthodox less hard-ass than the Latins, a judgement I think most Orthodox would proudly dispute.
Anyone who finds Catholicism more morally constricting than most forms of Protestantism has lived in a world of revisionist, modern liberal Protestantism. I grew up Catholic in the deep South & the Protestants around us were proud of the fact that they were more hard-ass than we Catholics were. Leave the anti-Catholicism to tradguy, R&B. At least he comes by it honestly as a so-called Calvinist (speaking of the hardest of the hard-asses...).
Your views on Catholicism remind me of our exchange on Judaism, where you told me I understood nothing of Judaism, in spite of the fact that most of my postings linked to a Rabbinic source.
At least you're willing to engage on this...
Whatever the reasons, it seems to me that marriage is much less common in RCC than among the Orthodox Christians... from what you say it appears they make exceptions for their churches that are in Eastern Orthodox lands, though - i.e. a minuscule minority of Catholics worldwide.
I don't doubt that Protestantism is more constricting in the South - the land of Baptists and Evangelicals. And I find that to be an anomaly. You must know that the South only became more "religious" after losing the Civil War. Cultures find areas of retreat after something that traumatic, and for the South to retreat into religion, as a form of penance, made sense. Antebellum, they were the secular, aristocratic "elites" of America, more widely admired by Europe than the vulgar, Puritan North. So if this is a regional phenomenon of which you speak, then let's admit that it's probably rooted in the culture of conflict in America, and should hopefully abate by the time the South gets over its peculiar ways of coping with differences tested (if not resolved) in the Civil War.
Your last paragraph sums up to me an entire restatement of what's most different about Christianity (and especially Catholicism): Your obsession with beliefs. You seem to not even understand that some religions are more faith-based, and some act-based. Judaism is the latter. Jews generally don't dictate what Jews must believe. They simply don't. More of them are avowedly secular or even atheist than would ever be the case among those calling themselves "Christian".Their rabbis might work within theological guidelines, but place more emphasis on advised behaviors and practices (instead of on beliefs) than you'll apparently ever know. As much as you an claim that I don't know about Catholicism, or that anyone else can claim that I don't know about Christianity, I know enough to know that it is way more obsessed with what people believe.
And if telling people what they must believe isn't a form of mind-control then you tell me what is. And if getting the sliding door of a confessional slammed in your face because you'd prefer your priest to be more of a confidante and guide than a spiritual overseer isn't authoritarian, well, you get the picture.
Does anyone remember - has Obama ever invited any homosexual activists to dinner when moslem dictators visited him? Say, did he openly talk about PLO hanging gays and confronting then on this matter? Nope, he actually thinks PLO is all cool.
The only people against whom he pushes the homosexual agenda are the people of the West, who are tolerant, and who do not intend to kill. He respects the "culture" of the third-world swine - Iran, Turkey, PLO, you name it.
Oh well, I get up in London and look only to find Ritmo blathering on. This Pope deserves Obama.
Here's the source known as Rabbi Wikipedia on works vs. faith/grace. Not sure if it's "authoritative" but hopefully a start.
Yeah Michael everyone knows how easily distressed you get, and particularly with the vapors you sense at the mere sight of my avatar.
But here's the good part: No one cares.
We get that you're a sensitive guy. So sensitive that you changed your avatar simply because Titus found it hideously gauche and abominably unfashionable.
But I simply don't have the grace to care. Maybe someone else does, but I don't. Now place a pillow nearby for your fainting spells and remind your nanny to wake you when the anxiety passes and the barbiturates wear off.
Writmo wrote:
And if getting the sliding door of a confessional slammed in your face because you'd prefer your priest to be more of a confidante and guide than a spiritual overseer isn't authoritarian, well, you get the picture.
But those are people who died, died!
It amuses me that you are concerned with a confessional/repentance "scheme" when your own professed religion (global warming) fully embraces the same and carbon indulgences!
For some reason, I could not give two shit about about Jim Carroll. Did he give a shit about my cousin who got his head bashed into concrete pavement? Hell, Jim Carroll (if he's anything like R&B) would have celebrated the life of Trayvon Martin.
Carbon and the atmosphere is understood through the discipline known as "science". What happens to people's "souls" (let alone the way Vatican politicians can manipulate them) is not.
But hey, it's not even clear that you believe in caution when it comes to PCBs or endocrine disruptors.
I prefer to direct my moral energies into what we can actually know about the world and preserve what's good about it for the future. Apparently you don't, and prefer to make moral behavior about invisible things and the most out-of-touch with the world arbiters of who did anything good with those invisible things. Because, hey - whatever people believed 2,000 years ago must be really important for people to believe today. Notwithstanding germ theory, gravitation, electricity and other New Age nonsense.
I never "celebrated the life of Trayvon Martin". I never celebrated his death, either - but it sounds like you're still not getting the difference.
"No other Christian sect was ever as concerned with political power for as long as The Catholic Church has been."
Well, the only sect that has been around as long (by definition the exact same length) is the Orthodox Church. I'd say the Byzantium intrigues all the way through the Russian Orthodox suggest a concern with political power.
As far as strict adherence, the theological minutiae that gets someone ostracized in conservative Baptist circles, for instance, goes well beyond what Catholics have to deal with.
That's not a compliment to anyone, just saying that the Catholics do allow a fair bit more variance than assumed. That people are traumatized by the teachings has more to do with the specific authority figures than the official doctrines.
The places where the Catholic Church does draw sharp lines means those are actually considered very important and key elements, not minor issues.
As an example, my very Evangelical organization had a full day gathering including meetings and meals at a very Catholic retreat center. The priest in charge of the center walked by each table at dinner time and greeted everyone quite warmly.
In contrast, it'd be a rare Evangelical denomination that would be as welcoming to Catholics.
That people are traumatized by the teachings has more to do with the specific authority figures than the official doctrines.
The places where the Catholic Church does draw sharp lines means those are actually considered very important and key elements, not minor issues.
That may be so (the first part). I actually suppose it is so. But if so, I think that celibacy has a huge part to do with it.
Celibacy has been sought as a device of spiritual cleansing prior to Christianity and in other realms. But I think the problem with elevating it to a central role means that natural urges are not dealt with in a mature way and natural ways of relating to each other (not just sexually) are prevented from being understood. It becomes a sort of fear of the natural world, of one's own body even, and when combined with the theological minutiae that theologians generally will seek, a way of justifying a willingness to impose way too many strictures on all sorts of behavior and thought before those behaviors and thoughts can even be examined on their own moral merits or faults.
As someone who is neither, I think both Catholics and Protestants have cultural practices that complement each other.
I find Catholics to be more communitarian and perhaps more charitable, even. But at the expense of other shortcomings I've addressed before and don't want to belabor.
As for Protestants, we remember what Max Weber said and of course have to presume that the culture of liberty brought to the New World by Anglicans and barely affiliated co-religionists must have played a role. I track that all the way back to Henry VIII, a man with questionable family values but a man who had every right to challenge the spiritual monopoly (previously never questioned) of a man who would end his reign for reasons of arbitrary (one might even say Pharisaic) meticulousness.
And the result was an England that flourished for the next few centuries in ways that so much of the rest of Europe could only dream of. An England in which our own foundational culture was wholly based.
Max Weber compared northern and southern (and southwestern) European economies. Similar observations could apply to the western hemisphere. Why are Central and South American countries so lazy and corrupt? Why do their people succeed when transplanted to northern environs? Will America continue if it gets mexified politically by ¡Jeb!? These are Weberian questions.
Where it's hotter people need to work less.
Have you ever been to Italy or Greece in July? It's stifling. The last thing you'd want to do is sweat more.
But it gave them apparently much comfort in which to think.
As a thread devoted to what people claiming to speak for the Guy in the Sky thinks, I like what he had to say about it.
It's probably a huge bastardization, predictably controversial even, to say all this. But I don't see how the rigors of a tougher life where planning for the winter is a necessity doesn't leave a mark on how to adapt to an industrialized culture.
Except in Russia, where they just say fuck it, chug a vodka, and get all their energy from nuclear anyway.
"Maybe you should stop, Terry. You present Eastern Orthodox Christianity as being as dogmatic and restrictive as Catholicism, and yet it has married priests."
Marriage in the Eastern orthodox church does not end with death, R&B. Also, the orthodox have views on homosexuality that are stricter than that of the Catholics. Part of the "married priests" package. I'm serious, R&B. You do not do your cause good when you demonstrate that you have strong opinions about a topic you know little about. That is one of the marks of a bigot.
Callous disrespect and in-your-face are two of the things Obama is very good at.
But Terry, that's all that Ritmo does.
Well, that and what Hammond said.
I wonder if Obama would invite these same people if the Saudi King, or any other Muslim diplomat were coming to the WH?? I think NOT!! Disrespectful.
I wonder if Obama is going to have the Pope leave through a side door past garbage like he did the Dalai Lama??? http://nypost.com/2010/02/20/back-door-dalais-not-so-grand-exit/ More Disrespect...
In which thread R&B demonstrates his deep understanding of the Latin and Orthodox and displays his profound and laughable belief that warm weather frees man to think deeply. Leaving out, of course, the fact that whole continents lay below his keen vision.
You have to love the tells of the poorly educated and the shallow.
I just double checked the orthodox & marriage. Wow! You are only allowed to get married three times! Not that big a deal -- unless you are widowed three times and you are still relatively young. In that case, no marriage, and no sex outside of marriage. Remember the movie Sideways with Thomas Haden Church and Paul Giamatti? Church was a player trying to get in a last fling or two before his wedding? One of the subtle things in the movie was that Church was getting an orthodox wedding. No divorce, and marriage continues even beyond death.
A year or two ago I read a story from Russia. A homosexual who was a defrocked orthodox priest had gotten into an orthodox church late at night and held a same-sex ceremony there (illegally, of course). When the priests who ran the church found out about it they decided that the same sex ceremony had so desecrated the place the only thing they could do was burn it down.
R&B, I think you're right in your 1:15 and 1:21 comments. In regards to the first, that's among the reasons I'm not a Catholic. Not the celibacy issue itself, but mandating it. I don't agree with the theology behind the role of priests (even the title) but I understand it. A lot of the pushback don't understand it and think it's just a minor issue for Catholics rather than being key to their whole liturgical structure. The insistence on singleness itself came rather late in Church history, a 1000 years in or so.
At the same time, it does highlight the value of singleness that the Protestants have almost entirely dismissed. Thus, leading to the current situation where gay marriage is approved lest we "condemn" someone to a lonely life.
I suspect that if the Orthodox and the Catholics reunite, the Orthodox approach (priests can marry, but bishops can't be married) will likely become the pattern for all.
An interesting editorial observation at the Washington Post this morning on the subject of AA's post, more or less.
Ritmo: "Christianity's greatest shortcoming (apart from blind faith) is passive-aggressiveness. Admit that you don't love these people. You are disgusted by them. And you conveniently hide behind the moral helplessness of Catholic dogma to codify it."
Althouse: "Jesus made a point of meeting with sinners. Square that with any endorsement theory. And these are Obama's invitees, not the Pope's,"
A little "theology" by and for heathens and professing Christians.
Hmmm. Let's see: a. "Hate the sin. Love the sinner." b. "Go and sin no more."
Hope that helps you two.
Althouse: "Jesus made a point of meeting with sinners. Square that with any endorsement theory."
So, for Althouse transgender activism, being openly gay, and being silent on abortion and euthanasia are sins in need of forgiveness. That's a very Catholic perspective indeed!
"Christianity's greatest shortcoming (apart from blind faith) is passive-aggressiveness"
I'd say Christianity's greatest shortcoming historically has been its aggressiveness. Nothing passive about it. Whenever it got aggressive it lost its way.
I don't find Christianity to be that passive-aggressive. Now Buddhists and Progressives, they're all about the non-violent violence of passive-aggression.
Verbal aggressiveness is a great detour around physical aggression. But it's hard to be aggressive in either sense if you're considered suspect just for even having the occasionally un-brotherly thought.
Re: Aggression and passive-aggressiveness, it must be said that both Christianity and Islam were imperial religions, where the role of unity, of unifying people, was central. There is some thought about the advent of major religions during the iron age (the "axial age") and how that might have coincided with a need for uniting people around a more complete theology of man, given the accumulation of so much earthly power. Judaism, by contrast, remained tribal. It was also not much of an empire.
In those larger religions, though, finding ways of enforcing hierarchy and obliterating (even superficially) tensions becomes paramount. Otherwise, their claim to speaking for entire empires of millions of people populating millions of square miles in area, becomes harder to enforce. The downside of this however is that freedom of conscience and individual action is up against much more powerful forces.
As for Buddhism, it's hard to know what to say about that. But a friend of mine once intimated that the role for respecting one's elders in Asia is part of what made freedom (and rebellion) much more difficult there, and the spread of totalitarian ideologies in the 20th century easier to take root. At least in Christianity you had a slightly more rebellious example to follow - and one who even said that forsaking obedience to one's family might be necessary and even a good thing every now and then.
For once Ritmo is onto something. You have to look at societies that are dominated by Catholicism vs the societies dominated by Protestantism. We can look at societies where Islam is the dominant cultural force if we want to get into true hilarity as they are wholly fascist.
For now focus on States dominated by protestants; i.e the US, Britain, Australia etc. They are defined by nuclear families and in general a more liberal government structure.
States dominated by Catholics are not this way. They have extended family structures and corrupt/socialist government structures. Central/South Americas, Italy etc.
The Catholic church raises and teaches people to cling to tribal/familial groups and depend on a central force for guidance. Protestant denominations push nuclear families and independence. This matriculates up into the political structures created in those societies. It is no accident that the Catholic church raised a marxist as pontiff. This kind of central guidance is impossible in protestant denominations.
Why are Central and South American countries so lazy and corrupt??
Because they weren't fortunate enough to be colonized by England.
States dominated by Catholics are not this way.
Poland? Austria? Slovenia? Luxembourg? The German-speaking Swiss cantons?
The U.K. isn't any less socialist than Ireland. Ulster is majority Protestant, and Scotland is an even worse welfare basket case.
The Catholic church raises and teaches people to cling to tribal/familial groups and depend on a central force for guidance. Protestant denominations push nuclear families and independence. This matriculates up into the political structures created in those societies. It is no accident that the Catholic church raised a marxist as pontiff. This kind of central guidance is impossible in protestant denominations.
Lifelong Catholic here (weak upbringing and catechesis as a child, fallen away as a young adult and then returned after learning a great deal more, and still learning). I've never seen or heard a shred of teaching that encourages clinging to tribal groups and depending on a central force for guidance. I'd say that in the countries you cited there were other cultural elements that encouraged those things, and correlation with Catholicism does not equal causation.
Poland? Austria? Slovenia? Luxembourg? The German-speaking Swiss cantons?
Poland's such a strong economic powerhouse that its people migrate by the droves to the UK, etc., looking for decent work opportunities.
The Swiss cantons are tied to a political confederation and Alpine culture that dominates their values much moreso than would any religious affiliation.
furious_a said...
Poland? Austria? Slovenia? Luxembourg? The German-speaking Swiss cantons?
"The U.K. isn't any less socialist than Ireland. Ulster is majority Protestant, and Scotland is an even worse welfare basket case."
You can pick specific examples but that gets beyond the scope of a 100ish word blog post. Poland for example has issues other than societal/cultural issues that changed their society greatly, specifically large neighbors invading them fairly regularly. Switzerland is just the opposite. Up until very recently they were a racially homogeneous and for the for part relatively untouched group. They were in a somewhat remote space and had a high percentage of individual gun ownership.
The broad point stands. Catholic dominated societies tend towards statism/socialism. Areas where protestants are the primary cultural force tended towards liberal democracy.
The issue with Scotland is that liberal democracy always ends the same way. 51% of the population decides it can vote itself the wealth of some smaller number of people. There is a slide into statism/socialism aided by a strong personality who uses the rubes to enrich himself. Every now and then they become a menace to their neighbors but for the most part it ends up with sorrow and poverty.
The natural state of humanity is poverty. The only deviation from this state has been recently where a combination of liberty and property rights allowed a broad swath of the population in a few countries to attain wealth. And note how the aristocracy works to move back to the natural state through the same channel: state power.
President Inyourface extended invitations to LGBT activists and nuns who advocate for contraception, abortion and euthanasia knowing they would be the ones on whom the media would focus. It will be interesting to watch the maneuvering to try and get the Pope and one of the special invitees in the same frame.
Jesus met with sinners. He instructed them to go and sin no more.
For crying out loud- Poland certainly didn't "tend toward statism"' it became statist when occupied by communist USSR (after being sold out once again by the Allies,) during which time its economy was decimated. A few decades after the fall of USSR and Poland, the only Eastern bloc nation to retain its Catholic identity, has the strongest economy of all of them, by far. And it isn't tending to statism now- in fact one of the big problems is no pensions or social security program for retirement (one reason workers still have to travel to seek higher wages.)
Sorry but the facts just don't support your hypothesis.
"The issue with Scotland..."
The issue with Scotland is that it's full of scots.
Well, that and immigration. Any time there's a mass immigration in a land of opportunity, and it involves a difficult journey to get there, the most ambitious and hardest working will go.
We got the best of the Scots. That's what makes America great. A self-selecting group of the best people from around the world make their way here.
The natural state of humanity is poverty.
Not according to the story of the Garden of Eden.
Wow, today's Catholic Mass readings were so appropriate to this kerfuffle.
Indeed they are, CStanley. 'Et omnis turba quærébat eum tángere: quia virtus de illo exíbat, et sanábat omnes', and all the crowd sought to touch Him, because strength, power, healing, virtus went out from Him, and healed them: I don't doubt that even contemporary unbelievers perceive some of this, in their own way, even when it is Peter's successor and not the Lord who walks by.
"Jesus made a point of meeting with sinners. Square that with any endorsement theory."
Jesus made a point of clearly NOT endorsing the behavior of the sinners - that is just as significant, perhaps more so, than the fact that he met with them.
Since people are still reading this thread, I thought I'd suggest this link to a short essay by James Bowman at Armavirumque on the Trump-like rudeness of Mr Obama, or his people, to the Pope.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा