Why the Pope is totally full of shit.
Here's a two-pronged takedown of why the pope is just spinning PR, and not actually doing anything at all about climate change;
http://thebulletin.org/pope%E2%80%99s-encyclical-environment-not-even-close8413
= new reply since forum marked as read
http://www.cssr.org.au/justice_matters/dsp-default.cfm?loadref=355#.VYfoqGBH2Rs
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/19/pope-statement-on-climate-change-following-john-paul-ii-benedict-xvi-tackling/
And wow, we really saw an upwelling of support from Catholics worldwide. All that Catholic energy on the issue is amazing, isn't it?
You were right...Google is your friend.
PAWNS in FRANKIE's dire GAME!!! 
Get over yourself. I don't have to address those statements because those billion plus people don't GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THAT. They just care that the POPE said the MAGIC WORDS.
Stop trying to make a simple thing difficult.
Keep digging!
I think you're the one trying and stepping on it, over and over again.
While you're at it, check the dictionary definition of "many."
Here, let me HELP you sort this out, since you're having trouble:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/19/catholics-react-pope-francis-encyclical-climate-change
Catholics react to Pope Francis's encyclical on climate change
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/pope-encyclical-climate-change-catholics-us-response
US Catholics ready to follow Pope's 'marching orders' on climate change
Religious leaders say pontiff’s call for action brings urgency to existing support for environmental measures in Obama administrations’s climate plan
Pull the string--and check that quote again.
I think you're the one who needs to "try again." You keep demonstrating that you DON'T READ the posts before you respond...! Heckuvajob!
And they can also see who is using hyperbolic language in an attempt to characterize. It's "blathering" now, is it? And the one deflecting isn't me.
"Frankly!" It belongs in the Hall of Fame next to "Honestly!"
Live with that, yourself....
I suppose if he put the word "sexuality" in an encyclical, you'd say it was "about" sex! Since he mentioned agriculture, I suppose you could try to pass it off as a farmer's almanac!
The encyclicals that you have cited that were written (and co-written) by Benedict were about caring for the poor, and issues of faith--not "about" the environment.
kind of language that appeals to you.
Do you ever get tired of being a tough guy?
Please provide the citation, the actual VERBIAGE that proves your claim--I'm not going to wade through that entire document. I should point out that an encyclical that mentions environmental concerns in a few sentences is not the same as an encyclical on the SUBJECT of the environment and/or climate change--but I imagine you know that. Perhaps that's why it's so hard to persuade you to do what any civil DUer would do, which is back up your claims.
If you can't manage to cough up a Benedict encyclical on the environment, I'll ... understand.
You provided me references that Ratzinger co-wrote an encyclical on Catholic FAITH, not on the environment or climate change.
I appreciate that you fell on your face like that, because, as I said, it saved me the effort of correcting you.
I notice you haven't coughed up any of the language in that jointly prepared encyclical that discusses the climate change issue, either.
If you open your newspapers, you can see how the world is reacting to Frank's guidance. The Democrats are praising, the Republicans are crying, and the climate change deniers funded by the obscenely wealthy are saying "He doesn't belong," "He's a newbie" and "I don't like his arguments." Does that ring a bell?
You sit where ever you'd like. Makes no difference to me. I'm happy to see that I can actually agree with old Frank on this issue--maybe he'll evolve on others, in time, too. I'm pleased to sit by Obama, Biden, Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley, etc. I think they made the right call, here.
I am amused that you think I'm "demanding more." You were the one "challenging" me to demonstrate that Francis has produced results in less time than it took his God to make to world!!
Anyone can read this thread and see who's chain jerking--and, pro tip--it ain't me. I stick to the issues--sorry if you don't like that, but that's how I roll through life.
I am not going to take your word for it that Francis is travelling "purposelessly" or "wastefully" because you say so. Six million people turned out to see him in PI--I'd say he got some bang for his carbon footprints on that trip: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30869019
In fact, his message and efforts during his PI visit had to do with the POOR--you consider advocating for them purposeless and wasteful, then? He also spoke out against government corruption, which diverts resources from the poor. You don't have a problem with government corruption? What does that say about your priorities?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30817273
"The great biblical tradition enjoins on all peoples the duty to hear the voice of the poor," Pope Francis said.
His speeches show a Pope with a clear sense of mission, who wants the Catholic Church to remain a force within family life and modern society
"It bids us break the bonds of injustice and oppression which give rise to glaring, and indeed scandalous, social inequalities.
"It is now, more than ever, necessary that political leaders be outstanding for honesty, integrity and commitment to the common good, and for everyone at all levels of society to reject every form of corruption, which diverts resources from the poor."
Now you've resorted to calling him names because you disagree with his views. I disagree with some of his views, but I'll take the time to be specific about the ones I don't like. Equality? He's off the mark, there. Birth control and choice? Completely out to lunch. Social justice, poverty, corruption, concentration of wealth? He's right on the money, there.
We're not talking about those, though--we're talking about climate change. And I think he's got that argument down, too. That's why so many Democrats are cheering for him on this particular issue.
heads of state, I'm sure.
And I'm sure you're going to prove the points you made, too--that Francis is flying all over the place, in purposeless fashion, and is "conspicuously consuming" petrochemicals.
Never mind that Vatican City is pretty much solar powered these days!
Cough...don't open these too fast, now....cough:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150616-pope-climate-francis-vatican-global-warming-green-solar-carbon-sustainable/
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/18/green-pope-religion-faith-economics-favour-climate-change
http://inhabitat.com/the-vatican-city-is-the-greenest-state-in-the-world/
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/pope-francis-encyclical-moral-climate-change/396200/
NB--All of these articles have to do with Vatican, and Pope Francis's, "green" works.
On the issue of climate change, this Pope is most assuredly "leading by example." He's probably the OPPOSITE of a hypocrite, if we're to believe The Guardian, NATGEO, et. al. on the topic. He's walking the walk.
too. And then, you've got the moxie to call me "gullible" when your post was not, errrr...forthright, to put it kindly.
It's not "my" strawman, either. YOU built it--now YOU prove it!
Don't make claims you can't back up--because I will ask for proof.
When did the Pope go to Slovakia? You're talking about travel, and then--apropos of nothing to do with travel-- you mention Slovakia, using the vague word "timing" --as though he visited there....but he didn't, did he?
Again, you're dragging in his admittedly odious anti-equality stance relative to the Slovakian referendum on the topic, and trying to mix it in with the TRAVEL issue.
Don't do that--I see it, and I call you on it.
Again--he did go to the Philippines to talk about poverty and corruption and to see the victims of the taifun. He did NOT travel to Slovakia. Everyone reading this thread needs to be quite clear on these two FACTS (not 'strawmen').
And until you back up your assertion that his travel has been "wasteful," it does not deserve any credence. Still waiting....
out of it. That's the bottom line, here.
And where did I ever say that you WERE my "monkey?" See? More word-garbage. I never said that--you invented that.
You made a claim, you were unable to back it up.
The man is a Head of State. You seem to have trouble with the concept. You would deny protection and adequate transport to Heads of State, recognized by the United Nations, to whom our nation has sent an ambassador, because YOU have an opinion about their worthiness? You do realize how petulant you sound, do you not?
is the second encyclical of Pope Francis. The encyclical has the subtitle On the care for our common home.[1] In it, the pope critiques consumerism and irresponsible development, and calls for "swift and unified global action" to combat environmental degradation and anthropogenic climate change (also known as global warming).[2]
The encyclical, dated 24 May 2015, was officially published at noon on 18 June 2015, accompanied by a news conference.[2] The Vatican released the document in Arabic, German, English, Spanish, French, Italian, Polish, and Portuguese.[3]
The encyclical is the second published by Francis, after Lumen fidei ("Light of Faith"
, which was released in 2013. Since Lumen fidei was largely the work of Francis's predecessor Benedict XVI, Laudato si' is generally viewed as the first encyclical that is entirely Francis's work.[4][5]Usscb's synopsis specifies a section on the environment
http://www.usccb.org/news/2013/13-138e.cfm
So yeah, you're really good at this bro.
199. Also, here you go. Here's the synopsis of Francis's 'first encyclcial', actually Ratzingers last.
View profile
Laudato si' (Italian for "Praise Be to You"
is the second encyclical of Pope Francis. The encyclical has the subtitle On the care for our common home. In it, the pope critiques consumerism and irresponsible development, and calls for "swift and unified global action" to combat environmental degradation and anthropogenic climate change (also known as global warming).
The encyclical, dated 24 May 2015, was officially published at noon on 18 June 2015, accompanied by a news conference. The Vatican released the document in Arabic, German, English, Spanish, French, Italian, Polish, and Portuguese.
The encyclical is the second published by Francis, after Lumen fidei ("Light of Faith"
, which was released in 2013. Since Lumen fidei was largely the work of Francis's predecessor Benedict XVI, Laudato si' is generally viewed as the first encyclical that is entirely Francis's work.Laudato si' is the SECOND (see? That's in YOUR post, there!) encyclical that Francis wrote all by himself and released LAST THURSDAY. Lumen fidei, the co-written one, is about CATHOLIC FAITH.
Thanks so much for proving my point and doing it so decisively. I know that wasn't your intent, but you put your foot in it there and saved me some effort!
I AM really good at this, thanks for noticing.
You're really bad at reading catholic verbiage.
Again, section48 of Benedict's Caritas In Veritate
He's talking about the environment and resources in developing societies.
-10; Col 1:19-20). Thus it too is a “vocation”[115]. Nature is at our disposal not as “a heap of scattered refuse”[116], but as a gift of the Creator who has given it an inbuilt order, enabling man to draw from it the principles needed in order “to till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). But it should also be stressed that it is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more important than the human person. This position leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism — human salvation cannot come from nature alone, understood in a purely naturalistic sense. This having been said, it is also necessary to reject the opposite position, which aims at total technical dominion over nature, because the natural environment is more than raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure; it is a wondrous work of the Creator containing a “grammar” which sets forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not its reckless exploitation. Today much harm is done to development precisely as a result of these distorted notions. Reducing nature merely to a collection of contingent data ends up doing violence to the environment and even encouraging activity that fails to respect human nature itself. Our nature, constituted not only by matter but also by spirit, and as such, endowed with transcendent meaning and aspirations, is also normative for culture. Human beings interpret and shape the natural environment through culture, which in turn is given direction by the responsible use of freedom, in accordance with the dictates of the moral law. Consequently, projects for integral human development cannot ignore coming generations, but need to be marked by solidarity and inter-generational justice, while taking into account a variety of contexts: ecological, juridical, economic, political and cultural[117].
49. Questions linked to the care and preservation of the environment today need to give due consideration to the energy problem. The fact that some States, power groups and companies hoard non-renewable energy resources represents a grave obstacle to development in poor countries. Those countries lack the economic means either to gain access to existing sources of non-renewable energy or to finance research into new alternatives. The stockpiling of natural resources, which in many cases are found in the poor countries themselves, gives rise to exploitation and frequent conflicts between and within nations. These conflicts are often fought on the soil of those same countries, with a heavy toll of death, destruction and further decay. The international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together for the future.
On this front too, there is a pressing moral need for renewed solidarity, especially in relationships between developing countries and those that are highly industrialized[118]. The technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption, either through an evolution in manufacturing methods or through greater ecological sensitivity among their citizens. It should be added that at present it is possible to achieve improved energy efficiency while at the same time encouraging research into alternative forms of energy. What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them. The fate of those countries cannot be left in the hands of whoever is first to claim the spoils, or whoever is able to prevail over the rest. Here we are dealing with major issues; if they are to be faced adequately, then everyone must responsibly recognize the impact they will have on future generations, particularly on the many young people in the poorer nations, who “ask to assume their active part in the construction of a better world”[119].
50. This responsibility is a global one, for it is concerned not just with energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future generations depleted of its resources. Human beings legitimately exercise a responsible stewardship over nature, in order to protect it, to enjoy its fruits and to cultivate it in new ways, with the assistance of advanced technologies, so that it can worthily accommodate and feed the world's population. On this earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature itself — God's gift to his children — and through hard work and creativity. At the same time we must recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it. This means being committed to making joint decisions “after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”[120]. Let us hope that the international community and individual governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating the environment. It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations: the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet[121]. One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of “efficiency” is not value-free.
The VATICAN is.
And it doesn't say what you are insisting it says...but, whatever.
Do go on, though--you're showcasing yourself quite remarkably thus far--and that comment was particularly elucidative!!!
Every post, a different position!
Now the Pope is a "newbie." Ok!!
Amazing how all these "old hands" in the Democratic Party are praising the "newbie" for his "leadership" on this issue. And look--the Secretary of State has come out with praise, too:
John Kerry Praises Pope Francis’ Climate Change Encyclical
Secretary of State John Kerry called Pope Francis’ encyclical a “powerful” statement on the threat of climate change Thursday.
Kerry, who is Catholic, told TIME in a statement that religious engagement on the issue will help spur agreement at the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.
The Pope’s powerful encyclical calls for a common response to the critical threat climate change poses to our common home. His plea for all religions to work together reflects the urgency of the challenge. The faith community – in the United States and abroad – has a long history of environmental stewardship and aiding the poor, and Pope Francis has thoughtfully applied those same values to the very real threat our planet is facing today. The devastating impacts of climate change – like heat waves, damaging floods, coastal sea level rise and historic droughts – are already taking place, threatening the habitat all humans and other creatures depend on to survive. We have a responsibility to meet this challenge and prevent the worst impacts. As stewards of our planet, we can all work together to manage our resources sustainably and ensure that the poorest among us are resilient to climate change. We have the overwhelming body of peer-reviewed science to show us what is causing this problem, and we are equipped with the tools and resources to begin solving it. Engagement on this issue from a wide range of voices is all the more important as we strive to reach a global climate agreement this December in Paris.Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Sheba Crocker met with Vatican officials, including the Holy See’s Undersecretary for Relations with States Antoine Camilleri, on May 26 at the Holy See to discuss climate change and Pope Francis’ 2015 Development goals.
“When he speaks on issues—whether it’s on climate change, alleviating poverty, or peace and security issues—it just has a real resonance and that’s something that we find incredibly useful,” Crocker says. “It’s so important for Pope Francis to be speaking in the way that he is—with such a clear voice. He brings such a moral authority to these questions, and his voice resonates in a way throughout the world, which we think provides him with crucial impetus—both political and moral—to help us reach an agreement in Paris at the end of the year.”
http://time.com/3926306/pope-francis-encyclical-climate-change-john-kerry/
Most Democrats seem to agree that the Pope's leadership on this issue is welcome and will be responsible for moving the issue forward.
Most Republicans, OTOH, are threatened by the Pope's encyclical and are angrily trying to dismiss it and discredit him.
And the OP post references an article that is just ONE writer's opinion. The Bullition of the Atomic Scientists has also covered Pope Francis's encyclical in a fulsomely praiseworthy way, which kind of ruins the strength of the assumption that everyone over there is asking the "Not even close?" (or "full of shit"
question that the OP posed--apparently some of those people don't feel that way AT ALL:
In imitation of Christ: Pope Francis’ encyclical on climate change
http://thebulletin.org/imitation-christ-pope-francis%E2%80%99-encyclical-climate-change8406
Although the pope clearly hopes to influence the outcome of the Paris conference, he speaks with authority on divine matters in a way that is very different from politicians, climate scientists, and non-religious think tanks. Yet it is important to stress that his message of human responsibility for creation is not new. It is simply receiving a new and timely emphasis, along with the special charism that Francis believes he bears. Like his predecessors, Francis views creation care as integral to what it means to be a true follower of Christ.
Theological wisdom. We can find hints of this view in Pope Francis’ first encyclical Lumen Fidei (Light of Faith), a June 2013 letter that owes a heavy debt to Pope Benedict XVI. Here Francis reminds his readers that God, as Father, is author of all creation, and salvation in Christ is offered not just to humanity; it is a salvation that “embraces all of humanity and all creation.” Therefore, citing the Psalms: “All creation shares in the joy of salvation: ‘Sing for joy, O heavens, and exult, O earth! Break forth, O mountains, into singing! For the Lord has comforted his people, and will have compassion on his suffering ones.’”
And lest readers forget that the gift of creation is woven into every celebration of the Mass, Pope Francis also spells out how each person’s own inner conversion through the Eucharist is bound up with the tapestry of creation itself, so “The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, who becomes present in his passover to the Father: this movement draws us, body and soul, into the movement of all creation towards its fulfillment in God.”
The ecological mandate for humanity. Such insights are not simply theologically significant, they also have a profound impact on specific human responsibilities. Once human beings lose a sense of connectedness to God, each other, and the Earth, destructive tendencies follow, wrote Francis in that first encyclical, and a person is “cast adrift in nature, either renouncing his proper moral responsibility or else presuming to be a sort of absolute judge, endowed with an unlimited power to manipulate the world around him.” .... Perhaps this will mean that the Paris climate conference, intended to achieve a legally binding international agreement on climate,will be concerned with ecological justice as well as environmental justice, given the massive extinctions that are already happening. And if his listeners absorb what Pope Francis says and make it their own, they will have a renewed sense of hope that another world is possible. The importance of his message is not just for Catholics, but also for powerful leaders in their political deliberations in Paris—which the whole world will be watching.
Also, I think you need to produce a copy of Pope Benedict's "encyclical" that you keep talking about. I don't think Pope Benedict ever issued one on this particular topic, but since you claim superior knowledge in this area, I will await your link....keep in mind that "encyclical" has a very precise meeting. A comment or a speech is not an encyclical. A "letter" isn't one, either.
I'm sure you know this, though, n'est pas?
In his case, talk IS action. He talks, and his peeps act.
You're reduced to making shit up now. I never said the Pope was going to do any more than he did, which was say the magic words.
You're funny.
As wacky as this might sound, I don't come here seeking the adulation of others. Your respect means literally nothing to me.
Now, let's take a look at your horseshit links, shall we?
An article about how the Catholic clergy is following orders. Nothing in there about the Pope's message on climate change actually having changed anyone's mind.
[div style="width:250px;"]
I read the Tweets. Liberal and moderate politicians taking the same stance on climate change they've taken for years. WOW. We are surprise.
[div style="width:250px;"]
This one is about numbers. There are this many Catholics in the world. This many will receive the encyclical in church. Yadda, yadda. But again, there is absolutely nothing in here to suggest the Pope's encyclical has changed anyone's mind.
[div style="width:250px;"]
The author believes the Pope can change peoples' minds by connecting climate change to religion instead of politics. But while they are waxing hypothetical about the myriad possibilities of spiritualizing political issues -- something secularists, I am told, should oppose, but that's another topic for another day -- they, like everyone else, have uniformly failed to provide at least one example of Wonderpope's pronouncement having changed someone's mind on climate change.
[div style="width:250px;"]
You didn't read the links, obviously.
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Desmond Tutu, Joe Biden, POTUS....etc.
But hey, no one cares what the Pope said...because the ATOMIC SCIENTISTS HAVE SPOKEN!!!!!
Grrrrr! Grrrrr!!!
Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2015, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)
You may have noticed all those little paragraphs where I told you none of them said what you said they said. But you probably missed that because you didn't really read them yourself.
Don't worry. Happens to the best of us.
[div style="width:250px;"]
Here, check this out:
I stopped swearing for a second and did some research.
This is called an "argument from incredulity". If a premise is impossible to imagine, it does not follow that the premise is false. On the contrary, it can only mean that your imagination is limited. Moreover, your inability to imagine a premise does not imply that no one else could or should be able to imagine that premise, either.
In short, your inability to imagine Pope Francis as having only recently taken up the cause of environmentalism does not mean Pope Francis has been an environmentalist all his life. If you wish to dispute that Frankie is Johnny-come-Lately to the carbon-emissions party, you're kinda gonna have to, I dunno, prove it.
And this is called a "non-sequitur". While you're researching Frankie's past, you might also want to look into why washing peoples' feet is completely unrelated to one's position on limiting greenhouse gasses.
So, when you say "spend less time swearing and more time researching", what you really mean by "reasearching" is dicking around with opinion pieces.
George W. Bush owned a dog.
Be careful no one mistakes you for an intellectually-deficient mass-murdering corporate stooge.
[div style="width:300px;"]
spoil for pissy, immature fights.
Is the phrase "FALSE REPORT" a mysterious one to your eyes?
I'm not "reflexively spinning for the church" and if you'd stop "reflexively spinning for a mindless, stupid, lowest-common-denominator, childish internet fight" you'd see that.
Wow--you sure are something, but thanks for proving beyond all shadow of a doubt that you're stuck on TRANSMIT and too wrapped up in FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT to even read the responses--this example is, pardon my french, fucking PRICELESS--it explains SO MUCH about how you converse on this board.
You have one of those real nice days, now, sport. And see if you can't get someone to explain to you what "false report" means....since apparently you're having some major trouble comprehending the meaning of the phrase.
I'm not responding as fast as you are!
Someone's a bit cranky I see.
I'm sure that's not a problem.
Temper, temper, now.
Why would I believe the same thing? Are you calling me a mindless robot who responds to this guy in Vatican City?
What exactly are you suggesting? Why is your FIRST shot directed at me, personally? Because you've got nothing else, is that it?
He said two magic words. HIS flock--and world leaders--have responded to those two magic words.
Why don't you ask Bernie Sanders if HE "believes the same thing when he makes his sexist and homophobic statements"--and then get back to me when you have your answer. Click that link now--and read it. Oooops. You gonna ask Bernie the same snarkish question you just asked me, hmmmm?
You might want to take a logic course--the one who is "so all over the place it's kind of hilarious" is you. Only I wouldn't use "hilarious." It's really kind of sad that you just can't manage to pull the string on that one, it's beyond your grasp, apparently. You're unable to parse--like Sanders, Clinton, Biden, POTUS, Tutu, et. al--and that is an unfortunate reflection on YOU.
Tsk, tsk. You were so doggone eager to make it personal, you missed the actual point. When Frank talks, people DO listen. Don't believe me--ask Senator Sanders, who RESPONDED to Frank's comments with high praise:
In a statement Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) urged Republicans to listen to the Pope on climate change, “Pope Francis’ powerful message on climate change should change the debate around the world and become a catalyst for the bold actions needed to reverse global warming. The pope helps us all see how those with the least among us will fare the worst from the consequences of climate change. I very much appreciate that the Republican leadership has invited the pope to address Congress. I hope they listen to what he has to say. Denying the science related to climate change is no longer acceptable.”
So, tell us, now--is Bernie "all over the page" and is he "hilarious?" He says Frank's message is POWERFUL. He says it will "change the debate around the world!!!" Bernie says Frank's statement will "become a catalyst for BOLD ACTIONS ... to REVERSE GLOBAL WARMING!!!" Does he ALSO agree with the Pope on all those terrible things you noted in your dire little post? By YOUR logic, he does!!! You'd better alert the media that Bernie opposes abortion, contraception and is anti-equality, because I'm sure this is news to them!!!
So, clear that up for us, now.... Inquiring minds want to know....
298. Lol
View profile
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/a-franciscan-jesuit-for-pope/2013/03/14/323a1e68-8cf1-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html
His name was chosen for meaning. Yes he is also a Jesuit. I didn't pull Franciscan out of thin air.
Apologies for the wapo article but it's good enough.
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/understand-pope-francis-look-jesuits
"Yes he acts like a Franciscan, but thinks like a Jesuit"
He chose that name for a reason. It wasn't a dig or insult or anything.
He's NOT a Franciscan--he's a Jesuit. He's not "also" a Jesuit--he is a Jesuit who admired a Franciscan named Francis of Assissi who founded the Franciscan order.
You didn't read the article very well at all.
Franciscans:
Jesuits:
Not only are they philosophically opposites, they don't even dress alike!
Heckuvajob!!!!!
(by animals, he meant non human mammals)
So, rodents, dogs and cats also magically just got that inexistent thingy granted to them.
Hear the 'good news'.
Mushrooms or acid?
