https://www.thedailybeast.com/carlo-maria-vigano-pope-excommunicates-trump-loving-ultra-conservative?via=twitter_page
The Vatican’s former ambassador to the U.S. refused to recognize Francis’ legitimacy–so he got thrown out of the Catholic Church.
“inclusive, immigrationist, eco-sustainable, and gay-friendly.”
Sustainability is definitely the thing I’d hate most. I mean, why save the planet and thus ourselves?
This week, he shared an X post from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in which the MAGA congresswoman asserted: “The Covid vaccines are killing people.”
It’s well-established that everyone who got the vax is dead, including me, so this tracks.
He’s also won the praise of Donald Trump. In 2020, Vigano wrote a letter to the then-president in which he linked COVID restrictions and Black Lives Matter protests as the work of “the children of darkness.”
Dude is going hard on the racism.
You know what? I don’t think I like him.
It’s well-established that everyone who got the vax is dead, including me, so this tracks.
I got the boosters so I'm extra-super dead
Ok, but if this is racist's about skin color I would def say that northern ppl are children of darkness and equator-ish ppl children of light.
Also Europes north is full of metal bands, so that tracks too.
And there was at least one metal band called that: https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Children_of_Darkness/112161
However, if I didn't have the racist context, I would def think its nocturnal people (which I guess includes vampires, but they are a minority).
The fun part is all the people who are gonna come out with hot takes like “what does this ’pope’ guy know about being a good Christian? He could learn a thing or two from Trump.”
We’re doomed.
Expelling the cardinal is likely to increase tensions between Francis and conservative American Catholics, a group he as described as having “a very, strong, organized, reactionary attitude,” and whom he accused in 2023 of replacing faith with “ideologies.”
Someone: says a true thing
AP Wire Service: puts “true thing” in quotes
That's how attributions work. They're in quotes so we can distinguish what he actually said from the general summary of events that the article is providing.
True, but it’s also used to distance the article (“the authority”) from the truth of the word or set of words. The wire service then doesn’t have to commit to (in this case) saying people referenced in the story are replacing religion with ideologies.
Scare quotes.
The ultra conservative Catholics (and “evangelicals” which is what we used to call “tv preachers” but is now so mainstream they have their own Protestant designation,) HAVE replaced faith with ideology. But even if that’s debatable, the word ideology is perfectly acceptable - the quotes are not just superfluous, they’re there to limit the impact of the statement. The statement already said it’s a quote, it already said Who said it, it went further by using the word “accused” instead of “said” (now there’s a word choice - is that how attribution works? No. No it is not.), and then put scare quotes on “ideologies”.
Take out “accused”, put the whole quote in, and I have no problem with it. They butchered it in this way for a reason, and that reason has little to do with the accepted guide for attribution.
I mean, that's how quotes work, yes. I agree with your sentiment, but that's how all news organizations do it.
One man’s faith is another man’s ideology.
Ultimately, the problem is religion. Religion should not be part of politics.
Joshua ben Joseph was a religious leader who preached nonviolent resistance against the state. He was eventually executed publicly by the state for this. Do you think He was wrong to bring religion into politics?
If you mean jesus, then yes, desperately. I like stained glass and organ music as much as the next, but how amazing would it be if christianity had never happened
Which one?
I’m gonna go ahead and say “absolutely not”, though, considering that [I assume you’re talking about the Christian man-god] was largely executed for his religious teachings, and the “crowds” that followed him, disrupting their control of the populace.
He might have been executed by the Roman’s, but only after a trial by the Jewish religious leaders - and only because the Roman’s started frowning at all of the other Jewish mystics they were leaving knifed in the ditches. (And that was just… untidy.)
I’m not sure why you think that’s a gotcha. I imagine the actual mystic behind those stories would be quite surprised by all the things they say he said and done.
Vigano thereafter made increasingly baroque attacks on Francis while also drifting into conspiracy theories, backing bogus claims about COVID vaccines and making proclamations about the evils of the “deep state.” This week, he shared an X post from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in which the MAGA congresswoman asserted: “The Covid vaccines are killing people.”
Homey dropped off the deep end and never came back, lol. Didn't his parents ever tell him, "Don't believe everything that you see on the internet."?
I mean his whole job is to get other people to believe there's an invisible dude in the sky ready to smite me if he sees me masturbate. This is just par for the course for him :>
Quit making that face when you masturbate and maybe he won't.....you know the face I'm talking about.
He’s (well he was) an archbishop. Homes has believed in crazy things people just made up and treated as real for a super long time.
Transubstantiation. Yo.
A bit torn on this, tbh. 'Cause on the one hand, good - fuck that guy. He's trash and he deserves to be thrown out for being trash. But on the other hand, as far as I'm aware, none of those priests that fucked children were excommunicated. So according to the head of the catholic church, slagging off the pope is worse than fucking children? Seems like a weird set of priorities.
The first priest that the PR Pope excommunicated, in 2013, earned it by speaking out for women to be ordained (he also supported marriage equality, but the ordaining women thing seems to be the main issue).
In Melbourne. The same city where George Pell molested children and protected other molesters. George Pell, a child who the Pope appointed to the Council of Cardinal Advisers.
Child molestation isn't a lesser sin to the church. It's a non-sin.
I mean, where in the Bible does it say you can't rape children? The bible doesn't condemn rape of adults or children. It's not a sin to rape anyone at all.
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."
The bit that western xtians like to say means don't do gay sex could be better translated to "don't fuck your apprentices"
But king James was fucking his advisors, who were more than twice his age, while they were translating the bible into English so they took some creative liberties
So according to the head of the catholic church, slagging off the pope is worse than fucking children?
One is just cause for excommunication according to the rules. Excommunication is a very specific punishment for very specific religious things.
Stealing communion wine could technically earn you an excommunication depending on how it was done and what was done with the wine.
The rules behind excommunication are practically ancient at this point but they weren't there to prevent all sins, just be punishment for specific things that were threatening to the absolute shitshow that the organization itself was a long ass time ago.
The fact that it's still a shitshow as an organization, albeit a slightly different KIND of shitshow has no bearing on this situation in particular.
Let's be fair, though. All kiddy diddlers are in the depths of iniquity and should have long since been addressed under what's said in scripture and held to account on that regardless of any talk of excommunication.
Clergy should have been removed for choosing to actively live in sin and then punished according to the law.
The important part is to be loyal. Same as when Elizabeth I broke with Rome the people punished for being chatolic was not charged with heresy, but treason
We go high, they go low. Taking the moral high ground against these people just end us losing the battle.
Not to defend the pope and his lack of prosecution of these pedophiles, but you have to remember that the rule of a leader is never absolute. A leader still has to answer to either the lay people, the nobles/elites, or both. Or else a leader will have to face a rebellion in some form or another. That being said, the problem is that Pope Francis has to go against a significant number of pedophiles and other ultraconservative priests. The Vatican is a hotbed of political intrigue as much as in the royal courts, congress or parliaments. There has been a talk of conservative discontent on Pope Francis for many years now; many of whom adore the pope's more conservative predecessor, Benedict XVI. I mean, how else would a pope get elected by its own elites other than to also engage with politics? It's not different to your everyday office politics or government.
Expelling the cardinal is likely to increase tensions between Francis and conservative American Catholics, a group he as described as having “a very, strong, organized, reactionary attitude,” and whom he accused in 2023 of replacing faith with “ideologies.”
That’s a great summation of the problem with the religious right in this country.
The trumpanzees already despises the pope, so I don't think a whole lot is going to change from this.
You know. If I was a billionaire… I’d buy the company that makes the wafers and rename it “Soylent Green”.
I wonder how long it would take for people to figure it out.
Soylent was named for the movie, and given that it’s very unlikely that people would naturally confuse the products… and also the idiots at Soylent would probably find the humor in it (I mean they did name their company after it, too,)
I think it’ll be alright. Maybe, if I were hypothetically rich I’d buy them too.