Religion
Related: About this forumPope's comments on modern marriage raise storm of criticism
Source: Reuters
Pope's comments on modern marriage raise storm of criticism
VATICAN CITY | BY PHILIP PULLELLA
Pope Francis has said the "great majority" of Catholic marriages being celebrated today are invalid because couples do not fully realize it is a lifetime commitment, drawing sharp criticism from Church conservatives.
The pope, who has come under fire before for making spontaneous comments about doctrinal matters, was speaking at a question-and-answer session with priests, nuns and parish workers on Thursday night in a Rome basilica.
"We are living in a provisional culture," Francis said in response to a man who spoke of "the crisis of marriage" and asked how the Church could better prepare young couples.
"Because of this, a great majority of our sacramental marriages are null because they (the couple) say 'yes, for the rest of my life' but they don't know what they are saying because they have a different culture," Francis said.
In the Vatican's transcript issued on Friday morning his words were changed to read "some" instead of "a great majority". A Vatican spokesman said the pope's off-the-cuff remarks are sometimes edited after consulting with him or among aides.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-marriage-idUSKCN0Z318J
Like an old celibate bigot should be listened to when it comes to relationships anyway.
rug
(82,333 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)his ravings edited and rewritten for the record because they are so ludicrous and insulting.
rug
(82,333 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)because he sugarcoats his dogma
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the leader of their church to at least appear progressive, so they can rationalize maintaining their membership in and support for what they know deep down is a blatantly bigoted organization.
Then of course there are those who will defend him at every turn, and attack anyone who has the temerity to point out his bigotry, because they're as bigoted as he is.
And the truth points to itself.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)catholic apologists everywhere..including here.
rug
(82,333 posts)Too bad the Meta Forum was closed.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The truth does point to itself.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)He's like having to listen to an unmarried marriage counsellor.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Do you disagree with that?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which in some areas can take years if it ever happens at all.
Yep, the only thing better than getting the government involved in your relationship is getting the church involved.
rug
(82,333 posts)Sounds like it.
I'd like to see if you can actually discuss a topic without mentioning "Frank".
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Sweet Jebus your game of strawman bullshit is so fun anyone can play!
The OP mentioned Frank as did you, but I can't. Brilliant!
rug
(82,333 posts)Rephrasing is a sophomore's game.
I take it then you think the primary reason people split up is abuse.
The strawman is people are compelled to split up because of divorce.
An ignorant position.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So it must have been you that strawmaned that word into my mouth.
rug
(82,333 posts)Now go start a thread warning everyone that abuse is the leading case of divorce.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Don't blame me where it lands.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Please do continue, though, like always. I'm enjoying the show.
rug
(82,333 posts)Own your own shit.
I don't think you're really enjoying this.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Contrary to what you might think, I do thoroughly enjoy seeing how far your bullshit can be thrown, not to mention how deep the apologia goes.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2015/05/how-churches-can-help-stop-domestic-violence/
http://religionnews.com/2014/09/12/whyistayed-churches-support-spousal-abuse/
rug
(82,333 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Francis said not a word about abuse, nor was it mentioned at all in the article. He spoke about the lack of commitment that's prevalent.
You, for reasons that reside somewhere in your cortex, felt compelled to snidely suggest that "Frank" wants people to stay in abusive marriages.
And that was the high point of your remarks.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I never claimed Frank said anything about abuse. In fact, my point was he DIDN'T say anything about abuse while claiming the real problem is people are just not staying in bad marriages. Neither did I say abuse was the "primary" (your word, not mine) cause of divorce.
Now let's explore an ACTUAL case of strawman bullshit rather than one that is attributable to Freudian projection:
Sounds like it.
Not only do you ask and answer questions for me, you DEMAND I explain something I never claimed to begin with:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=231366
The best part is how you think everyone is just too fucking stupid not to see right through your driveling nonsense.
So if you can find people who are just so fucking stupid they address obvious logical fallacies rather than calling them out for the obvious silly stupid shit they are, more power to you. Meanwhile the more you try to rerun that gibberish the more I'm going to laugh at the pathetic attempts that just keep getting more pathetic.
rug
(82,333 posts)First of all, your introduction of abuse to a comment about commitment is a red herring, not a strawman.
Second, it is a complete non sequitur.
Third, your comments have neen no more than lame ad hominems.
Finally, you could have saved yourself the effort of typing your last paragraph. It's been found.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If you want to pretend otherwise, it only provides evidence that you simply won't own up to your own bullshit, as if more were needed.
First of all, the Catholic church has been compelling people to stay in abusive marriages for centuries and still does to this day. If you think this isn't relevant to Frank's comments, it only shows your worship of Frank is far greater than any respect you might offer for the victims of that abuse. But since the pederasty of the RCC presents no such obstacle for you either, I can't say I'm surprised.
Second, red herring and non sequitur are two different things. If you can't differentiate between the two, then it simply provides evidence of your ignorance of what constitutes a logical fallacy, as if more were needed, while you simultaneously and hilariously try to lecture others on what constitutes a logical fallacy.
Third, I find it quite rich when someone who gets put in time out for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks attempts to lecture me on the lameness of personal attacks.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's simply foolish.
If not else, you're no longer resorting to gifs.
BTW, props for bringing pederasty into the discussion. It proves the point.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Don't respond to me if you don't want and see how my Give-A-Fuck-O-Meter responds.
rug
(82,333 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Or do. I can always use the chuckle.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)And religion never changes!
rug
(82,333 posts)A celibate man that has never married or been in a long term relationship (except of course with a mythical being) judges people in committed relationships and criticizes them before they have even failed to live up to HIS expectations of their marriage bonds.
Am I close???
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I would further add that same celibate pointed hat man is promoting fake morals handed down from a time when people believed the sun orbited the earth and routinely sold the vast majority of women into slavery.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)He's talking about two things.
1) The lack of commitment and impermanence of relationships. You don't have to be celibate to note that.
2) He's also referring specifically to sacramental, not civil, marriages. It's a core teaching that marriage is a sacrament that should not be entered into unless you plan for it to be a life's decision.
He's not judging "people in committed relationship" at all. Quite the opposite.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)He most certainly is criticizing people who are married where he has no evidence that they will not be together for the entirety of their life.
No one is talking about Trump - all thought they are both ASSHATS....so I guess we can discuss them both here.
This man is full of JUDGEMENT he is judging people he does not even know.
Lastly, he knows NOTHING about commitment or impermanence or relationships for that matter. He has not been in one and does not understand that one human can treat another in such a way that it destroys the relationship.
When his and your mythical God make people kind and gentle there will be no divorce. People divorce for a reason my friend and almost always a good reason. Judging them does not fix anything, nor does it show compassion.
rug
(82,333 posts)Okay, while you wait for God to "make" people kind, I'll see what I can do in the meantime. Not that I'm very good at it.
If you think there is "almost always a good reason" for divorce, you're naive.
Nevertheless, he's not talking about divorce. He's talking about marrying and committing for a good reason.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)are the real assholes. He's totally programmed and indoctrinated, but they should know better. Right, dude?