And I don't think YOU have thought this through. Those elaborate hoopla and regalia clothing and headgear aren't the threadbare and worn stuff from centuries ago, are they? Perhaps a few crowns and scepters, but the robes and shoes? Not plausible! You are fine with your guy continuing to use the "traditional" clothing from back when the Papacy WAS viewed as possessing spiritual AND temporal power and unmatched by kings and princes? Fine, good, like I said, keep sending in your mites! I STILL have a right to my own opinion, don't I. That's not something I can be tortured over anymore, right?
The pope’s apartment is very modest - it just happens to be in a palatial complex. I want him to stay there. Also, I can’t think of a more modest vehicle than the popemobile. No frills at all. That right there shows your ignorance. He flies Alitalia - a commercial jet that is chartered for him when he makes a trip. He has no private jet.
No "frills"? Don't make me laugh! So your guy flies a "commercial jet" that is chartered? Gee, I wonder how much that costs to rent a big jet for yourself and your entourage to take you anywhere in the world you need to go any time you need it outfitted according to your own personal style?
Your view seems to be merely grounded in bigotry.
And yours seems to be grounded in an extremely sensitive bias - the kind that allows not a wit of negativity about the Catholic Church no matter what the subject. My comments had to do with the "appearance" of excess within the Vatican. I tend to think it is much more than mere appearance. One thing I, as well as most people, admire about Billy Graham is that during his ministry he was not known for living in mansions or wearing flashy clothes and extravagant jewelry. He didn't drive big, expensive cars and he was known to have simple tastes. He was NOT in it for what he could get out of it and, in retirement, he still lives modestly. If you ask most people what they think about the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church, one of the first things they mention is its vast wealth and holdings. Billy Graham, on the other hand, is known for conducting his soul-winning crusades all over the world. Now which way do you imagine Jesus, or Peter, would prefer his representative to be known by? That's really all I'm trying to say here. You can prefer to view that as "hateful" or biased or "bigotry", but it's not any of those things. Sometimes, a little taste of honesty helps. Your church wants to make a fresh start with a new, younger Pope. Addressing what the world sees as extravagant excess is sure a start!
As expected you simply dig your hole deeper. Your ignorance of the subject is simply not helping you.
“And I don’t think YOU have thought this through. Those elaborate hoopla and regalia clothing and headgear aren’t the threadbare and worn stuff from centuries ago, are they?”
Centuries old, yes. Threadbare, no. The Vatican properly maintains the vestments. “On Good Friday he donned a “fiddleback” vestment dating to the Counter-Reformation era of the 16th century, and he has used a tall gilded papal throne not seen in years.” http://www.chron.com/life/article/Pope-Benedict-XVI-s-threads-of-history-1567238.php
If you weren’t ignorant you would have known about this.
“Perhaps a few crowns and scepters, but the robes and shoes? Not plausible!”
Except you’re wrong and I’m right. And the shoes are probably given to him for little or nothing by the way. And it isn’t like Benedict doesn’t give away shoes to the poor: “Three of Wilson’s four boys were among 100 or so recipients of expensive brand-name Italian shoes as a gift from Pope Benedict XVI.” http://catholic.net/index.php?size=menos&id=2306&option=dedestaca
“You are fine with your guy continuing to use the “traditional” clothing from back when the Papacy WAS viewed as possessing spiritual AND temporal power and unmatched by kings and princes? Fine, good, like I said, keep sending in your mites! I STILL have a right to my own opinion, don’t I. That’s not something I can be tortured over anymore, right?”
No, you clearly can be tortured over your opinion - just not by me nor would I be interested in doing so. But why have an opinion based on ignorance when you could simply avoid the ignorance instead.
“No “frills”? Don’t make me laugh! So your guy flies a “commercial jet” that is chartered? Gee, I wonder how much that costs to rent a big jet for yourself and your entourage to take you anywhere in the world you need to go any time you need it outfitted according to your own personal style?”
It costs nothing. The plane is provided for free by the airline. You really seem to have no idea about anything about the pope.
“And yours seems to be grounded in an extremely sensitive bias - the kind that allows not a wit of negativity about the Catholic Church no matter what the subject.”
No. I am simply right and you are simply wrong. You make one error after the other. And I don’t think you care about getting things right either. That’s not sensitivity on my part. That’s ignorance on yours.
“If you ask most people what they think about the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church, one of the first things they mention is its vast wealth and holdings.”
Actually no it isn’t - unless you’re talking to people who are bigots and obsess on those issues. I just spoke to 15 people tonight about the Vatican, for instance. None of them mentioned “its vast wealth and holdings.” Neither did any of the 29 people I talked to about the Vatican last week either. They talked about the beauty of it. But none of them talked about “its vast wealth and holdings.”
“Billy Graham, on the other hand, is known for conducting his soul-winning crusades all over the world. Now which way do you imagine Jesus, or Peter, would prefer his representative to be known by?”
Jesus and Peter would prefer the Church they sent. They never sent Billy Graham. He’s a good man, but he was not sent by Christ or St. Peter.
“That’s really all I’m trying to say here. You can prefer to view that as “hateful” or biased or “bigotry”, but it’s not any of those things.”
Yeah, actually it is - because you can’t even get the facts straight. And I see nothing in your posts that suggest you actually CARE about the facts.
“Sometimes, a little taste of honesty helps. Your church wants to make a fresh start with a new, younger Pope.”
According to whom? First of all, any man elected will be younger than Ratzinger because all the Cardinals are under 81 years of age. Second, do not assume that there will be a “fresh start”. Oh, there might be, but there’s also plenty of reason to believe a protege of John Paul II and Benedict will follow them into office. They chose all the current cardinals after all.
“Addressing what the world sees as extravagant excess is sure a start!”
The world does not see it as “extravagant excess” - but bigots do.