Franjo, care!

Share
avatar

Posts : 45792
Join date : 2012-06-10

Franjo, care!

Post by William Murderface on Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:10 pm

Još jedan u nizu carskih poteza pape Franje - otvaranje debate o odnosu prema životinjama u katoličanstvu.


Život i stil

Papa otvorio vrata raja za životinje
Katolički poglavar svojom izjavom ponovo pokrenuo raspravu o tome da li životinje imaju dušu i da li je ona besmrtna

(Foto Beta)
Da su stavovi pape Franje liberalniji od njegovih prethodnika, pokazuje i izjava da je raj otvoren za sva božja stvorenja, koju je izgovorio na nedavnom javnom pojavljivanju na vatikanskom Trgu Svetog Petra, pokušavajući da pruži utehu dečaku čiji je pas uginuo. Bez obzira na to da li je ovim rečima smirio dečaka ili nije, one su ponovo pokrenule diskusiju o tome da li životinje imaju dušu i da li je ona, kao i kod čoveka, besmrtna. Šta je papa tačno hteo da kaže, teško je utvrditi, pa i ne čudi što teolozi, aktivisti za prava životinja i predstavnici industrije mesa, svako sa stanovišta svojih interesa, različito razumeju izjavu verskog poglavara.
Tumačeći papine reči, teolozi navode da je on to kazao usput i da nije reč o zvaničnom učenju.
Pojedina društva za zaštitu životinja, kao što je najveće američko udruženje „Hjuman sosajeti”, videla su u papinoj izjavi odbacivanje starog konzervativnog katoličkog gledišta da životinje nemaju dušu.
Direktorka tog udruženja, prenosi „Njujork tajms”, smatra da ukoliko je papa hteo da kaže da životinje imaju dušu, čovek bi trebalo da ozbiljno razmisli o tome kako se prema njima odnosi, pošto je reč o osetljivim bićima koja nešto znače bogu.
I drugi aktivisti za prava životinja nadaju se da bi ova papina izjava mogla da utiče na navike u vezi sa ishranom i da odvrati katolike od konzumiranja mesa.
Jedini koji su drugačije shvatili reči rimokatoličkog poglavara jesu predstavnici industrije mesa, koji smatraju da one svakako ne znače da je konzumiranje životinjskog mesa greh.   
O tome da li i za životinje postoji život posle smrti, raspravljalo se u istoriji Katoličke crkve. Papa Pije Deveti, čiji je pontifikat trajao najduže od svih poglavara, od 1846. do 1878, bio je pristalica učenja da životinje nemaju dušu. Papa Jovan Pavle Drugi odustao je od te doktrine i smatrao je da i životinje imaju dušu i da su jednako bliske Bogu, kao i čovek. Međutim, konzervativne struje u Vatikanu bile su jače, pa se ovaj stav nije mnogo širio. Mišljenje da postoji veza životinja i Boga nije bilo blisko ni Benediktu Šesnaestom.
Bez obzira na razlike u tumačenjima, izjava pape Franje ostavila je nadu verujućim vlasnicima kućnih ljubimaca da će se jednog dana možda ponovo sresti u raju. 
A. M.
objavljeno: 14.12.2014.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 3202
Join date : 2014-10-28

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by Daï Djakman Faré on Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:28 pm

sjajno ! genijalno !

made my day


_____
--to give the metals back their alchemical significance that has been neglected since the beginnings of the industrial revolution
--to alienate common apparati/mechanismi to create a perpetuum mobile called Motor Sehn-Sucht--
avatar

Posts : 45792
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by William Murderface on Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:40 pm

Lepo je to, ali što nemap vremena za stare drugove? Postavio sam ti pitanje na metalika topiku pre tri dana i još čekam odgovor


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 20435
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by bruno sulak on Sun Dec 14, 2014 5:30 pm

i mene nije sacekao pre neki dan posle tribine u kinoteci.


_____
The law provides us structure to guide us through paralyzing and trying times. But it requires us a vision to its procedures and higher purposes. Before we assume our respective roles in this enduring drama just let me say that when these frail shadows we inhabit now have quit the stage we'll meet and raise a glass again together in Valhalla.
avatar

Posts : 6370
Join date : 2012-02-11

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by Ointagru Unartan on Sun Dec 14, 2014 5:40 pm

Lepo.

Posto je Crkvi trebalo 1500 godina da zakljuci da je Hristovo ucenje primenjivo na sve ljude - tj. da svi ljudi imaju razum i dusu i da ih je moguce spasiti - mozda ce, budimo optimisticni, 1500 godina nakon ove stidljive izjave, znaci tamo negde oko 3500., Crkva objaviti neki novi Sublimis Deus koji bi ukljucivao i zivotinje.


_____
"Ne morate krenuti odavde da biste dosli tamo. Moguce je krenuti odavde i vratiti se ponovo tu, ali preko onoga tamo."
Aca Seltik, Sabrana razmisljanja o topologiji, tom cetvrti.

My Moon Che Gavara.
avatar

Posts : 13429
Join date : 2014-12-01

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by Filipenko on Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:00 pm

Zaista je skaradno oduševljavati se primerima nešto normalnijih "božjih izaslanika" među rimskom jeresi...
avatar

Posts : 3202
Join date : 2014-10-28

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by Daï Djakman Faré on Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:53 pm

William Murderface wrote:Lepo je to, ali što nemap vremena za stare drugove? Postavio sam ti pitanje na metalika topiku pre tri dana i još čekam odgovor
timur chevket wrote:i mene nije sacekao pre neki dan posle tribine u kinoteci.
izvinite drugari, malo mi se zivot istumbao zadnjih mesec dana pa ne stizem
avatar

Posts : 20435
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by bruno sulak on Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:21 pm

ostavicu ovo ovde. retko kada naidjem na peticije koje ne shvatam olako.

http://petitiontopopefrancis.org/

In 1998, the Argentinean artist León Ferrari (1920-2013) sent a petition in the name of CIHABAPAI 1 , addressedto God’s representative on earth, the Pope of the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church John Paul II, asking him toabolish Hell – a place of endless torture and suffering to which the majority of mankind is condemned. The Holy See in the Vatican refused to accept the petition, arguing that it was unable to abolish Hell. The place of eternal suffering is eternal and therefore will continue to exist (or not?).
In December 2001, while financial demons ran rampant in Argentina, Ferrari wrote a second letter to John Paul II, repeating his plea. Again,without any success. Unfortunately, Catholic sadism would not bend: eternal torture would continue to be practiced in this covert place called Hell, and also in the hidden lairs of social unconsciousness, fuelling terror and violence. In 2013, León Ferrari was getting ready to take his final leave from earthly life when Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires and the artist’s friend-enemy, was elevated to Peter’s Throne under the name Francis. Just before taking his final breath, the great Argentinean artist asked for a glass of good red wine and drank a toast to Bergoglio. Was the miracle finally about to happen?

avatar

Posts : 45792
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by William Murderface on Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:38 pm

Our Animal Hell


Robert Pogue Harrison

Museo del Prado, Madrid Francisco de Zurbarán: Agnus Dei, 1635-1640

Whether or not one believes that the Judeo-Christian God exists, there is much to ponder in what Pope Francis reportedly told a distraught boy whose dog had died. According to The New York Times, Francis assured him that he would be reunited with his pet “in the eternity of Christ” and—in the spirit of his papal namesake—declared that “Paradise is open to all of God’s creatures.”* Since we are a society that loves our dogs as much as we love God, the American media focused almost exclusively on the statement’s implications for canine pets; but a broader, far darker import lurks at the heart of the Pope’s words.

The Pope spoke not of dogs but of all of God’s creatures. Where does that leave humankind? To call us a species among others is both correct and misleading, for whether by divine design or nature’s random ways, Homo sapiens has extended its dominion over everything that walks, crawls, swims, or flies. This makes us a singular, unearthly kind of creature. From the extinctions we cause, to the alteration and destruction of animal habitats, to the daily mass slaughters that feed our collective Cerberus-like appetite for meat, poultry, and fish, our species terrorizes the animal world in ways that could only offend, if not outrage, a God who loves his creatures enough to open the prospect of heaven to them.

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the Pope’s declaration reminds us of something that weighs heavily on humankind. Most of the time, we are adept at blocking out this “species guilt,” as I would call it. Aren’t we more humane than our ancestors? Don’t we love animals? Don’t we have laws against animal cruelty? Yes, we do. But as Nicholas Kristof put it in a recent column in The New York Times: “Torture a single chicken and you risk arrest. Abuse hundreds of thousands of chickens for their entire lives? That’s agribusiness.” I.e., that’s what stocks our supermarkets with happy “cage free” chickens.

We like to think of ourselves as the stewards or even saviors of nature, yet the fact of the matter is, for the animal world at large, the human race represents nothing less than a natural disaster. This applies to all creatures, from those we allow to roam “wild” in designated nature preserves to those we cram together on our chicken farms; from the dancing bears of Anatolia to the bald eagles of Alaska, with their collar monitors; from the laboratory animals we test our cosmetic products’ chemicals on to the sharks whose fins leave the oceans to swim around in our nuptial soups. All creatures are under our yoke; and all, including our beloved horses, dogs, cats, and canaries, are subject to human persecution in one way or another.

From a quantitative point of view our species guilt is more aggravated today than it ever was in the past, when Plutarch or Pythagoras cried out against animal murder and the consumption of animal flesh. As the French philosopher and biologist Jean Rostand put it, “Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men.” While the scale of animal death has increased exponentially, the main issue today is no longer death but the coercive reproduction and perpetuation of animal life under infernal conditions of organic exploitation. Industrialized farming today, in its manipulation of the biological processes of genesis, growth, and multiplication, forces animals like cows, calves, turkeys, pigs, ducks, and geese into artificial, barely endurable forms of existence. Far more demonic than the slaughters and animal sacrifices of the past, our relegation of these creatures to a standing reserve of consumable stock reduces their “lives” to a worldless, merely mechanical process of flesh production. In his Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul wrote of the malaise of the earth: “the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” That creaturely groaning has gotten a lot louder of late, and if God indeed loves his creatures enough to open heaven to them, it is highly likely that, when our pets get there, they will find themselves on their own.

Friedrich Nietzsche put forward a piece of ludicrous nonsense in his On the Genealogy of Morals when he wrote: “I have no doubt that the combined suffering of all the animals ever subjected to the knife for scientific ends is utterly negligible compared with one painful night of a single hysterical bluestocking.” (A bluestocking was an educated woman who frequented intellectual clubs or salon in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.) What did Nietzsche, a man, know about animal pain? What did he know about the distress of a bluestocking, for that matter? When it comes to Nietzsche we should recall that on January 3, 1889, he suffered a complete mental collapse when he saw a horse being flogged by a coachman in the city of Turin. He embraced the neck of the horse and wept uncontrollably. That moment of lucid insight into animal torment marked the end of his sanity.

Yet Nietzsche was right about this much: human beings have an almost unlimited capacity for suffering. Where that capacity comes from is a mystery. Since so much of our suffering is self-induced, one suspects some kind of species guilt lies at the heart of it. We are told in Genesis that God created the world and declared it good, but that later, when he realized his most prized creature had become corrupt, violent, and wicked, he had a change of heart: “sorry that he had made humankind on the earth,” God decided to “blot out from the earth” all of his creatures, “people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air” (6.6). Perhaps it was because of the blatant injustice of that collective condemnation, or perhaps it was because he wanted to save the rest of creation, that God instructed Noah to build an ark and fill it with one pair of every living thing, from which stock he would then recreate the natural world after the flood. At the very least, this enigmatic story of God’s de-creation and re-creation of the world upholds the idea that the fate of the natural world is bound up with the fate of one of its species.

For some reason after the deluge God chose to make an unconditional promise to Noah, his descendants, and “every living creature”: he would never again destroy the earth by flood. That is both good news and bad news, for it means that we need not fear some kind of divine retribution that will deprive us of the miraculous biosphere that makes life possible on this planet of ours. But there is nothing in The Noahic Covenant that prevents human beings from destroying the earth themselves, if not through forty days and forty nights of rain then through other means, such as climate change. In sum, the world is ours to keep or lose.

The Pope left paradise’s door open to all of God’s creatures, but what kind of paradise can welcome all of nature? Certainly not a celestial paradise, where disembodied souls shine like points of light, as in Dante’s Paradiso. Nor an Edenic paradise, if by that we mean a benign garden without wild beasts or pestilent insects or the struggle for survival. The only possible paradise open to all our earth’s species is the earth itself in its throbbing, palpable potential for glory. Paradise is all around us in potentia—in the lands, skies, waters, and species of the earth—but it seems that we cannot forgive it for being a mortal rather than an everlasting one. Other species do not suffer the condition of mortality as we do. They have other more pressing problems to deal with. For many of our “brute neighbors,” as Thoreau called them, paradise begins where the hell we put them in ends.

* This statement to a distraught boy, reported in the Italian and American press, should have been attributed to Pope Paul VI not to Pope Francis. What Francis actually said, speaking to a general audience at the Vatican, was “The Holy Scripture teaches us that the fulfillment of this wonderful design also affects everything around us.”


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 20435
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by bruno sulak on Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:25 pm

nije franjo ali...

http://www.newsweek.com/i-am-marxist-says-dalai-lama-299598


_____
The law provides us structure to guide us through paralyzing and trying times. But it requires us a vision to its procedures and higher purposes. Before we assume our respective roles in this enduring drama just let me say that when these frail shadows we inhabit now have quit the stage we'll meet and raise a glass again together in Valhalla.
avatar

Posts : 45792
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by William Murderface on Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:33 am

Milutin Mitrović 21/03/2015 |  
Da li je Papa pravi katolik?


Papa Francisko
Ako Hristos nije bio hrišćanin (nego jevrejski propovednik), ako, kako istoričari tvrde, Lenjin nije bio učlanjen u SKP(b), nego se to nekako podrazumevalo,[1] zašto bi današnji papa Horhe Mario Bergoljo morao samo zbog funkcije poneti ne naročito lep stereotip katolika. Ako bi za jednog običnog vernika jedan običan sveštenik rekao da ne zaslužuje da bude priznat kao vernik, bila bi to ekskomunikacija. Međutim, ako pet kardinala (Miler, Burke, Brandmiler, Kafara, De Paolis), jedan protokolisani katolički pisac, odabrani franciskanski mislioci i uz to najveći deo rimske kurije smatraju da Argentinac Horhe Mario Bergoljo koji je sebi izabrao papsko ime Francisko[2] predstavlja “opasnost koju treba zaustaviti po svaku cenu”, onda je pitanje iz naslova valjda umesno.
Front odbijanja reformi katoličke crkve daje i argumente o povredama crkvenih vekovnih pravila. Generalno zamerke su: da inicira dijalog sa onima koji sumnjaju u veru ili su ateisti, pokreće rasprave o eutanaziji, otvara crkvu homoseksualcima, želi siromašnu crkvu za siromašne vernike, nepredvidiv je u potezima, a to narušava katoličku smirenost.[3] Prošle godine (13. decembra) održan je skup pod naslovom “Kriza porodice i franciskanci” a pretvorio se u nekakvo suđenje Papi. Evo šta se moglo čuti: “Proces destabilizacije prodro je u crkvu pa Sinod i biskupi opominju”, “Razvod, abortus, eutanazija samo su etape neljudskog marša u totalitarizam”, “Dijalog, otvorenost, ljubav, mir su pomodne ‘likvidne’ reči koje ne znače apsolutno ništa”. Dan ranije novinarski pit-bul terijeri iz Berluskonijevog lista “Libero” opisali su aktuelnog Papu kao “idola medija, evropskih parlamentaraca i pre svega levice na Zapadu” – ipak nisu rekli da je komunista, valjda zato što su to istrošili na papu Vojtilu.
http://pescanik.net/da-li-je-papa-pravi-katolik/


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 622
Join date : 2014-12-06

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by PopeЧе on Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:57 am

Radagast wrote:Lepo.

Posto je Crkvi trebalo 1500 godina da zakljuci da je Hristovo ucenje primenjivo na sve ljude

Moze mala edukacija?
Pitam za druga.
avatar

Posts : 6370
Join date : 2012-02-11

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by Ointagru Unartan on Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:47 am

PopeЧе wrote:
Radagast wrote:Lepo.

Posto je Crkvi trebalo 1500 godina da zakljuci da je Hristovo ucenje primenjivo na sve ljude

Moze mala edukacija?
Pitam za druga.

Mislio sam na proglas Sublimus Deus i na valjadolidsku debatu (dakle na zakljucak da su Indijanci ljudi, da imaju razum, da su sposobni da prihvate hriscansku doktrinu, te da ih zbog toga mozda nije u redu tretirati kao robove).


_____
"Ne morate krenuti odavde da biste dosli tamo. Moguce je krenuti odavde i vratiti se ponovo tu, ali preko onoga tamo."
Aca Seltik, Sabrana razmisljanja o topologiji, tom cetvrti.

My Moon Che Gavara.
avatar

Posts : 6498
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by Bluberi on Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:58 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11493221/Pope-gives-homeless-a-Sistine-Chapel-treat.html
avatar

Posts : 20435
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by bruno sulak on Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:32 pm

Radagast wrote:
PopeЧе wrote:

Moze mala edukacija?
Pitam za druga.

Mislio sam na proglas Sublimus Deus i na valjadolidsku debatu (dakle na zakljucak da su Indijanci ljudi, da imaju razum, da su sposobni da prihvate hriscansku doktrinu, te da ih zbog toga mozda nije u redu tretirati kao robove).

cisto jedan mali ateisticki komentar: nauci ce za to trebati jos dva veka posle toga. do pocetka dvadesetog veka u svim enciklopedijama 'negroidna' lobanja ce se nalaziti izmedju one belog coveka i majmuna. 

s druge strane, sama hriscanska dogma je bila na strani jezuita u tom slucaju. bas kao sto je church of england odigrala znacajnu ulogu u suzbijanju trgovine robljem.

sve ljudske institucije jesu polje borbe za emancipaciju vrste i sveta.

sto se zivotinja tice imas cuvenu raspravu izmedju tolkina i c.s. luisa da li one imaju dusu. tolkin je tu bio prilicno domtrinaran (ne) dok je luis tvrdio da njegova macka svakako ima dusu. sto je cudno posto je inace tolkin bio sklon humanizmu i spreman da prelazi lakse preko  kulturoloskih razlika u ime spasenja dok je luis bio neki, recimo, seoski paroh.
avatar

Posts : 1491
Join date : 2014-10-31

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by Santino on Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:02 pm

vidis, tebe to cudi od tolkina, a mene nimalo.


_____
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic fucking hatreds
avatar

Posts : 20435
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by bruno sulak on Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:06 pm

ne mislim nije tako jednostavno. cs luis bi bio neko ko bi lakse poverovo u to da neki ljudi nemaju dusu a tolkin nikada. ali kod zivotinja je obrnuto. mada opet poni bil i senko tvrde drugacije.


_____
The law provides us structure to guide us through paralyzing and trying times. But it requires us a vision to its procedures and higher purposes. Before we assume our respective roles in this enduring drama just let me say that when these frail shadows we inhabit now have quit the stage we'll meet and raise a glass again together in Valhalla.
avatar

Posts : 45792
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by William Murderface on Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:54 pm

Mene to ne čudi previše upravo zbog Tolkinove katoličke doktrinarnosti. Akvinski smatra da životinje imaju svrhu jedino da služe ljudima i da nisu predmet moralnih obzira same po sebi,. Humanizam inače sasvim dobro ide u paru sa nekom formom specizma. Upravo zato što postoji tolika razlika izmežu nas i životinja,

Luis je Anglikanac pa samim tim mnogo više paganin. Ne bih se čudio da je mislio da će i njegov travnjak i čajnik sa njim u raj.

A možda ta rasprava ima neke veze (nagađam) i sa tim što je Tolkin Luisu zamera uključivanje antropomorfizovanih životinjs u mitloški svet?


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 622
Join date : 2014-12-06

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by PopeЧе on Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:04 am

Radagast wrote:
PopeЧе wrote:

Moze mala edukacija?
Pitam za druga.

Mislio sam na proglas Sublimus Deus i na valjadolidsku debatu (dakle na zakljucak da su Indijanci ljudi, da imaju razum, da su sposobni da prihvate hriscansku doktrinu, te da ih zbog toga mozda nije u redu tretirati kao robove).

Zar Sublimus Deus nije nastala kao posledica divljanja Spanaca na novootkrivenim teritorijama?
Razularenu stoku je mogao da obuzda samo takav autoritet.
avatar

Posts : 20435
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by bruno sulak on Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:12 am

William Murderface wrote:Mene to ne čudi previše upravo zbog Tolkinove katoličke doktrinarnosti. Akvinski smatra da životinje imaju svrhu jedino da služe ljudima i da nisu predmet moralnih obzira same po sebi,. Humanizam inače sasvim dobro ide u paru sa nekom formom specizma. Upravo zato što postoji tolika razlika izmežu nas i životinja,

Luis je Anglikanac pa samim tim mnogo više paganin. Ne bih se čudio da je mislio da će i njegov travnjak i čajnik sa njim u raj.

A možda ta rasprava ima neke veze (nagađam) i sa tim što je Tolkin Luisu zamera uključivanje antropomorfizovanih životinjs u mitloški svet?

ne. tolkin je luisu zamerao samo 'popovanje'. jrrt je mrzeo alegoriju.
avatar

Posts : 45792
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by William Murderface on Sat May 02, 2015 5:41 pm


Who’s Afraid of Pope Francis?


Garry Wills

Mondadori/Getty Pope Francis in Saint Peter’s Square, Vatican City, 2014

An authentic pope should be a scary one. Jesus scared the dickens out of people (it cost him his life). Is Pope Francis truly scary? One might think so from the reaction of some guardians of orthodoxy, men like New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who thinks he must threaten the pope with schism to protect the sanctity of marriage, since “this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him.” But ecclesiastical nitpickers have no armies of similar thinkers to summon. This is not even medium scary.

Now, however, something is looming that has billionaires shaking in their boots, and when Catholic billionaires shake, Catholic bishops get sympathetic shudders. These are the men who build their churches, hospitals, schools, and libraries. Catholic lore has made winning over such Money Men the mark of the true church leader—the Bing Crosby priest crooning dollars out of a cranky donor in Going My Way, or the J. F. Powers priest putting up with a wealthy boor to get a golf course for his retreat house.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan was recently reminded of these facts of churchly life by Kenneth Langone, a co-founder of Home Depot. The cardinal is working to restore St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, at a cost of $175 million. Langone asked why he and his fellow benefactors should raise such money when the pope is denouncing “the idolatry of money.” He said the pope’s criticism will make his fellow donors “incapable of feeling compassion for the poor.”

But this, too, was a minor threat. Langone was simply threatening to withhold money. Now, as the pope prepares a major encyclical on climate change, to be released this summer, the billionaires are spending a great deal of their money in a direct assault on him. They are calling in their chits, their kept scientists, their rigged conferences, their sycophantic beneficiaries, their bought publicists to discredit words of the pope that have not even been issued: “He would do his flock and the world a disservice by putting his moral authority behind the United Nations’ unscientific agenda on the climate,” they say. They do not know exactly what the pope is going to say in his forthcoming encyclical on preserving God’s creation, but they know what he will not say. He will not deny that the poor suffer from actions that despoil the earth. Everything he has said and done so far shows that Francis always stands for the poor.

Those who profit from what harms the earth have to keep the poor out of sight. They have trouble enough fighting off the scientific, economic, and political arguments against bastioned privilege. Bringing basic morality to the fore could be fatal to them. That is why they are mounting such a public pre-emptive strike against the encyclical before it even appears. They must not only discredit the pope’s words (whatever they turn out to be), they must block them, ridicule them, destroy them. The measure of their fear is demonstrated by an article in First Things, the Catholic journal that defended the donations to bishops of the pederast religious founder Marcial Maciel. The First Things writer Maureen Mullarkey calls the pope “an ideologue and a meddlesome egoist,” and continues: “Francis sullies his office by using demagogic formulations to bully the populace into reflexive climate action with no more substantive guide than theologized propaganda.”

The editor of First Things later apologized for the uncivil tone of this piece—but he ran the piece, which is the real act of incivility. These people are really, really scared. When they calm down enough to make some kind of argument, they fall back on their mantra of recent years, claiming nobody really knows anything for sure about the state of the earth. “I’m not a scientist,” they say. Such professed ignorance would make honest people try to learn from the scientists what they do not know. Instead, the implication is that “If I don’t know, nobody can know; it is arrogant to pretend anyone else can know what I don’t know.”

They are now adapting this argument to fit the pope. He is not a scientist, we are assured, so he cannot say anything on scientific matters. Actually, this pope knows more about scientific method than people realize. He spent three years as a young man doing experiments in a chemistry laboratory under a very strict supervisor, Esther Balestrino de Careaga.

But this is beside the point. The real issue here is not science vs. ignorance, or the UN vs. xenophobia, or my 97 percent of experts against your 3 percent. It is a case of the immensely rich few against the many deprived poor. The few are getting much of their wealth from interlocking interests that despoil the earth. The fact that the poor get poorer in this process is easily dismissed, denied, or derided. The poor have no voice. Till now. If the pope were not a plausible voice for the poor, his opponents would not be running so scared. Their fear is a testimony to him.
April 30, 2015, 6:11 p.m.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 20435
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by bruno sulak on Wed May 13, 2015 6:11 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/world/middleeast/vatican-to-recognize-palestinian-state-in-new-treaty.html?emc=edit_na_20150513&nlid=60575147&_r=0


_____
The law provides us structure to guide us through paralyzing and trying times. But it requires us a vision to its procedures and higher purposes. Before we assume our respective roles in this enduring drama just let me say that when these frail shadows we inhabit now have quit the stage we'll meet and raise a glass again together in Valhalla.
avatar

Posts : 6348
Join date : 2014-10-27
Location : kraljevski vinogradi

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by otto katz on Wed May 13, 2015 7:52 pm

Bogami ću, vidim ja, skupa s Fidelom u crkvu.


_____
Разгромили атаманов
Разогнали воевод
Guest

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by Guest on Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:16 pm

avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by Indy on Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:25 am

Najbolji video ikada



_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else

Re: Franjo, care!

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:26 pm