Pope "forgives" attack woman.

[johnhughthom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8457618.stm

Slightly confused by this article.

"Pope Benedict XVI has had a meeting with the mentally disturbed woman who knocked him over at Mass on Christmas Eve, and has forgiven her."

Later in the piece.

"The Vatican is continuing a legal case against Ms Maiolo."

Has the Vatican changed the meaning of forgiveness?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It does not say what the legal case is about. Also, the Vatican is continuing a legal case against her. The Pope is not. The Pope is not the state, and he forgave her on a personal level.

[johnhughthom]

Also, the Vatican is continuing a legal case against her. The Pope is not. The Pope is not the state, and he forgave her on a personal level.

I thought somebody would say that, are you saying if the Pope didn't want the case to continue the Vatican would just ignore him and go ahead with it anyway?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I guess he's forgiving her for her sins so that she's ok with god (so, forgiveness in the religious sense), but here on earth she's still in trouble (so not forgiven personally)? Seems weird.

[johnhughthom]

I guess he's forgiving her for her sins so that she's ok with god (so, forgiveness in the religious sense), but here on earth she's still in trouble (so not forgiven personally)? Seems weird.

That must be it, she won't go to hell but might go to jail...

[miotas]

Why is she being taken to court anyway? For jumping a barrier? The only reason the pope was knocked over is because the security guards tackled her.

[Ronin]

Herr Pope forgives...

the Vatican legal department does not!!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That must be it, she won't go to hell but might go to jail...

I don't know much about this part of Christianity so I'm sure someone else can help us out. But how can you forgive someone in the eyes of god for a sin against you if you aren't personally feeling forgiveness? Aren't you just saying the words? You have to truly repent if you are the sinner, so it seems like you would have to truly forgive.

[johnhughthom]

I don't know much about this part of Christianity so I'm sure someone else can help us out. But how can you forgive someone in the eyes of god for a sin against you if you aren't personally feeling forgiveness? Aren't you just saying the words? You have to truly repent if you are the sinner, so it seems like you would have to truly forgive.

Pretty much the reason I posted the thread. :shrug: Makes no sense to me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I thought somebody would say that, are you saying if the Pope didn't want the case to continue the Vatican would just ignore him and go ahead with it anyway?

It depends on the nature of the case, which in their illustrious glory, the BBC has failed to provide us with the details of. We really can't comment until we know the case.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't know much about this part of Christianity so I'm sure someone else can help us out. But how can you forgive someone in the eyes of god for a sin against you if you aren't personally feeling forgiveness? Aren't you just saying the words? You have to truly repent if you are the sinner, so it seems like you would have to truly forgive.

Forgiveness, confession style, requires penance, which can mean going to jail for your crimes.

Forgiveness on a personal level is different from being excused by the state. Though this is the Vatican, which makes that a bit more murky. Of course, if being forgiven by the Pope meant no legal repercussions, we might see some more assassins/ crazy people attempting to kill/attack the Pope.

The bottom line is that this is a vague and shoddy article. It seems like the journalist just put that line in to kick the Vatican, since they offer no more explanation, or, you know, news about it.

CR

[Centurion1]

"The Vatican is continuing a legal case against Ms Maiolo."

it really depends on what they are attempting to do to her as punishment. for all we know they could simply be attempting to get a restraining order which seems understandable to me.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Oh teh lulz, the OP of the thread made me laugh. I can almost imagine His Holiness uttering 'Sorry granny, nuttin' personal, jest buziness'

Well, is it not true that quite often, an individual can be prosecuted even if the victim presses no charges? Then again, such normally happens in serious crimes - such as attempted homicide, for which there always punishment, regardless of whether the victim forgives or not.

:shrug:

I always thought of BBC as the most respected and trusted of them all, so I am on their side with this.

[Major Robert Dump]

I forgive her, too. And the Pope. I also forgive everyone in the Backroom. But not those in the Gameroom.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, the Pope virtually is the State in the Vatican; he is an absolute monarch. However, there is both a religious and a legal issue here. Attacking the Pope is a Sin close to attacking God, and could have resulted in Excomunication had she not been repentant. However, although the Pope probably could get the charges dissmissed, that would perhaps set a bad precedent of legal intervention.

Remember, Popes did things like that in the past and it is a major reason why the Papal Curia fell into dissrepute.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I was kind of hoping my local football team would give her a try out. We need aggressive linebackers that can dish out the punishment.

[Beskar]

I forgive her, too. And the Pope. I also forgive everyone in the Backroom. But not those in the Gameroom.

:cry: Why not? We are people too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

CR is correct that forgiveness helps to return the soul to a state of grace but that it does NOT obviate civil penalties applicable and doing penance as part of the process of putting sin behind you is an acknowledged part of the sacrament.

As to the legal issues: Link (http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Vatican.htm)

Ultimately, the Holy Father can rule by fiat within the boundaries of Vatican City as per the Latern Treaty of 1947 (re-codified in 1984). In practice, policing etc. are NOT dealt with at that level and conform to the norms of the City of Rome.

What I suspect will happen is that the Holy Father will allow the normal process to reach its inevitable resolution, stepping in with clemency if needed. This will allow the general principle of "do not assault others" to be maintained while insuring that justice does not miscarry.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I always thought of BBC as the most respected and trusted of them all, so I am on their side with this.

What? Even though they gave no details, no religious background, and evidently selectively chose information to allow individuals to make certain assumptions? Normally I respect the BBC as well, but this particular report is lacking at best.

[miotas]

There must be some other reason she is being held, no judge could possibly charge her with assaulting the pope if they've even glanced at the footage. The pope was only knocked down after the guards tackled her.

It just looked like she was trying to get close to him, think of how many overzealous music fans would have been imprisoned if every attempt to rush barriers and get close to their idol was treated as attempted murder. :juggle2:

[pevergreen]

But not those in the Gameroom.

Next time you are playing online, I'm going to come beat you.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There must be some other reason she is being held, no judge could possibly charge her with assaulting the pope if they've even glanced at the footage. The pope was only knocked down after the guards tackled her.

It just looked like she was trying to get close to him, think of how many overzealous music fans would have been imprisoned if every attempt to rush barriers and get close to their idol was treated as attempted murder. :juggle2:

This is the same woman who tried to attack him before, if I recall correctly.

[miotas]

This is the same woman who tried to attack him before, if I recall correctly.

She tried and failed to assault the pope! ...

...we think...

And she tried to do it twice!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

She tried and failed to assault the pope! ...

Attempted assault. Sounds like a charge to me. If she isn't guilty, she will be found not guilty. To me, it looks as though she is guilty of at least one count.

[miotas]

Attempted assault. Sounds like a charge to me.

Probably... Maybe... Possibly... She was running! She must be guilty! We should charge her just to be sure.

[Aemilius Paulus]

What? Even though they gave no details, no religious background, and evidently selectively chose information to allow individuals to make certain assumptions? Normally I respect the BBC as well, but this particular report is lacking at best.
Well yeah, that was exactly my reaction as well. :sweatdrop:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Probably... Maybe... Possibly... She was running! She must be guilty! We should charge her just to be sure.

She jumped a security barrier and grabbed onto him with at least one arm. She can even be charged with the breach of security. Since neither of us know what she is being charged with, this argument is moot. Either way, she did attack him.

[Askthepizzaguy]

In my opinion- Forgiveness is more about not bearing ill feelings, such as hate, towards someone who has wronged. For example, if someone went around robbing banks to support their drug habit, they might be worthy of forgiveness and understanding. Does that mean we just let them go off to do it again? Not really. One doesn't need to hate or wish ill will upon a person to ask them to take responsibility for their actions. In such a case, drug rehab and time in jail might be a very good thing for them. And, it will be a very good thing for society not to have to worry about this person robbing more banks. You don't have to condone or excuse someone's actions to forgive them.

Forgiveness and forgetfulness aren't the same. We can forgive, but still remember and hold accountable.

It doesn't always equate with a pardon, IMO.

[Devastatin Dave]

Mentally deranged chicks that jump over barriers and try to tackle the Pope make me hot.:yes:

[Vladimir]

Mentally deranged chicks that jump over barriers and try to tackle the Pope make me hot.:yes:

You know, normally I abhor violence against women, but I'd hit that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Mentally deranged chicks that jump over barriers and try to tackle the Pope make me hot.:yes:

:laugh4:

I'm not sure what we'd do without you Dave. You're a re-assuring constant in this cherry blossom universe of ours.

[Devastatin Dave]

:laugh4:

I'm not sure what we'd do without you Dave.

The Backroom would become an Utopian society with unicorns and fairy dust.

[The Celtic Viking]

What interests me the most in this case is the fact that the pope relies on human security guards and physical barriers to keep himself safe. What, was the lady of Fatima unavailable that day? What about Jesus, or god? Couldn't anyone of them - or any other saint, angel or whatever - take one second away from whatever-the-hell-they-were-doing, and look out for the pope? I mean, god should have known about this ahead of time thanks to his omniscience, right, so the least he could do was to give the pope a heads up. Couldn't anyone be bothered with the safety of their ambassador on earth?

Really, I'm amazed that there still are people who can take this clown seriously. It depresses me a little. But then I look at his clothes and I'm all right again.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What interests me the most in this case is the fact that the pope relies on human security guards and physical barriers to keep himself safe. What, was the lady of Fatima unavailable that day? What about Jesus, or god? Couldn't anyone of them - or any other saint, angel or whatever - take one second away from whatever-the-hell-they-were-doing, and look out for the pope? I mean, god should have known about this ahead of time thanks to his omniscience, right, so the least he could do was to give the pope a heads up. Couldn't anyone be bothered with the safety of their ambassador on earth?

Really, I'm amazed that there still are people who can take this clown seriously. It depresses me a little. But then I look at his clothes and I'm all right again.

I just know I'm going to regret this, but I'll bite anyway.

Why should God interevene just to show off? The security was more than sufficient to the task.

Of all the complaints to make about Roman Christianity, this seems rather petulant.

[The Celtic Viking]

I just know I'm going to regret this, but I'll bite anyway.

Why should God interevene just to show off? The security was more than sufficient to the task.

Of all the complaints to make about Roman Christianity, this seems rather petulant.

Well, for one thing, this god of yours is supposed to torture me if I don't believe in him. I think leaving just a little bit of evidence would be nice, so that people like me - who can't delude themselves to believe what they know to be false - could actually avoid that torment, you know. Your belief that god has better things to do and can't be bothered, seems to be a little strange. He's supposed to be omnipotent, after all... so it really couldn't be a problem for him to do whatever-the-hell-they're-doing, and just this tiny thing you think even us humans can do.

Obviously, though, if the mentally disturbed woman was able was able to get so far as to actually touch and knock down the pope, the human security wasn't "more than sufficient". What if she had had a knife, and wanted to kill the pope? What about that time when the pope got shot? If human security was enough to keep people safe, assassinations would never succeed. But at times, they do.

Moreover, the bible clearly state that if you've got the faith of a mustard seed, or if two believers pray together, anything is possible for them, all prayers will be answered, for "Jesus will be amongst you" etc. Why can't the pope just do that? Get some other christian, pray, and be safe! No need for the flawed, human security! Right? Right?!

Or... is it even remotely possible that the pope, recognizing that the world works just like it would without any god, turns to this imperfect human security because he realize that it's the best he'll get? Why would he then speak as if reality was any other way?

Because by promising the gullible sheep rewards in "the next life", he gains power in this one. This is so obvious I'm embarrassed that I should have to point it out.

[miotas]

Actually that's all nicely covered in the bible where it says not to test God.
It's probably there to stop the "sheep" from getting lazy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, for one thing, this god of yours is supposed to torture me if I don't believe in him.

This totally inaccurate statement largely undermines your whole point.

Even the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galexey has covered this, "I shall not provide proof of my existence, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." This isn't about you "knowing" God doesn't exist, it's about you refusing to believe in anything you can't see with your own eyes.

That's fine, but stop ramning you beliefs down everyone else's thoughts, and stop being so aggresive. If I want that sort of thing, I'll go walk down any highstreet in Britain, and within an hour someone will accost me and try to covert my to their religion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

God doesn't "torture" people for not believing in him anymore than you become a Christian just by deciding he exists. Otherwise Satan would have nothing to worry about.

As for why the Pope should worry about having human security, that gripe is with Catholicism not Christianity as a whole.

[Askthepizzaguy]

What interests me the most in this case is the fact that the pope relies on human security guards and physical barriers to keep himself safe. What, was the lady of Fatima unavailable that day? What about Jesus, or god? Couldn't anyone of them - or any other saint, angel or whatever - take one second away from whatever-the-hell-they-were-doing, and look out for the pope? I mean, god should have known about this ahead of time thanks to his omniscience, right, so the least he could do was to give the pope a heads up. Couldn't anyone be bothered with the safety of their ambassador on earth?

Really, I'm amazed that there still are people who can take this clown seriously. It depresses me a little. But then I look at his clothes and I'm all right again.

That falls under the "God's plan" category. If good things happen, God wills it. If bad things happen, he works in mysterious ways, and it all serves a purpose more complex than humans may understand. It feeds on itself like that; evidence both for and against a merciful God is still evidence which can be interpreted any way you like. That's why it requires faith; it's not based on evidence. If it is, it's cherry-picked evidence which ignores all contradictory evidence. Jump off a building and the wind might actually blow you back onto the building; ah yes, a miracle. (Such a situation actually happened!) If most of us did that, we end up dead.

As a side-note, is it always a miracle, too? It can't happen at all without God's direct intervention? So does this mean that everything good that happens is God's will, but if it doesn't happen, that's also God's will, and if bad things happen, that's also God's will? Or is it just some stuff that God does, and the rest that man or nature does? And what of free will... if God allows me to have free will, then certainly I can choose to do right or wrong. Both are acceptable parts of God's plan?

If yes, then it's a plan... that conforms to whatever happens.... with input from sinning mortals who do not dictate God's plan for him.... even though they choose their own path forward... which means God's plan and Man's plans are the same. I thought so all along. So if I shot someone to death, is that God's plan, or my own evil?

If it is not God's plan, then have I not contradicted God's plan? And if your choices are all God's plan, that ultimately places moral responsibility for your choices on God, making him responsible for every tragedy as well as every success. Which makes him a sort of... morally nihilistic God, at best. Almost like there's no morality in God at all.But it's sort of obvious that prayers don't get answered. Otherwise all the people in Haiti would be safe, well-fed, and not dehydrated right now... (If the religious can use examples of what they call miracles as evidence for God, then by default, isn't examples of disasters where thousands die, evidence against God? Or is it just evidence that he takes a day off?) there would be no war in Afghanistan and our troops would be home safe with their families... millions wouldn't have died in world war II. There are endless examples. One might argue that sometimes the unlikely happens and good things sometimes do happen to good people, just not often, by comparison to all the suffering. Bad things happen to good people who believe and those who don't. So, no matter how pure one's faith, that doesn't necessarily grant any extra protection to a believer than say, a hell-bound sinning unbeliever like myself.

That suggests that if God intervenes, he really does have a plan that's a total mystery even to the faithful. But it also suggests that maybe he doesn't intervene. And there's plenty of evidence for that. Pray at times and you'll see... the success rate is right about where you would expect; comparable to lucky rabbit's feet, wiccan incantations, jedi mind tricks, or voodoo. If anything, it shows that your religious preference or lack thereof has little discernible effect on the power of your prayers. Sometimes you don't have to pray for a thing and it still happens! This is known as the unbeliever's non-prayer. It works too, and as often as any other kind of prayer. I don't need to cite any sources for that; I believe it, so it must be true. And you're "lost" unless you believe what I believe. :wink:

As to reasons why prayers might fail, there is the well-known "don't tempt the lord" clause. So if you do what you're told and pray for help, but you also use that as a test of the lord's power, he sees through your trick and doesn't help you. Which serves you right; it's more important not to tempt the lord than to have a miracle spare lives. Because: the disaster is part of God's plan. Whatever your ailment, natural disaster, or source of suffering, God has a plan for that. It's a good plan, too.

But you wouldn't really want all prayers to be answered, right? We are fortunate that prayers don't often work, because there are millions of people at any given time who wish death upon your entire people and turn to God/Allah/Jehovah/Magick in order to make such a thing happen. So, often times, if you want something done, you have to do it yourself. Don't rely on God's miracles. Perhaps God is like a tough-love stepfather. "You're 18 now, you're on your own!" Gotta learn to pick yourself up when you fall, and learn to cause your own atrocities. Can't expect him to do everything for you. You can shout (insert deity here), but if you don't press the button, you don't blow yourself up. Holy wars still require earthly weapons. He doesn't always smote your enemies for you.

Ultimately, "the lord helps those who help themselves". He's like a self-help book that simply says "Trust in me, but do it yourself". So, before you pray, make certain you take all necessary human precautions. Hire a security force, buy insurance, load up on emergency supplies, send donations, etc. Then, after all reasonable, rational, earthly steps are taken, why not turn to God? It couldn't hurt. Also, use this charm necklace I made out of beads; It couldn't hurt either.

One thing is for sure; if there's a hell I am going there, because I have committed the grave and terrible crime of questioning things that don't seem to make sense to me. Which, if humanity never did this, means there would be no human progress whatsoever, and we would still be living under tyrants who rule by divine right and enslave people, and not practicing medicine because looking inside the bodies of the dead is unclean according to certain beliefs, and we would still be stoning heretics and prostitutes and those who say "that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah".

So, it's a darned if you do, darned if you don't situation: If you don't have an open, free-thinking mind that questions everything you've ever been told, you're doomed to die of your own ignorance. If you do have an open, free-thinking mind that questions everything you've ever been told, you burn in hell forever for being a blasphemous non-believer. If you try to only believe certain things, and rely on science for others, you have to hope you've guessed the correct religion, otherwise you still burn in hell for not being clairvoyant enough to know what God really thinks. And in all cases, you die eventually anyway.

I pray to God that he doesn't exist, because if he did, it would a paradox where nobody wins.
That's fine, but stop ramning you beliefs down everyone else's thoughts, and stop being so aggresive.

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla is correct; we shouldn't tell others what we think or believe in an aggressive fashion. We should be able to speak openly about our religious beliefs, and not have to hear others undermine those beliefs publicly. Therefore I object to all religious thoughts spoken aloud, unless I can freely speak the above spoiler-ed text aloud as well, because religious faith undermines my non-beliefs. If I wanted to hear about that sort of thing, I'd got to church or turn on the TV or listen to politicians speak or listen to the radio or read all those pamphlets my relatives send me or answer the door when those-with-Bibles come-a-knocking, or generally do anything besides shout loudly, close my eyes, and stuff my ears with cotton.

[miotas]

Even the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galexey has covered this, "I shall not provide proof of my existence, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." This isn't about you "knowing" God doesn't exist, it's about you refusing to believe in anything you can't see with your own eyes.

Using the words of a man who was convinced that there's no god to back up your religious views? Strange tactics indeed. The full quote:

"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

[The Celtic Viking]

Actually that's all nicely covered in the bible where it says not to test God.
It's probably there to stop the "sheep" from getting lazy.

No, it's an ad hoc attempt to explain why prayer doesn't work, something which any child could point out.

Ad hoc would be the fallacy that any Christian employing that argument (not testing god) would be committing. If praying for something is "testing god", then for one thing millions of Christians are testing god all the time, and they don't see anything wrong with it. Secondly, you will still have to explain all the passages that says prayers are always answered if at least two believers gather together, or if you have as much faith as that bloody mustard seed I keep mentioning. It would seem like a contradiction to me. (But then again, I don't have any "biblical glasses" to put on, so what the hell do I know, right?)

The criticism still stands: the pope doesn't have enough faith to believe that god will keep him safe. He doesn't rely on prayers to god to keep himself safe. He relies on the very-much-material world to keep him safe. He relies on human beings, as well as the work of human beings, to keep himself safe. I find that rather telling, don't you agree?

[miotas]

Well the bible does mention how powerful prayer is yes, but it doesn't say that these prayers will be answered by asking and then sitting on your :daisy: waiting for it to happen. The pope testing god would be asking to be safe and then doing nothing himself to ensure his own safety. Asking to be safe and then taking more worldly measures to ensure you safety is perfectly fine and is in fact what god wants his followers to do. Helping yourself before god helps you, and god working through people. I'm not a christian, but I do know a little about the bible, and how people's faith in general works.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Using the words of a man who was convinced that there's no god to back up your religious views? Strange tactics indeed. The full quote:

"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Ah, but the Babel Fish doesn't exist, which proves God does, see?

I'm a big Douglas Adams fan, my point was that even an atheists can appreciate that the "there's no proof" argument is absurd, just as the ontologic "proof" is. I see that passage as lampooning all logical tom-foolery.

Lets continue the quote, small we:

"Then, for an encore, man proved that black and white are the same thing, and promptly got run over at a Zebra crossing.", (cited from memory).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla is correct; we shouldn't tell others what we think or believe in an aggressive fashion. We should be able to speak openly about our religious beliefs, and not have to hear others undermine those beliefs publicly. Therefore I object to all religious thoughts spoken aloud, unless I can freely speak the above spoiler-ed text aloud as well, because religious faith undermines my non-beliefs. If I wanted to hear about that sort of thing, I'd got to church or turn on the TV or listen to politicians speak or listen to the radio or read all those pamphlets my relatives send me or answer the door when those-with-Bibles come-a-knocking, or generally do anything besides shout loudly, close my eyes, and stuff my ears with cotton.

Mock me all you like Pizza guy.

I don't mind debate, but invective is another matter; and sidetracking a thread to attack Christianity as infantile could itself be seen as infantile. This is a very serious charge, when the majority of people, throughout the majority of history, have been religious to one degree or another.

Like many Atheists you are ascribing to the 100% interventionist God, so that God can be held accountable for everything, and hence everything can be used as "evidence" in the fight against religion. My view of the Divine is far more nuanced than yours.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Of course, in a deterministic worldview as ATPG is describing, the point in prayer cannot actually be to appeal to God to change anything, since that would mean changing God's eternal plan and proving his foreknowledge wrong. If prayer was just an action to change future events, it would be pointless with an omnipotent, omniscient God.

For me, prayer is more about acknowledging the fact that you are surrendering your life to God. You trust in him from things helping you to walk after his commandments, to providing your daily bread.

When you can accept that the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away, that what Christian humility is all about.

[Devastatin Dave]

Using worldy examples to degrade someone elses faith makes me hot...
Back to the topic, there are plenty of examples of where victims forgive their attackers. May times a victim of a violent crime will forgive their attacker for piece of mind. It helps many to forgive and can provide the person who did the crime a chance to seek redemption and change their lives to the better. Isn't that what many on the left are countiniously "preaching" to all others about criminals? I would think that most of the folks criticising the pope in this thread would be elated that he made this choice. What a strange world.
Even though an individual forgives another, there is still the law and I see nothing wrong with her being punished, but with the pope's forgiveness maybe she will have a better understanding of what she did and get the help she needs. Criticise that you damn hippies!!!:2thumbsup:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....:inquisitive:

DevDave steering the topic back on track....

....:inquisitive:

And gently chiding others for derailing it...

:2thumbsup:

Keep this up long enough Dave and Tosa will club you over the head and force you to take the cowl.

:whip: :laugh4:



Celt Viking:

While I understand that the subtext of your critique is really a tool for deriding religion in general and Catholicism in particular, the basic premise is flawed. You critique the Holy Father for not relying on the spiritual for his protection, but he walks in Peter's shoes, not Jesus'. The Holy Father is a mortal man, and well aware of it. Like all temporal leaders, he requires protection from those who would seek ill of him or those who might harm him through overly-enthusiastic affection. Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, just to name two, have significant security guarding them from such threats. You would (and did not) gainsay this. Yet, they were freely elected by people who vote for their representatives and are bound by the rule of law. By your logic, surely the fact that elections have decided things and laws prohibit harming another, all such protections are superfluous and wasteful of taxpayer's monies?

[Louis VI the Fat]

:cheerleader: Dave for mod! :cheerleader: Dave for mod! :cheerleader:Dave for mod!:cheerleader:

[drone]

:cheerleader: Dave for mod! :cheerleader: Dave for mod! :cheerleader:Dave for mod!:cheerleader:

BG hacked Dave's account before "retiring", and is now using it as a fifth column in Tosa's latest campaign against the trolls. :inquisitive:

[Tristuskhan]

Back on Topic, Ali Agça was released today, another one that was forgiven. Maybe the man would deserve a thread for himself.