As if it's not bad enough to come outside and find a bear sitting shotgun in your Volkswagen Jetta, to then find out the bear spent his time defecating in your Jetta really is the crap icing on the cake.
Posted on 01/25/2015 4:42:07 PM PST by ebb tide
He (Francis) has backpedaled, I know. He has backpedaled in pretty much as much of a clear and unmistakeable way as can be normally expected by a Pope. But there is no doubt in my mind that this backpedaling is not the fruit of him realising that he has inadvertently expressed himself in, say, an unlucky way. On the contrary: he says very clearly what he means, and his body language makes the point all the way. The backpedaling is therefore, without the shadow of a doubt, an exercise in damage control meant to distract the faithful from what the Bishop of Rome really thinks.
(Excerpt) Read more at mundabor.wordpress.com ...
PIng
The “backpeddling” was strictly political ...
Yet another ‘Did I say that?’ moment.
For a self blog ping, the back-pedaling could bicycle in nature for all I care.
people watch too much tv. People who should know better.
I can see why you may not care: you are Jesuit educated.
People who confuse TV with videos shouldn’t throw stones.
You're kidding, right. No, you're not....
...people who are oblivious to their culture and history and who are allowed to voter bear the responsibility for the decline of their nation.
That is the weakest attempt at misdirection that I’ve ever seen.
Now we only have the latter.
I agree. But you show great zeal for it, so maybe if you keep practicing you'll improve.
As if it's not bad enough to come outside and find a bear sitting shotgun in your Volkswagen Jetta, to then find out the bear spent his time defecating in your Jetta really is the crap icing on the cake.
The “backpedaling” was political only because enough orthodox Christians got upset and Pope Francis and the people who direct him are worried about losing their contributions (conservatives contribute a lot more than liberals).
I honestly don’t know if Pope Francis is experiencing a bit of dementia, if he’s so stupid he doesn’t know what he’s saying (and he’s not a smart or well-educated man, but a very political one who pretends not to love power but actually adores it), if he’s being manipulated by people smarter than he, or if he’s really setting out to destroy the Church and try to remake it in his own tiny Argentinian image. Or maybe all of the above.
Somebody is writing his prepared texts, and sometimes those are very good - except for things that he obviously added off the cuff - but his informal words are always horrible. Yet I don’t think he consciously wants to destroy the Church or persecute the faithful. But his ego is so swollen that he honestly probably doesn’t even see or consider the consequences of his ugly words.
But, but...what about papal infallibility?
Infallibility doesn’t apply here. Francis has made no pronouncements from the Chair of St. Peter in union with the Bishops. We have had bad popes in history but they do not affect the Church and the Magisterium. The Medici monsters were not interested in theology but rather in Politics and Power. That is the way of it. His personal opinions, and that is all they are, do not rise above being personal opinions.
This web site expects that we all come in and are aware of what was said by the Pope that needs to be back pedaled. That’s poor writing.
So what is this all about?
You apparently don’t know anything about “papal infallibility” and it’s confines.
Yes, I agree, that is one problem with this particular blog, though not necessarily the only one. I don’t doubt that the author is very sincere and probably well informed. And I will readily admit that I usually agree with his positions, when I can be certain I understand what he is actually talking about. And that, sadly, is the problem. He has a habit of sarcastically referring to events and people rather than being clear about what he is on about. He tends to use snide nicknames or indirect but derisive references and asides. Once, I was quite curious about some things he gave that kind of underhanded reference to, and so I asked him. His only response was that I should search his blog. Oh well, too bad. Bloggers should realise that, if their efforts are intended to convince and educate, they must be interested enough to give complete information and references so that what they say can be confirmed and shared with others. Otherwise, it just ends up going nowhere.
Maybe not, but apparently you don't know the difference between its and it's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.