Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gays? — Page 7

Not at all ART. They should be held accountable for any misdeeds, the same as anyone else. Just like teachers, cops, congress who have commited those terrible things.

It was said here that Jesuits care about the poor, alluding that the Catholic Church doesnt. I simply was pointing out that they have done more then most if not all groups in helping the poor and even AIDS victims. especially compared to other religions.

When i did bring that up, i was told its not true. so i wanted to give examples since Catholic bashing and Pope Bashing is very popular by some...not all... here.

---

Updated On: 8/1/13 at 09:51 AM

The other great thing about the Jesuits is that they were/are not afraid of science and the sharing of (non-religious) knowledge. They were the ones who helped cure malaria by using bark to make quinine.

Updated On: 8/1/13 at 09:55 AM

Namo, how do you know so much about Jesuits?

It's a sect I really know nothing about.

---

In general, Jesuits are concerned about justice, the plight of the poor, and treating all humans with dignity.

---

Madbrian, in general, yes. But not always.

'a bald bushy mustached runner'

Really, Namo? 'Mustached' instead of 'mustachioed'??? Where's the flair, queen?

I know ex Jesuit brothers and ex priests from the 60s and early 70s. It was a great place to get laid, let me tell ya.

---

Really, Namo? 'Mustached' instead of 'mustachioed'??? Where's the flair, queen?

"Mustached" is more butch, n'est-ce pas?

---

namo--that is an evasion. it merely rephrases the original problem. there is no way to mediate who is a "real" jesuit and who isn't. you presumably think a "real" jesuit is one who accepts that homosexuality is normal. but what is your authority for stating that? i've stated in clear terms why gay rights do not require such mediation.

furthermore, why are people talking as if having an inquiring mind, progressiveness, the search for justice, concern for the poor, and liberalness are the property of jesuits? this is the point that needs the MOST repudiation. the better aspects of our nature, such as love, compassion, and intellectual curiosity are NOT the property of any ethnicity, philosophy, religion, or gender (worth noting, especially since jesuits are still all men, which should tell you everything you need to know about this organization, as if only men have the ability to seek the truth, a laughable notion). it belongs to ALL of us, it is our common property.

as for catholic good deeds, two points. one, it doesn't matter if catholics spends one gazillion dollars on charity, it doesn't prove their religion true and IT DOESN'T GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO OR LIE TO CHILDREN WHO ARE GAY ABOUT THEIR SEXUALITY OR TO LIE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE GAY WITH A FALSE PROMISE (i.e., if you are celibate, you will get a post-humous award, something they cannot possibly promise anyone). secondly, if you grant it for one, you must grant it for all. hamas justifies its whole ghastly rule in the gaza strip by saying it provides for the poor. does this make hamas a force for good?

as for spending a lot of money on AIDS on africa, it better. the church's lies is responsible for millions of africans contracting the disease, not to mention the thousands it allowed to die in america at the outbreak by hysterically convincing the american public it was in some sense a punishment from the divine and obstructing the dissemination of information that would have saved hundreds of lives (i.e., condom use)--which it is still doing in africa! if i were them, i would be coughing up some guilt money, too.

the point about cops, teachers, and other secular occupations being responsible for pedophilia is the most risible of them all. OF COURSE teachers, cops, and nurses are also guilty ofpedophilia, but none of those institutions claims to hold the keys of saint peter, claims to be able to guide you to eternal paradise, or to be authorities on human morality, which the catholic church does. further, all such pederasts have faced secular justice, which, to date, most of these priests have evaded, thanks to holy mother church.

A Facebook status currently making the rounds, on the pages of people for whom it seems to mean different things:

"Who am I to judge?" --The Pope

I don't know what each of them thinks it means. My point is that it is now Something-the-Pope-Said.

Not only that, it's Something-the-Pope-Said-That-Popes-Haven't-Been-Saying Lately-but-Sorta-Sounds-Like-What-Jesus-Used-to-Say.

---

Phyllis, i thought you didnt believe in Jesus?

---

I mean, it'd be great if he ends up meaning what everybody is acting like he said. But he hasn't said it yet. If you follow me.

And good point, Phyll.

I just find the willful denial of what the Pope actually said to be frustrating. And I've also learned that most people (including they in the media) seem to not read anything beyond headlines.

While I'm frustrated, I hope everyone understands I'm not judging them. I think what that believe about the pope is a detestable wrong, but I don't think they are detestable people for believing it. I think the act of believing it is detestable, not the people themselves.