Skip to main content

View Diary: A Pope Too Good To Be True (259 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But he's infallible now! (22+ / 0-)

    I'll never understand Catholicism. Ever.

    I mean, I get that the rituals are tradition and all but I don't understand how anyone can take the whole theater seriously. Because that's all it. Theater.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 06:08:21 AM PDT

    •  You're not a crackpot. A British politician (10+ / 0-)

      (I forget his name) called the whole conclave, election and subsequent ceremonies and press coverage "theatre." He used the exact same word.

      •  James Hacker? (0+ / 0-)

        I'm thinking of "The Bishop's Gambit" from Yes Prime Minister, where the Government (ie, the Prime Minister) is to provide to The Church of England (ie, the Queen) a choice of two candidates for a bishopric that recently opened up.  

        Actually, it was as always, Sir Humphrey, that illuminated the theatre that the choice provides.

        "We’re not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." - Rep. Paul Ryan

        by Khun David on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 06:37:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My mistake. It was Dr. Starkey, historian. (5+ / 0-)

          In an outspoken attack, Dr Starkey said the election of a new Pope was simply “theatre” which would mean nothing those outside the faith.

          In 2011 the historian was accused of racism after he suggested black culture was a cause of the 2011 riots.

          He appeared on Radio 4’s Broadcasting House this morning alongside Eamon Duffy, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, to discuss the election of Pope Francis I.

          Dr Starkey said: “The plain truth is that this is an institution, as we all remembered before Benedict XVI resigned, retired, this is an institution that is corrupt and riddled with corruption, irredeemably corrupt from top to bottom and we are just deceiving ourselves.”

          Professor Duffy responded by saying Christians do not believe that anything is irredeemable.

          When asked what the new Pope meant for non-Catholics in Britain, Dr Starkey replied: “Nothing at all. It is simply part of the great world theatre of entertainment. It is up one minute with a new papal election and down the next with the next lot of revelations about the turpitude of the clergy.”

          He risked further offence by claiming that Thomas Becket, the murdered medieval Archbishop venerated as a saint by many Catholics, should be the "patron saint" of child abusers.

          The main scandals within the Catholic Church occurred in areas such as Ireland and America where they acted “outside the law” - as King Henry II accused the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket of doing in the 12th Century, prior to his killing.

          Dr Starkey said: “I want to have a new patron saint. I want to declare that Thomas Becket is the patron saint of child abusers.”

          When asked if he wanted to respond to the claims Professor Duffy, a Catholic, replied: “Well, no.”

          Dr Starkey is widely regarded as one of Britain's leading constitutional historians, and has presented series for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is to host a new series on how the British monarchy has influenced classical music for the BBC this year to mark the anniversary of the Queen's coronation.

          However, he was widely criticised in 2011 when he claimed, in a debate on the causes of the riots, that "the whites have become black."

      •  Once when I was babysitting as a teen (3+ / 0-)

        I was telling the story of the birth of Jesus - the traditional "no room in the inn" narrative and, all of a sudden my little niece, five years old, said "That's show biz!"

        I will never forget that moment.  I was raised in the Catholic church, went to Mass every morning in elementary school - the whole school did.  I accepted and loved the pageantry and show biz aspect of the church and the ceremonies.  But I never previously thought of it all as a "show."

        I left the church when I entered the USAF at age nineteen.  I had been exposed to great existential writers (Camus, Sartre, Ionesco, etc.) and I was learning about Buddhism and other worldviews and philosophies.  My Catholic social justice upbringing did lay a foundation for my later secular humanism.  I also resented the fact that I knew so many gay priests and others in the church and they all were living a lie.  A strange inside joke.  I am gay.  I had sex with gay priests.  

        Theater.  "Show Biz."

    •  Meh, not any more theater than American (6+ / 0-)

      politics.  Even by some of our heros.

    •  He ain't infallible yet. (9+ / 0-)

      A very typical non-Catholic misunderstanding.

      How many times has the Pope spoken infallibly?

      A. Twice: 1870 and 1950. Both doctrinal points having to do with the Virgin Mary.

      But hyper-Protestants and many others who do not like Catholicism will wave this infallibility tar baby around with their morning coffee and every waking minute.

      NO, the Pope is NOT infallible about choosing coffee over tea in the morning, strawberry vs. peach jam on his toast, whole wheat vs. rye for his bread.

      NO, the Pope is not infallible about if its going to rain today.

      NO, the Pope is not infallible about politics, science, history, knitting, bicycling, choice of skin care products, the temperature of Alpha Centuri, the correct Latin name for California Redwoods, the depth of the Marianas Trench measured in furlongs.......

      OTOH, EVERYTHING Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, Phyliss Schafly, and the American Family Association are TOTALLY, 100%, UTTERLY, Down to the molecular level TRUEEEEEEEEE and INFALLIBLE!!!!!


      Because Jerry, Jimmy, Jim, Phyliss and Don read it in the INFALLIBLE BIBLE that "fell out of heaven in 1611", the INFALLIBLE (although the preferred word among these mouth breathers is "INERRANT") PAPER POPE of the fundagelicals.

      Or.....could I be just slightly off about inerrant as others are about infallible? Hmmm.......


      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 06:45:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  While this is true, a Pope can, (10+ / 0-)

        without invoking infallibility, excommunicate you or damn you to hell for doctrines that are not declared infallibly.  Take the life-begins-at-conception nonsense, for instance.

        So in actual practice this is a distinction without a difference.  Bodily assumption of the BVM into heaven? Whatevs, dude, if you say so.  Take a morning-after pill? Suffer in Hell!

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 07:29:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well said (5+ / 0-)

        Had to log in after several months of lurking for the purpose of rec'ing your comment.

        And, yes, the Pope is Still Catholic, Franco is still dead, and the Church still has a giant mess on its hands.  There are still monied interests corrupting the faith and much of it is an inside job.  And this is not limited to the Roman Church--it's a much more visible and pervasive target.

        Criticism of the new guy is one thing (prominent and constant agitation for reform is one of the best ways to foment change).  Hysterical conclusions reminiscent of the fiction of Dan Brown is something else. "Curveball" had better evidence of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction than this diary has to make the case that PF will be a tool of Opus Dei.

        The Diarist has an agenda.  Fair enough.  In making her patient case against the very-real evils of the Church hieracy, she rouses passions.  Fair enough again.  Neither fact justifies the ensuing hysteria over what PF hasn't done yet nor does it justify the "make shit up" pile-on as with the charge of papal infallibility.  We who post here should know better.

        President Barack Obama...I like the sound of that.

        by aloha and mahalo on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 07:45:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have already written several diaries about (3+ / 0-)

          Opus Dei and there have been scores of articles and books about Opus Dei control in the Church. Most folks already familiar with the Catholic Church are already familiar with Opus Dei. Just as when diarists write about the GOP, there are expectations that most DailyKos readers know who the Koch brothers are, or Adelson, or Bain Capital, etc. etc.

          •  I know you have written before (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jackson L Haveck, 3goldens

            about Opus Dei.  I have read your work.  The way you construct your arguments have generally been impressive.  It is this diary that I find a little lacking.

            It basically attacks O'Malley, Teresa, JP2, and Ratzinger, et al, and then lumps them in with PF assuming they all are guilty of the same crimes.  I think you realize that your guilt by association arguments were a little thin, so you added some poorly-sourced quotes from PF's past to bolster it.  You've already had to remove one quote (which you only acknowledge in the comments).

            I understand where you are going with this.  If you made the overall point that the media shouldn't fall in love with PF just because he talks about washing prisoners' feet and he lives modestly, you would have a great diary.  But I think when you make strained arguments linking PF to OD, etc., you overreach yourself and distract from an otherwise excellent point.

            Just my $0.02.  Keep writing.

            President Barack Obama...I like the sound of that.

            by aloha and mahalo on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 11:49:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you've missed the point or I wasn't clear (0+ / 0-)

              enough. I didn't lump them all together. The comparison with O'Malley shows that "humility" doesn't equate with either changing structures which help the poor nor actually using the Church money to help them. The comparison with Mother Teresa and Communion and Liberation is that Bergoglio's idea of "charity" is to proselytize, build up the institutional Church and wield a political agenda. The comparison with JPII is that gestures can be both meaningless and deceiving. Neither Wojtyla nor Bergoglio showed any spine in opposing oppression; they are both inclined to "go along" and for Bergoglio that means a future obedience to the puppet masters just like John Paul.

    •  Right there with you BoiseBlue (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mike08, Ice Blue, BoiseBlue

      To me, the Catholic Church is a carnival full of scams and it just absolutely amazes me anyone believes this stuff.

      I will reserve a lot of my opinion about it because I know people take this seriously, and I have good friends that buy into this nonsense, but it is so clearly a hoax, it makes it hard to respect the intelligence of anyone who supports or believes this such obvious nonsense.

      collards, meat, butter, sourdough, eggs, cheese, raw milk

      by Tirge Caps on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 08:16:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i take the theater VERY seriously (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      i've seen well over a hundred professional productions of shakespeare!

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 09:13:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site