I really, really don't appreciate the name-calling or accusations of scrupulosity.

We don't need no canon law, and we don't need no catechism.
We just need to "understand the spirit of what Pope Francis is doing" .... y'know.... just like "the vast majority of Catholics."

What an epiphany.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree.... Ignorant, malformed, quasi-protestants. You not only don't know the "rules" or the law, but you also don't care. You think the Church should conform to the wants and will of man and the world, rather than have the world conform to the will of God.

Fortunately, your demographic isn't represented very well on this board.



Are you honestly comparing the pontiff to Jesus Christ?!??

Y'know... you obviously have a problem with the type of Catholics on this board.

Why are you even here?

Well, I'm glad that's settled.

You're sure you're not CoE?

You know, if I object to name-calling on Denise's part, I should probably object to it on the part of those who agree with me.

“What is right is not always popular; what is popular is not always right.” - Albert Einstein

And, lest anyone misconstrue that quote to perpetuate the fallacy that science and religion must necessarily be at odds against each other, Our Lord worded the same concept thusly: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.” (Mt. 7:13-14)

To summarize, “you should believe because all of us do” is the least effective of all possible arguments and proof positive that DeeDee has run out of ideas.

Yes... you probably should.

Obi, I didn't name-call or accuse you or anyone in particular of scrupulosity, I said

"it is only people who are very obsessive about the letter of the law, or excessively scrupulous or something, people with a particular type of mindset who focus on details rigidly,"

That's what I said, but you have rigidly focussed on the one word "scrupulous" while completely ignoring the two words immediately after it, "or something", and the other words clearly indicating that I wasn't precisely labelling anyone. I think your response may be an example of what I'm talking about.

It's clear that only a small minority of Catholics are accusing Pope Francis of promoting idolatry, or are disturbed by what occurred, my point is that it's only a particular type of person (apart from those who just hate everything Pope Francis does), I don't know exactly how to describe the type of people who are the small minority who believe that promoting idolatry is part of the Pope's agenda, the rest of us are not one bit concerned. So what type of people are the small minority of people who are concerned, do you think? Or do you think they are of no particular type, just a random mixture probably fairly representative of the Catholic population in general?

I stand by what I said. Accusing others of moral defects ("or something") is not an adequate substitute for presenting an argument.

Are you not accusing Pope Francis of a moral defect or something?

See my post in the Lyceum "My life has been transformed since...".

No, I'm stating that I have a problem with an action of his. I am not attributing it to any moral defect on his part. I don't know why he did it. I wish he hadn't.

Can you be more precise, you don't know why he did what exactly? What action of his?

Assuming he didn't know what was going to happen at the Vatican garden ceremony (and there is reason to believe that he didn't), not making it clear that it was deeply problematic and continuing to allow the idols to be present in a Catholic context.

A positive thing I can look to in this, and like, "discussions", is an education in logical fallacies. In this case, the invincible ignorance fallacy. And, like Sheldon, sarcasm is oft not perceived. Or, TBF, perhaps, ignored.

Having once been a member of our version of the CoE, your general position is, in parts, indistinguishable from that thing that resembled a Church and which contained many priest shaped objects. And the moths ... not to forget the moths.

HST, I applaud and am cheered by your transformation.

I perceive that the lessons in the use of figures of speech have taken and survived.

Artefacts were displayed. That's very different from the claim that pagan idols were worshipped. The artefacts were not pagan idols, and they were displayed not worshipped.

There is no evidence that Pope Francis regarded any of the artefacts as pagan gods.

There is no evidence that anyone present regarded any of the artefacts as pagan gods.

Just because something is displayed in a church doesn't mean it is worshipped.

Some people may regard the sun as a God, it doesn't mean that you or I regard the sun as a God.

Some people may regard 'Mother earth' as a goddesses, it doesn't mean that St Francis or John Paul II or you or I regard Mother earth as a goddess.

There is no evidence that 'Pachamama' is currently worshipped as a pagan goddess in the amazon. Just because this false assertion is repeated on many non-scholarly culturally-ignorant websites doesn't make it true (in the same way that a false Mother Theresa quote repeatedly stated on the Internet doesn't make it true.)

There is no evidence that representations of ''Pachamama' are worshipped by Amazonian pagans.

I'm no expert on Amazonian culture either, but I do have a lot of knowledge about some things and I know there are priests who claim that any form of yoga and mindfulness, and even Indian head massage, are satanic and dangerous (seriously, try googling "priest yoga") but I know with certainty that these things are very good and beneficial, and the vast majority of Catholics do not take these extremist ignorant priests seriously.

Pope Francis has the same kind of extremists criticising him at the slightest opportunity. These people have a particularly narrow and rigid outlook, which has nothing to do with being holier or better than the rest of us, but is merely an aspect of their particular psychology. Pope Francis cannot spend all of his time trying to reason with these people because they are unreasonable and they are only a tiny minority of Catholics who make a lot of noise on the Internet. He could spend all of his time defending himself from these ultra conservative attacks but he has much more important work to do. You don't have to agree with everything he says and does to be with him generally in what he is trying to do. He is inspiring a lot of people.