A Pope beloved by many secular intellectuals is also passionate about miracles and relics

[trotsky]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-francis-embraces-the-mystical-side-of-the-catholic-church/2015/08/27/78dfe5be-4748-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_story.html

On an official trip to this ancient city in the shadow of Mt. Vesuvius, Pope Francis entered the local cathedral to pray to Januarius, the patron saint of Naples. Januarius’s 1,700-year-old dried blood is known to “spontaneously liquefy,” a phenomenon seen by true believers as a miraculous sign from above. Those gathered anxiously watched as Francis prayed before, then kissed, the ornate silver and glass reliquary containing the coagulated clot.

And lo and behold, the dark stain dissolved.

The cardinal of Naples, standing beside Francis, joyously heralded the sacred melting, bringing a round of gasps and applause. Then Francis himself acknowledged the mystery, in which the blood had only half liquefied. “It means the saint loves us halfway,” Francis said, according to accounts of those present that day five months ago. “We must all spread the word of God more, so that he loves us even more."

...

Critics, however, say the pope may be flirting with superstition. Also citing his constant mention of the devil and explicit backing of exorcisms, some say he risks undercutting his image as a 21st century moral leader in tune with the times.

[rug]

1. And?

[Bluenorthwest]

3. And his fans like to overlook the part where his superstitions and demonology are spewed forth

at minority groups the old bigot does not care for. He claims to perform miracles and says other people are influenced by demons. Yet he is considered a legitimate object of praise and respect.
If he said what he says about us about any other minority group you would all run from him and deny all association. That should tell you something.

[cleanhippie]

4. AND they continue to give their time and money to RCC.

The institution that promotes homophobia and misogyny, enables/protects pedophiles, actively works against equal rights and human decency.

But change is coming. From the inside. Or something. So I'm told.

[rug]

6. Oh, bullshit. Miracles are an ancient part of many religions, not only the RCC.

Pigeonholing every aspect of human history into a few square boxes doesn't do it.

[cleanhippie]

8. Don't you get it? Miracles are an ANCIENT part of religion, so it's ok!

Makes perfect sense, right?

[Warren Stupidity]

10. so was stoning adulterers and homosexuals and blasphemers.

however these days we think we have moved past ancient nonsense. When a religion promotes horrors like killing people for their beliefs, we react in shock and revulsion. When a religion promotes idiocy like miracles we should react with the ridicule and derision it deserves.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Would you like us to reply an 'and?' to all your OPs that you don't comment on?

I presume you think this reply of yours helps a conversation somehow. Would your threads be better with someone else adding an 'and?' in the future?

[rug]

7. You can reply however you (plural) want.

In this case, I'm sure if you were honest, you'd acknowledge trotsky posted it as more fodder for his anti-Catholic campaign. This particular spin, being medieval superstition. There's nothing new in this article.

So, how honest are you, muriel?

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. So would you like us to point out what we think your motives are

every time you post here? It will be ugly. Very ugly, because of your almost fanatical devotion to the pope and his hierarchy, whatever their bigoted views. But if you are saying you want honesty from us on your behaviour and how you appear to us, then state that, and that you don't want anyone to alert on replies to you because you want honesty in what we say about you, and I'll put a link to it every time your motives look less than golden, so that no-one should alert on the honest post you asked for, and I hope everyone else will too.

As for anything new in the article - I hadn't heard about Francis and liquefying holy relics before. The article describes the superstitions as 'popular', not 'medieval'. It's from a major media outlet. I don't think trotsky is particularly anti-Catholic, since he posts about a wide variety of hypocrisies and bigotries from all kinds of sects and religions.

[rug]

11. You (plural) just did.

And I notice you didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Rhetorical questions are not meant to be answered, are they?

No, rug, I have said very little of what I think of you. It looks like you'd prefer it that way, since you haven't taken up the suggestion of explicitly saying it's OK with you if I say what I think.

[rug]

13. There was nothing at all rhetorical about it.

And, yes, muriel, you have said very little of what you think of me. You prefer insinuation to direct statement. As it is, your opinion matters as little to me as the day's growth of a leaf.

However, I did ask you a direct question and you have - again - evaded answering it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I don't think "how honest are you" is something anyone can usefully answer

People tend to think they're honest, but aren't the best judge. And it's not as if there's a meaningful scale for it. I'm not about to detail my entire life on DU to try to settle on an answer. I am surprised you think it was a question that was worth answering. After all, my opinion matters as little to you as the day's growth of a leaf. So why ask my opinion on how honest I am?

[rug]

15. You omitted the premise of the question.

In this case, I'm sure if you were honest, you'd acknowledge trotsky posted it as more fodder for his anti-Catholic campaign. This particular spin, being medieval superstition. There's nothing new in this article.

So, how honest are you, muriel?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. I talked about whether trotsky has an anti-Catholic campaign, your use of 'medieval', and

whether the article had anything 'new'.

I discussed the points that were discussable. I left your useless question alone, because it was rhetorical.

[rug]

17. If you consider your post 9 to be that, you have indeed answered the rhetorical question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. I discussed the points that were discussable.

I left your useless question alone, because it was rhetorical.

You seem to think your paragraph somehow turned your question from rhetorical to direct. You're wrong.

[cleanhippie]

2. And? Surely there's nothing wrong with believing in and telling your followers

that you can perform miracles, that the Laws of Nature and Physics are suspended when you pray, that dead Saints are making this happen.


Sure. Nothing wrong with that at all.