Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Ben Kenobi]

Benedict said God told him to... that he had a mystic experience and God made his wishes to him known...

Then why did he lie about it before?

"My strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry," he said then.

If he sincerely believed that God was calling him to step down and that he had a mystical experience per se, why not say so from the beginning.

Now, after witnessing the "charisma" of his successor, Pope Francis, Benedict said he understood to a greater extent how his stepping aside was the "will of God".

Seems contrived to me.

The German ex-pontiff's comments, which are said to have been made a few weeks ago, were reported by the Catholic news agency Zenit, which did not name the person Benedict had spoken to.

We don't have a direct quote from Benedict, we have a quote from Benedict from a purportedly 'reliable, yet unnamed source'. Can't say that will supercede the direct quote that Benedict made when he resigned.

[Ben Kenobi]

I did not make any promise except to myself. There is no Christian god. That is a figment of your imagination.

Still doesn't change that you still made a promise to God and have broken your promise.

No I didn't have a choice. It was expected in my culture to do so. I had no real choice. I did have a choice to leave the Church and religion completely. I don't like a church of child molesters and liars. I'm not bound to anything, moron. You will not force me into anything. You will not imprison me. The church is not a prison... unless you're saying the Catholic Church is like Scientology which tortures people who try to leave. Nice example actually!

Right - you're free to leave, never attend mass, never darken our doorsteps again. That is torture? It still does not change the fact that you are Catholic and will always be Catholic thanks to your baptism and confirmation.

That being said - you did indeed have a choice. That you chose to make a promise to God to defend the teachings of the Church - all of the teachings of the Church speaks volumes. It means your circumstances are much different than from those who are not Catholic at all.

I'm very trustworthy because I happen to be gay. I am angry with the Church for covering up serious crimes (and continuing to do so). I know the child molestation issue is still happening to this day. Priests are still getting caught. By the way, I'm agnostic and that was done independently of that issue.

Then your issues have nothing to do with the child abuse cases. Why bring them up?

I also am gay. There is no god, so there is no promise to be made. The only promise I have with is with myself to be true and honest about who I am. I lied too much to myself
years ago and did that on here when I covered up my true feelings. I destroyed the heart of a guy who was in love with me because I was too hateful to even accept myself. He did eventually forgive me and understood the horrid situation I was in. These are actions I regret to this day. That filthy religion was a reason I did that.

So rather than accept personal responsibility for the choices and decisions that you make you are blaming the Catholic church? Interesting morality there, Giancarlo.

[ZEE]

Hey, you guise. It's AAHZ again.

I just want to thank everybody for bringing the trolling and name-calling back to this thrade after it tapered off for a while. I appreciate it.

Now, continue on, but with moar FEELING. moar PASSION. let the hate FLOW through you.

[Ming]

The quote from Benedict was confirmed by the Vatican... are you calling Benedict and the Vatican liars?

Yet again, in Benland, BK knows more than the Pope, the Vatican, and God.

[Ben Kenobi]

The quote from Benedict was confirmed by the Vatican... are you calling Benedict and the Vatican liars?

Do they have a direct quote of Benedict saying it or an 'unnamed, trusted source?' I know which one I believe.

[Ming]

Then you are calling them liars... just checking.

[Berzerker]

Subsidies are direct payments from the state to people. For example - to offer tax relief - in the form of payments would be considered a subsidy. To reduce the taxes paid, is not - because the state is reducing their take, rather than redistributing money it is taking in.

You just quoted the definition of subsidy

A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction.

The difference between the two is quite easy to explain. What would happen if the government reduced the income tax to 10 percent across the board? Would that be a subsidy? No - obviously not.

You just quoted the definition of subsidy

A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals

*sigh*. No, that's not how it works, Berz.

How does it work? How do you cut taxes without making up for them and not increase the debt?

Then why am I advocating cuts to taxes and cuts to spending programs? If I supported taxpayer debt - why would I care to suggest some deep and sustained cuts to domestic social programs?

C'mon Berz, if you're going to argue, at least argue against my actual position.

You said I was a Democrat for believing tax cuts should be made up for and here you are advocating tax cuts that are made up for. By your own definition you are a Democrat.

Your issue is that you aren't the beneficiary of the tax cut.

I already explained my issue, we're trillions in debt because Democrats and Republicans cut taxes without making up for them

If you believe that tax cuts must be made up by increasing taxes elsewhere, yes, you are against all tax cuts.

Thats not what I believe and that doesn't even make sense... I'm against all tax cuts if I support tax cuts by increasing taxes elsewhere? That means I still support tax cuts. Now Ronald Reagan cut taxes on some people and raised them on others, does that mean he opposed all tax cuts?

So why are you opposed to a tax break for families with children? They already pay enough in taxes.

If they paid enough we wouldn't be running deficits... I oppose subsidies to promote more babies, social engineering is what Democrats and Republicans do and they've created our debt with their/our irresponsibility. I dont see anything in the Constitution that says Congress can tax Americans to enrich married people for having kids. You believe in that power because you're a social engineer, not because its actually in the Constitution.

[Ben Kenobi]

How do you cut taxes without making up for them and not increase the debt?

Cutting domestic spending and entitlements.

I oppose subsidies to promote more babies

Ultimately you are a Malthusian and I am not. Economically, we are better off with more rather than fewer children.

You believe in that power because you're a social engineer, not because its actually in the Constitution.

Actually, I believe that income taxation altogether is unconstitutional. Apparently I'm the libertarian...

[Berzerker]

Excuses, excuses for the lies peddled by your libertarian masters (corporatists). You're making things up once again. It wasn't just the housing market that went under. You think less regulation would make things better. You live under a ROCK. The market is screwed up and has ****ED over the people enough. The losses by the market far outweigh anything politicians have done so please stop being dishonest.

By the way, I'm in favor of prosecuting politicians who collude with corporations. That's why I want more left wing politicians in this country... and I also want Glass-Steagall reinstated.

You just believe the lies published on libertarian propaganda websites. You honestly think the market will help us when it will just destroy this entire country.

Give me a reason why I should believe anything a libertarian says? To me it's all sugarcoated corporatism bull****.

I'm sorry but I don't believe in voluntary regulations and wishing for regulatory compliance like what libertarians believe. You hold the private sector in too high regard and you think it'll solve everything. That's pretty delusional I think.

Edit: By the way, the 2007-08 recession happened because of either INSUFFICIENT/INADEQUATE or POORLY APPLIED regulation. You think we need less. Awesome logic. So you would take a bad situation and make it worse. This is how dangerous libertarianism is. It must never be applied in practice and opposed at all costs.

The recession happened because politicians wanted more people to buy homes and when people who couldn't afford them defaulted quasi-govt organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Nationwide (is on your side) dumped the losses on Wall St and the taxpayers. You accuse me of being a corporatist when it was your party that bailed them out? Its your party taxing me to enrich these crooks and Hillary is in bed with them. I'm not even sure corporations would be allowed to exist under libertarianism, they certainly wouldn't be getting any favors.

[kentonio]

Actually under Reagan, but I know that occurred too. Especially with the republican controlled Congress and Gingrich. Thanks for sharing that though. Bill wasn't perfect, but most deregulation was under Reagan and the first Bush.

But I never brought up Bill Clinton, so you are quite irrelevant. My big complaint about Obama by the way was letting Frank-Dodd getting gutted. He didn't show enough leadership on that issue.

See I have criticisms for everyone, so your argument is not persuasive enough for me.

I don't give the first **** what you find relevant, and if you speak to me like that then I'll continue to smack down your childish cheerleading like the bitch whining it deserves. If you have the slightest bit of intellectual honesty then you'll accept that much of the responsibility for the bank crisis lies squarely with the husband of the woman you're incessently cheerleading for. The power couple who were the original standard bearers for neo-liberalism who rebuilt the economy around the service sector, gave the banks far too much power which eventually led to the collapse of the economy and who by and large deserted the working class base of the Democratic party. But of course you won't admit that, because you're a convert like BK, and can't see beyond childish black and white thinking where all bad things are the GOP's fault and the Dems can only do good.

[kentonio]

The Benedict still remains Pope. God chose him. Do you believe that God chose Benedict wrongly?

Ah so you believe God is stupid and his plan is so simplistic that the choice to replace Benedict with Francis was beyond the scope of his power?

Great, then Benedict is still Pope.

So you are wiser than God?

I didn't choose Benedict. God and the conclave did.

And then god chose a new pope, a divine decision you refuse to accept because you think you are more important than god.

Wow, so you're saying that the Pope can change doctrine, because God appointed him. You might want to read Catholic doctrine a bit more.

If god chose Francis to be his representative on earth, then his teachings are extremely relevant. Unless you don't actually care what god wants.

Francis cannot contradict what God already said and taught. If God appointed Benedict, and John Paul II - Francis cannot change their teachings. That's what you don't understand God has already spoken on these issues, and the statement has been clear. Nothing Francis does can change any of this.

Don't be idiotic, you are now trying to deny god the power to change Christian teachings? Have you forgotten a certain episode where he sent his son to earth to radically change how man was to live? Or perhaps you think you are so important that you get to decide how god can and cannot carry out his plan?

Where was God's will in Benedict's resignation? I fail to see it. God's choice was very clear - Benedict.

You have become a heretic. You are directly denying gods will, communicated directly to Benedict. So not only defying god, but contradicting the very pope you claim to support.

If I believed that, wouldn't I believe that God's will in selecting the Pope could be overruled by a resignation?

See, that's the problem - Kentonio. If God chooses, then God decides. It's not anybody else's role to interfere with this.

Now, the actual teaching is this - God is merciful, if someone doesn't wish to serve him, yes - they can refuse the call. We see this many times in history. We see that the choice that God has selected be rejected by the people - to their detriment. Every time.

Everytime a choice is made where God's will is defied - and the people choose another way that they believe is better... what happens? We are worse off for it. Benedict will have to repent for the punishment we are being inflicted on by Francis.

You seem to have the frankly bizarre view that god is so limited in his power that he can only operate through formally established Catholic channels. Benedict told you that he had stepped aside to devote himself to prayer because "God told me to". Do you now deny that god has the power to communicate with anyone, let alone his representative on earth? Or perhaps you think gods former representative Benedict is a liar?

[Berzerker]

Cutting domestic spending and entitlements.

Thats making up for the tax cuts

Ultimately you are a Malthusian and I am not. Economically, we are better off with more rather than fewer children.

I dont think we're running out of resources, I'm worried about how the place will look when we've spent 50-100-500 years carving it up to extract those resources. And we'll be doing that because some religions think the world needs a few billion more people (is their a limit?).

Actually, I believe that income taxation altogether is unconstitutional. Apparently I'm the libertarian...

You believe the tax code should be used for social engineering, Democrats agree...

[Giancarlo]

In this particular example, it would mean that Benedict would stay on as Pope. I'm not sure what's particularly controversial about this position. There hasn't been a resignation in over 500 years, and the last time it happened, the resigning pope died within the year.

Nobody cares. Slavery was around in the past and the church led the Inquisition. The past is not something that should be repeated.

[Giancarlo]

The recession happened because politicians wanted more people to buy homes and when people who couldn't afford them defaulted quasi-govt organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Nationwide (is on your side) dumped the losses on Wall St and the taxpayers. You accuse me of being a corporatist when it was your party that bailed them out? Its your party taxing me to enrich these crooks and Hillary is in bed with them. I'm not even sure corporations would be allowed to exist under libertarianism, they certainly wouldn't be getting any favors.

Yet less regulation would help... You are going about it in the very wrong way. Why would corporations not be allowed to exist under libertarianism? Libertarianism is basically corporatism in sheep's clothing. Hillary may be far from perfect, but your views don't make any logical sense and are a hundred times worse. Sorry.

And what is my party? I am not part of any political party. You think the democrats though are the only ones responsible? The Republicans have been pushing deregulation since the Reagan years. Gingrich did this himself with the republican led Congress too. Libertarians truly live in fantasy land. They think less regulation would actually help prevent abuses from happening... I'm laughing so hard.

[Giancarlo]

I don't give the first **** what you find relevant, and if you speak to me like that then I'll continue to smack down your childish cheerleading like the bitch whining it deserves. If you have the slightest bit of intellectual honesty then you'll accept that much of the responsibility for the bank crisis lies squarely with the husband of the woman you're incessently cheerleading for. The power couple who were the original standard bearers for neo-liberalism who rebuilt the economy around the service sector, gave the banks far too much power which eventually led to the collapse of the economy and who by and large deserted the working class base of the Democratic party. But of course you won't admit that, because you're a convert like BK, and can't see beyond childish black and white thinking where all bad things are the GOP's fault and the Dems can only do good.

You are a childish liar and a historical revisionist. You don't have a clue what happened in this country. Laws are passed by the Congress, not the President. Republicans had a vast majority in Congress when this happened. This isn't cheerleading and you will not talk down to me. I know you hate facts but I don't really care. You blame the Clinton's for everything but your argument isn't built on any grain of truth. So the childish one here is you.

And cheerleading... can you stop it with that bull****? Hillary wasn't even my first choice. I don't care for your childish immaturity.

You won't ****ing talk to me like I am some *****. I will smack back a hundred times harder. You are a childish little liar. I will not accept a god damn thing you say because your little ****ing words are not ingrained in truth. The responsibility rests solely in them... Again little one, the President isn't a dictator and deregulation came from the Congress. who controlled the Congress at the time? You have your answer!

And a great deal of the deregulation actually happened under the Reagans but you won't even admit that. Liar liar pants on fire!