... the way that clearly shows how screwed up his value system is:
Not that I know. But being in command never meant being smarter than each other person than oneself, and being Royal originally meant being in command. Chief general, chief judge, chief administrator.
An idiot in command is less of a calamity than everyone in command. If you doubt it, try to drive with back seat drivers - or rather, do not. Or if you do, do it on an empty plain.
The comment was on a picture with John Paul II in a plane and a text on him getting the vow of poverty wrong.
A Pope is a bishop, and all bishops automatically, even if they made vows of poverty (which secular priests do not, and Wojtyla was a such), are dispensed of them.
St Albert the Great - who was religious, more precisely Dominican - when made a bishop of Cologne also got the right to own property. Because the Church can own property and because the bishop is head of the Church.
Now, I am not against either Royalty or Papacy. I am not against either of them having property or getting it from taxation on citizens or on faithful. But I am a bit concerned that English speakers are so much more heated about the Vatican than about Buckingham Palace - or Edinburgh Castle.
One reason is that British Royalty has no power and so is not responsible for any bad politics. Now, I do not think that keeping power with "people" as in people voting for politicians who do not always care for the people's best, rather than for to get reelected, and eligibles nomineed by parties will give you very good government, but anyway, it is true that Buckingham Palace is not quite part of that game. However, another reason is very much worse: Duke of Edinburgh is into the Population scare, and the Pope is not.
So, are people like "Occupy the Vatican" serving the Duke of Edinburgh? Yes We Can probably say that. If not as in serving at the table, at least as in fulfilling the will of. And maybe they are serving Obama too. I mean, despite blacks being overrepresented as abortion victims in US, despite him "being black", he is not against abortion.
He made a speach in which religious abortion opponents are asked to motivate their opposition in terms of something else than their religion, fine, abortion takes away resources from old age pensions twice: first by eating up funding, second by taking away one future producer of real values to use old age pensions on as well as a payer to pay the nominal values for the old age pension accounts. After seing him in command, I am not quite so keen as usual on above cited adage: "An idiot in command is less of a calamity than everyone in command."
But do condoms at least protect against aids? Not 100%. Fidelity and staying away from blood (syringes and at least earlier blood transfusions), does. And it is not the Pope who is running your country or mine or the one I am staying in in ways that makes fidelity harder than usual.
I am not quite sure he is the Pope. I am not quite sure he is not heterodox and modernist. But I am quite sure there are loads of people hating him for the wrong reasons.
Now, a right reason would have been his not defrocking any priest or seminarian seen prodding a butt. It was claimed he preferred to keep those men priests and to keep them under control. Now, that is not traditional, and that did not work. Defrocked priests - whether defrocked for that or something else - would have been staying away from Catholic children. Keeping someone "under control" is not quite a Biblical or Patristic concept, when it comes to men. Shunning people found unworthy of their position is.
But are people like "Occupy the Vatican" duly shunning defrocked (or so it was rumoured) seminarian Jaurès? No, they are doing his work, wanting priests off from and secular teachers onto their children in school, despite statistic fact that secular teachers are more prone to sexual assaults than priests, not less. And they are wanting to keep public school in place, despite that too.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou/Paris
24th Oct 2011
Next the "Royal" family of England should give back all the money they stole from the British people. What makes them "Royal" anyway? Are they smarter than Non-Royals?
Not that I know. But being in command never meant being smarter than each other person than oneself, and being Royal originally meant being in command. Chief general, chief judge, chief administrator.
An idiot in command is less of a calamity than everyone in command. If you doubt it, try to drive with back seat drivers - or rather, do not. Or if you do, do it on an empty plain.
The comment was on a picture with John Paul II in a plane and a text on him getting the vow of poverty wrong.
A Pope is a bishop, and all bishops automatically, even if they made vows of poverty (which secular priests do not, and Wojtyla was a such), are dispensed of them.
St Albert the Great - who was religious, more precisely Dominican - when made a bishop of Cologne also got the right to own property. Because the Church can own property and because the bishop is head of the Church.
Now, I am not against either Royalty or Papacy. I am not against either of them having property or getting it from taxation on citizens or on faithful. But I am a bit concerned that English speakers are so much more heated about the Vatican than about Buckingham Palace - or Edinburgh Castle.
One reason is that British Royalty has no power and so is not responsible for any bad politics. Now, I do not think that keeping power with "people" as in people voting for politicians who do not always care for the people's best, rather than for to get reelected, and eligibles nomineed by parties will give you very good government, but anyway, it is true that Buckingham Palace is not quite part of that game. However, another reason is very much worse: Duke of Edinburgh is into the Population scare, and the Pope is not.
So, are people like "Occupy the Vatican" serving the Duke of Edinburgh? Yes We Can probably say that. If not as in serving at the table, at least as in fulfilling the will of. And maybe they are serving Obama too. I mean, despite blacks being overrepresented as abortion victims in US, despite him "being black", he is not against abortion.
He made a speach in which religious abortion opponents are asked to motivate their opposition in terms of something else than their religion, fine, abortion takes away resources from old age pensions twice: first by eating up funding, second by taking away one future producer of real values to use old age pensions on as well as a payer to pay the nominal values for the old age pension accounts. After seing him in command, I am not quite so keen as usual on above cited adage: "An idiot in command is less of a calamity than everyone in command."
But do condoms at least protect against aids? Not 100%. Fidelity and staying away from blood (syringes and at least earlier blood transfusions), does. And it is not the Pope who is running your country or mine or the one I am staying in in ways that makes fidelity harder than usual.
I am not quite sure he is the Pope. I am not quite sure he is not heterodox and modernist. But I am quite sure there are loads of people hating him for the wrong reasons.
Now, a right reason would have been his not defrocking any priest or seminarian seen prodding a butt. It was claimed he preferred to keep those men priests and to keep them under control. Now, that is not traditional, and that did not work. Defrocked priests - whether defrocked for that or something else - would have been staying away from Catholic children. Keeping someone "under control" is not quite a Biblical or Patristic concept, when it comes to men. Shunning people found unworthy of their position is.
But are people like "Occupy the Vatican" duly shunning defrocked (or so it was rumoured) seminarian Jaurès? No, they are doing his work, wanting priests off from and secular teachers onto their children in school, despite statistic fact that secular teachers are more prone to sexual assaults than priests, not less. And they are wanting to keep public school in place, despite that too.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Georges Pompidou/Paris
24th Oct 2011
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire