Be careful, you’re going to bring out the upspeak/vocal fry haters…
2 Likes
Before we continue, let us stipulate a few things. First of all, let us stipulate that there are more than a few members of the Church’s permanent bureaucracy, both within the Clan Of The Red Beanie and without, who are not happy that this gentleman got elected Pope, and who are not happy with what he’s done and said since he was. Second, let us stipulate that many members of this group are loyal to both former pope Josef Ratzinger and, through him, to the memory (and to what they perceive as the legacy) of John Paul II who, for good and ill, had a much different idea of how to wield a papacy than Papa Francesco does. Third, let us stipulate that this opposition to the current pope has been active and vocal, to say nothing of paranoid. Finally, let us stipulate that, for over 2000 years, the Vatican has been a hotbed of intrigue, betrayal, and sanctified ratfcking on a very high scale. (It also has been a hotbed of, well, hot beds, but that’s neither here nor there at the moment.) So, if you’re one of these people, and you’re looking to ratfck the pope’s visit to the United States, and to his agenda in general, you’d be looking to put him in a box. So, how would you do that?
4 Likes
2 Likes
According to the Vatican, he met her along with 1,500 other people on the trip very briefly, and it wasn’t a meeting. And it was most emphatically not an endorsement of her or her position.
It’s also worth noting that the meeting was supposed to be private, not publicized. It says something about her and he lawyers that they immediately broadcast it and tried to spin it as an endorsement. Given that she’s not Catholic, an adulteress, repeatedly divorced and re-married, and now lied to the Pope, I don’t think they’re going to say anything nice about her in the future.
7 Likes
The fact that they explicitly came out to say they did not give her support speaks volumes for what happened, and how the pope feels about her position. I realize that he is still catholic, but I’m not going to shit on this pope for the impossibly far leap the church took forward under him. The shift from doctrine to intent has been something I have to acknowledge and respect.
I don’t even understand why anyone would have believed her lawyers media team’s version of events when they are the worst kind of liars, and (to me) a perfect representation of religion in the United States. Her faith has nothing to do with what she chose to deny people their right to marriage.
2 Likes
Oh, I don’t doubt it the numbers represent some people who wouldn’t even describe themselves as catholic, and a lot of people who would, if asked, describe themselves as catholic but who don’t really do anything involving the church. Then again, many of those lapsed American catholics would probably follow the Pope’s visit to America. I imagine the count of catholics is less deceptive than the count of the player of any given Facebook game, but I’m sure it’s more deceptive than, say, a count of people in the room with me right now.
I think that what’s refreshing about this pope is that while he might be “hating on” homosexuals, he doesn’t appear to actually hate people who are homosexual. That isn’t, as you say, all sweetness and light. It’s like being happy that while your racist grandma says things about “those” people at Christmas dinner, she doesn’t actually hurl slurs in the street. A small mercy.
Yes that is ad hominem. Do you know what is wrong with ad hominem? It’s a logical fallacy - that is, pointing out that the person saying something homophobic is being homophobic is not a refutation of the argument they are making. That is all that is wrong with ad hominem.
This would be obvious if you tried to spell out what was wrong with calling Kim Davis or the pope homophobic instead of quoting the name of a logical fallacy. For instance: “Whether or not Kim Davis is homophobic has no impact on whether the following reasoning is correct: [insert logical argument here].” Now, if you could actually insert an argument there, then there would be something to argue about.
Flawksy-Walksy, Play at rumpscuttle and clapperdepouch, Chevy, All sixes and sevens, Crimthink, Hepped up on goofballs
7 Likes
That’s a fascinating take.
Implicit in this strategy are two facts: a) that the pope doesn’t know who Davis is or the facts of her situation, and b) that the Vatican press office will resort to its default position of clumsy semi-stonewalling when the story breaks.
One Vatican official said there was “a sense of regret” that the pope had ever seen Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who went to jail in September for refusing to honor a U.S. Supreme Court ruling and issue same-sex marriage licenses.
1 Like
This isn’t really a big surprise, that Davis and her people blew it up to be way more than what it sounds like it actually was: a handshake greeting line at a reception.
2 Likes
THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU.
As Sgt. Nick Yemana would say, “Very well-put.”
1 Like
It seems to be to a lot of folks who took the entire incident as an endorsement, including BB itself.
1 Like
Put a space after your ellipses and that should make your link active.
2 Likes
Based on what else I’d read about him, I didn’t think the pope would sincerely endorse Kim-Davis-as-symbol because that is exactly the kind of obsession with homosexuality that he has spoken against. Similarly, him offering personal best wishes to Kim-David-the-person is hardly surprising because I think he’d probably do that to nearly anyone. The idea that he met with her without knowing fully who she was or what had happened (or maybe without knowing anything about her) seems very plausible.
It’s also super plausible that he would actually 100% defend her in her choice not to issue gay marriage certificates (he did call Ireland vote to legalize gay marriage a “defeat for humanity.”) I don’t think regarding his meeting with her as an endorsement of her is far-fetched, unless the Vatican wants to make an even stronger denouncement to set things straight.
He’s still anti-homosexual, he’s just also non-judgmental. The latter is admirable, the former is off-putting to reprehensible at different times.
4 Likes
Just a clarification - it was Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, who said that.
1 Like
A fair point, well made. I’ll stop blaming the pope for that one (I’m actually willing to give him a fair bit of benefit-of-the-doubt on stuff like this because I honestly think the Vatican is a little hostile towards him and his ideas).
1 Like
Thanks!
Doesn’t look like it worked. Hit return instead, so it’s on its own line. That should definitely do the trick.
LOL, I didn’t do it yet! I thought you were simply correcting me, not directing me to do actually do it. My head’s still spinning from this whole controversy (not really)!
Okay, I’ve got it…now, to stop my head from spinning! (not really)
1 Like
To be fair, I don’t exactly recall the Pope denouncing his secretary of state for saying that, either. I’m sure he’s not really jumping for joy about it.
