Road rules0 min ago
Is The Pope A Sinner?
'In the Middle East, US President Joe Biden is urging Israel’s surrender to the terrorist Hamas organisation via a ceasefire. In Eastern Europe, Pope Francis is urging Ukraine to surrender to the Russian invaders. Why does Francis not urge Russia to withdraw? Biden may be motivated by domestic politics, but what’s Francis’ excuse for such a sin?
Francis made his comments in an interview recorded last month with Swiss broadcaster RSI.
Francis seems not to know right from wrong – a worry for a Pope. (Biden’s moral haze is generated by his craven surrender to the antisemitism in his party and the left in general.)
What next for Francis? Holy pardons for Hamas?'
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A direct response to your OP would be 'Yes', because all Christians are deemed to be sinners, constantly striving for forgiveness and redemption.
I would suggest His Holiness is looking for a future where he sees death and destruction stopping if surrender is followed.
Personally, I think that's a naive hope, given the motives and past history of the aggressors in both situations.
But he must speak as he feels.
I suspect those who would be doing the surrendering, and living with the consequences, will be a little less starry-eyed in their assessment of the way forward.
In Naomi's link, the Pope talks about 'surrender and negotiation'.
If he seriously thinks President Putin cares a rat's behind about negotiation, then he is even more deluded than his present position indicates.
The word 'negotiation' is not in President Putin's dictionary, words like 'invasion', 'subdigation' 'force' and 'crushing' are the terms of reference he tends to prefer.
Atheist; //Is your OP a quote from somewhere? If so, from where?//
Yes, as you can see it's in quotation marks. It's from the Australian Spectator, but you can't read it unless you subscribe.
The dabbling in politics by religious leaders only leads to disaster (Iran). Welby is another example and along with the rest of the bishops should i.m.o. be removed from the British Parliament.
Francis is a naive fool.
Meanwhile battles rage in W Russia as at least three Russian rebel militias who have been based in Ukraine have been engaging pro-Putin forces. We have been here before of course but this looks pretty widespread. In addition there have been multiple Ukrainian done attacks on Russia oil refining facilities - again, including Nizhy Novgorod, 800km from Ukraine.
Other good news is the announcement by the White House of a further $30m in military aid for Ukraine (part of a $4bn drawdown fund that remains at the president's disposal. And it seems that more long range Army Tactical missiles are to be sent - these are what Ukraine and its friends have been clamouring for for months and months
Khandro - // The dabbling in politics by religious leaders only leads to disaster (Iran). Welby is another example and along with the rest of the bishops should i.m.o. be removed from the British Parliament. //
As I am sure you know well, the involvement of the clergy in matters of state dates back to the Middle Ages, probably before then, when the church had a far more important role to play, and power to wield, in matters of state.
And that was all well and good, because in those days, their Graces were far closer to the secular end of things than they are now.
They wielded vast power and influence, with the hands on the leavers of every aspect of government and authority.
And because they were far more secular, they had a far greater grasp of the complexities of daily rule, and the probably had genuine wisdom and experience to bring to bear.
That approach has been allowed to drift on, mainly in name only, as over the centuries, the power of the church has dwindled to nothing.
The problem is, the church, and Archbishop Welby is a veritable text-book example, still thinks it has relevance and wisdom to offer, even though its actual understanding of the real world is virtually non-existent, closeted as they are in their ivory towers, holding forth to little or no effect whatsoever.
So The Pope and The Archbishop can, and do, pontificate (!) about matters in which they have no experience, and even less understanding.
As far as the Archbishop goes, his effect is virtually zero, and people simply smile and nod and would pat him on the head of they could get near it, lost as it is in the clouds most of the time.
The Pope however is a more difficult subject.
His word does contain genuine power because of the size and reach of his influence.
But we can only hope that as time goes on, the effect of these well-meaning, but ultimately utterly out of touch old gentlemen will fade away, and be nothing more than a footnote in history books.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.