September 28, 2015 8:10 AM
About Pope Francis and his communication methodology.
This morning I spoke with only two people at my morning
Starbucks interlude. One was a black Baptist man, the other was an avant-garde
middle aged woman. Both were
interested in pondering the same issue: the ambivalent answers given by the
Pope to his constituents, friends, enemies about relevant issues, and how they
could be implemented. I wondered how
they responded to the Pope exhortations. The Pope’s answers were obviously very
carefully pre prepared. How the
question process grows—here are some possibilities:
1) The question
about procedure is “raised” by someone
2) The question
about an issue is spoken or written about
3) The issue is
brought out in a personal or interpersonal manner
4) The question
is shelved when there is no possible way to respond.
5) The question that has been heard or read about is
addressed by the recipient or officially dismissed.
6) The question is addressed indirectly, its message diluted
and rendered meaningless.
7) No answer may be forthcoming.
8) The question is accepted, considered and answered
impersonally such as politicians and executives do. No responsibility is taken by such diffused answer to it.
9) The question is heard and accepted as a reasonable
question. The response to it may vary from the personal, to the cathedratic, official,
political, dogmatic, offensive, satirical, destructive, etc.
So how did the Pope respond to the questions?
Pope Francis accepted the questions about priests’ abuse of children,
divorce, abortion, contraceptives, gay rights, priest’s marriage, women’s
ordination and more. He mostly answered them not only indirectly, but vaguely
and at times ex cathedra plus exceptions.
For example, the Pope said that the function of women’s work within the
Church needs to be increased. What
apparently was meant by him was
only about blue collar work, not white one, that is, not religious
functions within the Church. He
said that women who use birth control which is against the value of “possible
life” creation, can return to the Church, have confession and communion if they repent,
and remain within the Church. He
said that homosexuals should not be judged (the Pope said: “Who am I to judge?” (Trans individuals did not come up but the
response might be similar.)
Abortion is still forbidden, nothing was said about specific
circumstances about its timing. Supposedly
a three day old embryo is already a person with a soul, as is a worm , a
nightingale or a chicken. This is according to the latest encyclica of Pope
Francis. I do not take seriously
souls of any kind because I have no evidence for them, but can argue
ferociously about overpopulation destroying Nature, which also has a soul of
sorts, since it is God’s creation.
The Pope knew that this was a vitriolic issue and preferred not to get
into it.
The marriage of priests was also considered. Very pragmatic since there aren’t
enough young men ready to take vows of chastity. I am asking, does chastity also address a sexual union that
cannot create procreation? (sodomy?)
The Church has used this state of affairs and given annulments to
heterosexual couples who could not reproduce, did it know whether coitus was
ever tried? If so, the marriage
was no different from a homosexual union, except for the bodily orifices being
used! Homosexuals cannot procreate.
The Church’s Power
The Catholic Church has been run as a Political entity
having all the civil, political rights of a country for almost two millennia,
plus the “imaginary” anointment of a “god” who approved of killing any kind of people
in wars, but only in just wars. But
we were lucky that the practice of selling old bones of presumed martyrs was
stopped by M. Luther and Co. There
simply were no longer certified bones available. We were also lucky to have had
Napoleon and Mussolini clip the Church’s wings of temporal power. We were also lucky to have had a Pope
John the 23rd who actually did his best to make the Roman Catholic
Church more Protestant and consequently more honest in dealing with world
inhabitants about what was supposed to be a catholic relationship.
My main point is that there needs to
be a separation between Church and Papacy. There are personal diversities in
their interests, ethics, belief systems and ultimately where money is
spent. The money comes from within
the Chief of Staff’s office of the Roman Catholic Church. It is too crass for
the Pope Himself to deal with actual money, the realm of Caesar.
Pope Francis appears to be in
good faith, but he has no control over the money, all he has is a mouth and
people know this, and his enemies know this. Ultimately, since he is in love with the “earth’s bounty of
oxygen, water, air and earth,” as the Confucians did in China, he is not
serving anyone if we have no control on procreation by humans still living in
agrarian times where children were insurance in case of old age; or where men
simply had to relax after having worked hard at war or on the soil, killing
people because it is God’s plan to kill the bad ones, and a quick fix-fuck for
women and beheading for men is definitely the fastest means to end all issues. But the Pope cannot address this, it
interferes with religious freedom!
Why not fuck goats and roast them
afterwards and eat them? It would be good for the environment, give us some
more good protein for fewer children. I am an unknown King’s clown: “Ridi per
non morire!” F. Rubin
No comments:
Post a Comment