Pope: Stick to Matters of Faith. You are Wrong About Eveyrthing Else.

In an impassioned address Friday, Pope Francis denied the existence of Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously asserting that “the ecological crisis is real.”

“Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” Francis said in his speech to a world meeting of populist movements.





Dear Pope Francis,

Stick to matters of faith, where you are infallible.  On all others, please refrain from your terribly ignorant stances.

The greatest threat to Christianity comes from Islamic terror, not the environment.

Popish

Pope Francis should stick to matters concerning faith, on that, he is infallible.  On all else, I wouldn't mind going to a psychic.

If he is concerned about Hitler, he should pay great attention to several African countries whose leaders run their countries along similar lifelong lines.  He could watch China, but that would require a backbone, which he lacks.  He believes allowing the Chinese government control is better than no Catholicism.  He could watch Russia, where the good Christian attitude is partial to violent behavior for anything bordering on what Russians would consider to be deviant.  I would argue that a Catholicism compromised by the political powers - Islam, tyrants, dictators, thugs, totalitarian ... only makes Catholicism an accessory to the evil they perpetrate.

He could check in with Argentina, collapsing faster than a balloon losing air.   He could check in with Brazil - a state of crime and death, of poverty and corruption rivaling the worst on earth.  He could check in on Venezuela - the murder capital of the world.  He could check in with Mexico - where the police, federales, army, and crime syndicates are one and the same - led by the politicians who happen to be paid for by the crime syndicates.

He has a lot to worry about.

Perhaps he could focus on the invasion of Europe by Islam, and the intolerance Islamic countries have toward Christianity,  He could check in on his own Italy - where the population declines but for the immigrants - mostly Islamic.

He has bigger worries he should focus on, 24/7, then making political comments directed toward the right in France and Trump in the US.

There are REAL issues he needs to attend to.  Or he could go back to being infallible by sticking to what he does - being Pope and leading the Catholic world with his insight on the faith.  And stay out of all else.  You have infallibility on faith ... NOTHING else.  And faith is the Bible, the Word of God ... not politics.

This is not the 13th century Francis.

I believe ... I believe ...

I believe in love, love, love, love, love!
When you can't see the forest for the trees,
follow the colors of your dreams
just turn to friends their help transcends to love, love, love, love, love

The winter's finally passing on,
the king is back, the queen is gone,
come dance with me cause now we're free to love, love, love, love, love.

(from the movie - Mirror Mirror)

I believe ...

One can believe in LOVE or HATE or one may even believe in leprechauns, but one doesn't believe in science.  Science is not a belief nor is it within the realm of beliefs.  It is.  Simply. Factually.  Without question, science, is.

Hillary Clinton made a big deal, as did her followers, at the Democratic National Convention, that she believed in science.  Patronizing and not true.




The source for the material below is from this link.

What are the facts in the climate science debate?

• Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years
• Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectra
• Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

That is pretty much it, in terms of verifiable, generally agreed upon scientific facts surrounding the major elements of climate change debate.

Human caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis.  The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this.

Truthiness and factiness abounds in the climate science debate, and the greatest proponents of truthiness and factiness are the climate ‘alarmed’ – their opponents are mostly calling b.s. on their truthiness and factiness.  In slinging around terms like denier, anti-science etc, the defense of climate alarmism in terms of ‘science’ and ‘facts’ starts to become more anti-science than what they are accusing their opponents of.

From the Rational Wiki:

The term “antiscience” refers to persons or organizations that promote their ideology over scientifically-verified evidence, usually either by denying said evidence and/or creating their own. Antiscience positions are promoted especially when political ideology and/or religious dogma conflict with actual science. 

The most glaring ‘factiness’ and anti-science strategy is the linking of extreme weather events to human caused climate change.  Roger Pielke Jr has an eloquent op-ed in the WSJ (unfortunately behind paywall, which I will have more to say about in another post next week).

So . . . who fits the definition of ‘anti-science’?  Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?  Ignoring science (Trump) does not qualify him for ‘anti-science’.  Science does not prescribe public policy.  The political dogma of Obama, Clinton and Pope Francis surrounding climate change seems like more of a recipe for ‘anti-science.’


SO .... to repeat (emphasis is mine) -

"who fits the definition of ‘anti-science’?  Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?  Ignoring science (Trump) does not qualify him for ‘anti-science’.  Science does not prescribe public policy.  The political dogma of Obama, Clinton and Pope Francis surrounding climate change seems like more of a recipe for ‘anti-science.’"


And I would go one step further, and 'defend' or 'explain' Trump, not that he needs it ... he is the President of the United States -

He doesn't ignore science, he simply questions whether humans have much/any impact on climate change. And how much if any.

That is not anti science.  That is not someone who disagrees with science or the facts, he questions how much if any impact humans have.  That would be reasonable to ask.  

Turkey: Full of Mentally Unstable Men?

Apparently so. 



Pope: No Religious Motive in Bishop’s Death


June 4, 2010 - 12:04 PM
by: Greg Burke


Just hours after a Catholic bishop was killed in Turkey, the Vatican said it was the work of a mentally unstable man, and Pope Benedict also tried to downplay the incident on Friday.

Speaking to reporters on his way to a three-day trip to Cyprus, Benedict said while the circumstances of the killing are still not clear, it was not politically or religiously motivated.

“We should not blame it on Turkey or on the Turks,” the Pope told us as he came to the back of the plane at the start of the trip. “It’s clear that it’s not a political-religious assassination.”

Italian-born Bishop Luigi Padovese was stabbed to death early Thursday afternoon at his home in Iskenderun, Turkey, near the Syrian border. Shortly afterwards, authorities arrested his driver, and said the man had recently been suffering from depression and mental instability.

“We’re still waiting for a full explanation, but we don’t want to mix up this tragedy with Islam,” Benedict said. “It’s a separate case that saddens us but shouldn’t be allowed to cast a shadow over the dialogue.”

Another Italian priest, Father Andrea Santoro, was killed in Turkey in 2006, and the man arrested in that case was also described as mentally unstable.

Turkey is overwhelmingly Muslim, and while the country hopes to join the European Union, critics point to a lack of religious freedom in the nation.

The timing of Padovese’s killing was significant, as the bishop was scheduled to travel to Cyprus for Pope Benedict’s visit this weekend.

Cyprus has been divided since Turkey invaded the country in 1974. The Turks currently holds nearly 40 percent of the island. Benedict will not visit the Turkish side of the island but will spend the night at the Vatican embassy, which sits right on the dividing line.

On his first day, Benedict was greeted warmly by both Catholics and Orthodox, but quickly saw how tense the situation on the small island is, as a Cypriot Orthodox bishop told him that Turkey was trying to take over the entire nation.

“It has turned the Orthodox Christians of Cyprus out of their ancestral homes, where they had lived for centuries,” said His Beatitude Chyrsostomos II at an outdoor ceremony in Paphos. “They want to make everything Greek and Christian disappear from occupied Cyprus.”




Let me think about this for a moment.  According to the Church, the Pope, il papa himself - the One sanctified by God to carry His word, infallible ... said it was not something we can blame on Islam.  So ends the story, if I believe in the infallibility of il papa - which I do, and I don't.  Of the office and the man when seeking God's grace in truth and justice, but not when that man seeks a detente with Islam over truth.

Christendom loses when we ignore the tactics used by some who are a bit ... awkwardly and uncomfortably Muslim.  What was the name of the man who shot Pope John Paul II?  I can't recall.  And neither can I recall where he was from.  Of course, no connection.

Two Bishops and a Pope - two murdered and one seriously wounded, by three deranged Muslim males.  Of course that is possible.  So let us check England, France, the US, Germany, Russia - and see if we can find 3 Islamic religious figures murdered or seriously, and all 3 must occur in the same country.  ???  A hint: the answer has fewer letters than the hoped for (by some) answer.  NO.   What about the flotilla brigade - the Turkish contingent onboard, singing death to Jews and a hoped for martyrdom.  Are they also deranged?  No says their Prime Minister, just the guy who killed the Bishop, and the Pope goes along with the charade.

If we are very quiet and pay attention we can hear the warnings.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Turkey

Britain and the Pope: Bless us for being so rude.

We best not offend Muhammad, no cartoons, no caricatures, and certainly no long list of actions that may be questionable morally, nor his extolling certain behaviors top his followers Western Civilization may find offensive.  But, the Pope, head of the largest Church in the world - permissible to ridicule and mock him.  Everything religious is bad - pro-life, Catholic, anti-abortion, opposed to gay marriages - bad bad, and worse, unenlightened. 

It is very disturbing to watch this attack and tear down of a man who did not do anything to hurt anyone - unlike many in the secular world who go through their lives tearing down one person after another while claiming they never intended to hurt anyone, yet they leave bodies strewn about like plane wreckage as they go.  To watch these people attacking the Church, yet petrified to even think about the idea of criticizing ... say, Mohammad ... shows who and what they really are.

If I were them, I would think very very carefully about their actions, because the end result may well be soemthing incomprehensible to them at this time, but anyone who can look beyond five minute intervals may find an unimaginable nightmare awaiting us, and them, if they are so lucky as to hurt the Church.  Just saying.





Ministers apologise for insult to Pope


The Government has apologised to the Pope over official documents that mocked his forthcoming visit to Britain by suggesting he should bless a gay marriage and even launch Papal-branded condoms.



By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
24 Apr 2010
The Telegraph


Pope Benedict XVI Photo: AP The astonishing proposals, leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, were contained in secret papers drawn up earlier this month by civil servants following a 'brainstorm’.

The ideas, included in a memo headed 'The ideal visit would see ...’, ridiculed the Catholic Church’s teachings including its opposition to abortion, homosexual behaviour and contraception. Many appeared to be deliberately provocative rather than a serious attempt to plan an itinerary for the September visit.

Head of Roman Catholic church in England urges faithful to remain brave The proposals, which were then circulated among key officials in Downing Street and Whitehall, also include the Pope opening an abortion ward; spending the night in a council flat in Bradford; doing forward rolls with children to promote healthy living; and even performing a duet with the Queen.

In reference to the hugely sensitive issue of child abuse engulfing the Catholic Church, the Government document suggests that the Pope should take a “harder line on child abuse – announce sacking of dodgy bishops” and “launch helpline for abused children”.

The document was sent out by a junior Foreign Office civil servant with a covering note admitting that some of the plans were “far-fetched”.

Recipients of the memo were furious at its content and an investigation was launched. One senior official was found responsible and has been transferred to other duties.

Yesterday the Foreign Office issued a public apology after being approached by The Sunday Telegraph, while Francis Campbell, the UK ambassador to the Vatican, met senior officials of the Holy See to express the Government’s regret.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, was “appalled” to hear of the proposals, according to a source close to him, and blamed “a colossal failure of judgement” by officials involved.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: “This is clearly a foolish document that does not in any way reflect UK Government or Foreign Office policy or views. Many of the ideas in the document are clearly ill-judged, naive and disrespectful.

“The text was not cleared or shown to Ministers or senior officials before circulation. As soon as senior officials became aware of the document, it was withdrawn from circulation.

“The individual responsible has been transferred to other duties. He has been told orally and in writing that this was a serious error of judgement and has accepted this view.

“The Foreign Office very much regrets this incident and is deeply sorry for the offence which it has caused.

The Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Nottingham, was astonished and angered by the proposals.

He said: “This is appalling. You don’t invite someone to your country and then disrespect them in this way.

“It’s outlandish and outrageous to assume that any of the ideas are in any way suitable for the Pope.”

The Papal Visit Team reports to Dame Helen Ghosh, the permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and ultimately to Jim Murphy, the Scotland Secretary, who is responsible for the trip.

The "ideal visit" list was circulated within Whitehall by a junior Foreign Office official, an Oxbridge graduate in his 20s.

In an emailed memo dated March 5, headed "Policy planning ahead of the Pope’s visit", he invited senior colleagues to attend an "inter-faith meeting" the following week to discuss themes for the visit.

Attached to the memo were three "background documents", including the "ideal visit" list, which he said would form the basis of discussions. He added in the memo: "Please protect; these should not be shared externally. The ‘ideal visit’ paper in particular was the product of a brainstorm which took into account even the most far-fetched of ideas."

Recipients included Nicola Ware, a senior Foreign Office official, as well as officials at 10 Downing Street, the Department for International Development, and the Northern Ireland Office.

The exercise appears to have been intended to ensure a high impact for the papal visit and to identify areas such as development and climate change on which the Government and the Vatican could co-operate, but the list of ideas has caused offence.

Bishop McMahon said Catholics would be concerned that the document reflects the existence within Whitehall of officials prejudiced against people of faith, and predicted that it would cause embarrassment for the Government. The Prime Minister said in last week’s party leaders’ debate that he was looking forward to the papal visit, but ministers have clashed repeatedly with the Catholic Church over legislation.

There is understood to be increasing unease at the Vatican over the level of hostility that the Pope is likely to face in Britain, with protests and even threats of arrest from secularists. The disclosure of the secret proposals is bound to deepen concerns and cause dismay among the country’s four million Catholics.

Further suggestions on the "ideal visit" list are that the Pope should reverse the Church’s "policy on women bishops/ordain woman" and that the Vatican should "sponsor a network of Aids clinics".

Another of the three background documents, titled "Papal Visit Stakeholders", lists figures and groups that the officials consider significant to the tour, and ranks them in order of how "influential" and "positive" each one is perceived to be.

The Queen, David Cameron, and Tony Blair are all ranked as highly influential and positive. It rates Susan Boyle, the singer, as more influential than Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster.

Wayne Rooney, the footballer, who was married in a Catholic Church, is considered to be a negative influence, as are Madonna, the singer, and Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist professor. "Pro-choice groups", homosexual pressure groups and the National Secular Society are all viewed as negative.

 
 
 
 
 
 
religion

Obama is a better Catholic than the Pope - says a Kennedy.

I have a very difficult time understanding the Kennedy's. I admit, I was once very enamored by the family - their history, their struggle, and their sadness. I felt very deeply that the loss of President Kennedy changed our nation, and what he did offer, and could have given us, would have made us a better country. I believed John F. Kennedy was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, and ever would have. The day he died, we lost more than a president - we lost a hero. The Kennedy's lost a brother, uncle, husband, and father - but the nation also lost something that day - our future.

Five years later we went through it all over - losing another Kennedy who could have led us out of the darkness. Another man, another Kennedy - yet another brother, uncle, cousin, husband, and father.

The nation spiraled downward. A mess awaited us, and an ever deeper darkness awaited the Kennedy's. They became a farce. Ted couldn't drive, his sons followed their father down the road of addiction. Robert's sons had no sense of self and lost themselves to vices. Only John's two children found any sort of life away from the failure of public life.

And now, another Kennedy lectures the Pope on who is a better Catholic. Il Papa, His Holiness, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope ... or Barack Obama.

She is clear enough - the Pope was, in his previous life, the head of the church's office of doctrine. He has a little more authority to speak on the issue of what the church stands for Ms. Kennedy than you or any and all members of that family of yours - if they can pull themselves out of the bottle or the whorehouse.

If is not for you, Ms Kennedy to tell the Catholic Church what it should and should not believe. It is not for you Ms. Kennedy to do ANYTHING but adhere to church doctrine or find yourself another faith. I have a personal favorite - Islam. You will find them very accommodating.

His Holiness does not need me or anyone else to defend him, nor do we need to defend the Catholic Church from a contumacious demimonde.

Barrack Obama does not have a moral compass to wave around nor does he speak for any Catholic although he may speak for you - no one has said you are a Catholic. Ms Kennedy, I think you know this but just in case you missed the message - the POPE speaks for all Catholics and if you don't like it - go elsewhere.

Without a Doubt


Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.


Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

Newsweek Web Exclusive


Tomorrow Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama meet for the first time, an affair much anticipated and in some circles frowned upon by American Catholics in the wake of Obama's controversial Notre Dame commencement speech in May. Conservatives in the church denounced Obama's appearance as a nod by the premier Catholic university to a conciliatory politics that heralds the start of a slippery moral slope.


In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.


It's fitting that Obama's visit comes just days after the publication of "Charity in Truth," a Vatican encyclical that declares unions, regulation of capitalism's excesses, and environmentalism to be ethical imperatives. The document gives moral credence to Obama's message and to progressive politics writ large.


Even more intriguing is the pope's support for political activism, which he refers to in the encyclical as "the institutional path … of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly." As a member of a family that preached that politics is an honorable profession, I see that he is opening the church to roles that for too long have been neglected. Here Obama (the community organizer from Chicago) could teach the pope a lot about politics—and what a Catholic approach to politics could entail. They agree, too, on poverty and Middle East peace. So far so good on papal-presidential concordance.


But there they part ways. Politics requires the ability to listen to different points of view, to step into others' shoes. Obama might call it empathy. While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power). The hierarchy ignores women's equality and gays' cry for justice because to heed them would require that it admit error and acknowledge that the self-satisfied edifice constructed around sex and gender has been grievously wrong. Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: "If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches."


That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions. Most famously, in the lead up to the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in 1968, an advisory body of theologians and laity empaneled by the pope advised that the church should reverse its position on birth control and concede that the issue should be a question for morality and for science. But authority—not truth, not love—prevailed: Pope Paul VI, listening to the advice of Wojtyla, disagreed with the majority of these advisers, who had voted 69 to 10 for change, fretting that to change this position would weaken his authority.


In the same vein, American bishops in the 1970s struggled to produce a paper that would address the concerns of women. After nine years of effort, they gave up. Why? According to Bishop P. Francis Murphy, bishops see themselves as "teachers, not learners: truth can not emerge through consultation." Pope Benedict, having lived in the safety and security of the Vatican for much of his professional life, is part of this culture that silences dissent. (His last job was as the enforcer of doctrine.)


In 1979, Sister Theresa Kane, the head of the Sisters of Mercy and the president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, greeted Pope John Paul II on his first visit to the United States by proposing that the Church provide "for the possibility of women as persons being included in all ministries of our Church," including the priesthood. This was greeted with revulsion at the Vatican, which insists that the only people who can represent God in the priestly role are those with male sex organs.


Yet polls bear out that American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think. Despite the rhetoric of love and truth, the Vatican shows disdain (if not disgust) toward gays. But 54 percent of American Catholics find gay relationships to be morally acceptable, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. Meanwhile, against all scientific evidence and protestations from clergy on the ground, the pope claims that condoms aggravate the spread of AIDS. Seventy-nine percent of American Catholics disagree, according to a 2007 poll by Catholics for Choice.


When Sen. John Kerry, a pro-choice Catholic, ran for president in 2004, several bishops decided to deny him communion. A poll done at the time by Time magazine showed that 73 percent of American Catholics disagreed with that decision, and 83 percent said the bishops' move wouldn't change their vote. In fact, more than two thirds said the church shouldn't try to influence the way Catholics vote at all or tell candidates—even Catholic ones—what stance to take.


For Obama, respectful disagreement and a willingness to recognize differences was the animating spirit of the presidential campaign, and it was central to his Notre Dame speech. That is the kind of politics many Catholics practice. They're tired of watching the church grasp frantically for control at the expense of truth and love. In America last November, it showed: 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama.


Notre Dame awarded the president an honorary degree because it saw the need to highlight the best of Catholic teaching as applied to politics: the ability to open the eyes of those who would prefer to keep them closed, and to open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause. The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him.


Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, is author of Failing America's Faithful: How Today's Churches Are Mixing God With Politics and Losing Their Way.