Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #251 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
Aw shut the **** up, it's the same old ******* thing.

It's not like the riches went to the African poor people or to a malaria vaccination fund, they went in a nice safe, waiting for better times.

Don't you ******* see how demagogic and hypocritical this is?
#356 to #251 - moosecream (11/25/2013) [-]
being smart enough to realise something like that doesnt matter anymore. as long as the majority thinks a certain way nothing else matters.
#320 to #251 - angelusprimus (11/24/2013) [-]
First, chair is 300 years old and its a priceless work of art. Melting it for gold would be a crime against human culture. Its on display in a museum where it belongs.
Second, there is over 600 catholic charities operating in Africa at this very moment, some of them yes working on vaccinations with Gates foundation. Totally money catholic organizations spend in africa approaches a billion dollars a year. And that's just africa. So even if they sold those "riches" for few million dollars, it would be a drop in the ocean they are already spending.
Third, all of the things previous pope enjoyed account to a lot of money yearly. Red carpet has to be regularly replaced, new clothes specially made. Pope reduced expenditures of "Papal office" or his own expenditures by 40%. Guess what he did with the money? You don't know? He donated it to children's homes, reform schools and orphanages. So no, its not demagogic or hypocritical. Its actual measurable good.
User avatar #322 to #320 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
Again, I am not advocating the sale of antique items.
And I know that the church donates great amounts of money.

That in NOT my point, again.

My point is that renouncing to these luxuries is a PR move.
And it ******* is, it's meant to show a humble pope, that's near not the people and reaches out to everyone.
It's a poor pope, for poor times.
Which is demagogic, a golden cross doesn't change the way he acts.

My problem is all of these people focusing on such a silly thing, instead of focusing on the religious aspects of his election, which are far more important.
#324 to #322 - angelusprimus (11/24/2013) [-]
******** .
Because and let me say this very simply so you can hear it over your prejudices:
"Pope renauncing those riches freed up a lot of money. Money went to help children."
ITs not a ******* PR move, if its actually HELPING. And its not PR move if its ******* consistent.
Man lived that humbly before on Cardinal income too. Living in a small apartment sharing it with a sick old priest he took care of.
When a man shows one face to the public and another in private its hypocracy. If a man is consistently renouncing wealth, all his life, and living humbly and sharing what he has, and acting same in public and private life, that's called integrity.
I know its hard to recognize today because its so rare, but here it is.
User avatar #330 to #324 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
You said it, it's a "tiny drop in the ocean", with the benefit of huge publicity.

Yes, it may be helpful, but it still is meant to improve the church's public image.
I'm not accusing the Pope of being hypocritical, I'm accusing the church of being hypocritical.
He acts according to the Church's willing, he was elected in order to do so.
The church doesn't act in public in the same way it does in its private matters.
It never has.
#337 to #330 - angelusprimus (11/24/2013) [-]
While we can discuss if pope was elected as a pr issue, saying that what this pope does is one is just wrong.
Man has been acting like this, consistently, since he joined the church. He actually does believe in living modestly, and acting modestly.
And his changes consistently benefit the poor and children. His moves are not PR, they simply are who he is.
But as I said, picking him for a pope, that was calculated move on College of Cardinal's part. Though I think they got more then they bargained for.
User avatar #340 to #337 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
"While we can discuss if pope was elected as a pr issue..."
And there we go, that's my point.
I have no issue with the Pope itself and with his personal behavior, but his stance was decided by the church, and what the church needs is a change of image.
Yes, he might be a bit more liberal than they want him to be.

But again, renouncing to golden cross and throne is inconsequential, from a practical point of view.
What it does change, is the way the people perceive him.
Whether it was him or the church in general that decided this line of behavior, this is obviously meant to improve the church's image.
#342 to #340 - angelusprimus (11/24/2013) [-]
See this is where you are wrong.
Its not a problem for them that he is more liberal then they are. they know how to handle that. The problem is that he actually believes in living what you preach.
He has started pushing them to get out of their villas, he has ordered investigations into their banking, he is cutting their incomes and publicly shaming them into giving up wealth and power they accumulated over the years.
They spent their entire lives ammasing power and wealth and influence to become Bishops and Cardinals, and now this Pope is trying to cut the very foundation they built their power.
If he survives (literally) and wins, then there will be a massive change in the Church. At this point though, I'm giving him 30% chances at best.
#316 to #251 - stevebalenzuela (11/24/2013) [-]
Not getting the down thumbs.. That's a perfectly valid and understandable opinion.

The Vatican is taking over funny junk?!
#325 to #316 - angelusprimus (11/24/2013) [-]
That's easy.
Because his opinion comes from ignorance on the actual issues.
Pope's changes are not cosmetic, he has drastically reduced expenditures of his office and donated the money. So "riches" went to help someone. If not to africa.
Second he is saying how money can help people in Africa which is true. And Catholic organizations send a ******** of it every year.
What he is saying isn't facts, its prejudices. That's why red thumbs.
User avatar #332 to #325 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
They are mainly cosmetic.
Yes, they do have a practical aspect, but who wouldn deny the huge popularity boost the church has obtained from all of this?

It far exceeds the impact of those spending reductions.
#344 to #332 - angelusprimus (11/24/2013) [-]
If that was all that he is doing, we could agree.
But the pope is also making drastic changes into papal office that could have drastic impact on the church. From pulling control of Vatican bank from Ettore Gotti Tedeschi and his cronies, ordering significant reforms in it, to the changing rules on dispesation of funds in bishopies. Removing Bertrone from Secretary of State position, giving it to Parolin, who is only a titular bishop and has no personal income outside of his salary. Or stake in any of Vatican's institutions.
That's where change is happening. The changes in opulence are just outside show of real change and power struggle that's happening behind the curtains.
#327 to #325 - stevebalenzuela (11/24/2013) [-]
Hm, I guess that is a fair enough reason, although I myself have 'reason' to whine about the new pope and the hype he is receiving. But it's more to do with the Vatican and leans slightly more towards conspiracy theories than facts.

If only there was a link to knowing everything.
#331 to #327 - angelusprimus (11/24/2013) [-]
Oh there are reasons to complain about him.
He is still pretty big stick in the mud on some issues, such as priests marrying and women priesthood.
But truth is, he is a middle of the road man, theologically, in a very conservative organization.
He is trying to do better, which is, lets be honest, all anyone can do.
I'm not rejoining the church for him, but I can respect him non the less.
#334 to #331 - stevebalenzuela (11/24/2013) [-]
Well hopefully these tiny changes are an 'evolution' of sorts (Ironic term to use when referring to the church). A sort of snowball effect as this pope broke a few taboos and hopefully the next one will break even more, if you understand what I am getting at. Everything has to start somewhere and these are as good a baby steps as any.

**** , it's times like this I wish I lived forever just to see how things unfold, this **** will take hundreds of years.
User avatar #264 to #251 - philliyoMLB (11/24/2013) [-]
Well, why the **** would you send gold to Africa, you do know that stuff is priceless?
User avatar #265 to #264 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
It's not like several million euro worth of gold could help anyone get vaccinated against polio or malaria or any other curable disease, is it?
#287 to #265 - hazelnutqt (11/24/2013) [-]
No, no it couldn't.
User avatar #290 to #287 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
Really contributing to the discussion, aren't you?
#292 to #290 - hazelnutqt (11/24/2013) [-]
There is no discussion. A discussion requires an exchange of facts, this is just "YES-NO-YES-NO-YES-NO".. Why don't you take a minute to google the **** you talk about before you get angry that people don't agree with you.
User avatar #293 to #292 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
Ok, then please inform me of the reasons why money can't help poor and diseased people.
Please do.

Because as far as my knowledge goes, there are associations that donate money with this purpose in mind (www.gatesfoundation.org/), and with great impact.
#295 to #293 - hazelnutqt (11/24/2013) [-]
Ohh my god I actually fell for this troll. I should take a nap I'm too tired, I actually for a second believed anybody was this stupid..
User avatar #299 to #295 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
Nah, sweetie, this isn't trolling.

Don't pussy out right now, please explain me why can't money help poor people.
Please support your statement with sources.
User avatar #271 to #265 - randombro (11/24/2013) [-]
You really think that that's what would happen if they sent that don't you? You really don't think that someone would try to steal it and then it would be the cause of many more deaths? If they converted it from gold to vaccines outside of africa, the vaccines could STILL be used as a way to extort people.
User avatar #273 to #271 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
Yes, I do think that they do something useful with all that money, if they used it the way Bill Gates does with his own money.

But that's not my point.
My point is that all of this "humble pope" thing is nothing more than a "public relations" stunt.

It doesn't change the way the church acts, it just changes its image.
User avatar #279 to #273 - Awesomenessniss ONLINE (11/24/2013) [-]
Untrue, the Vatican is constantly "fighting" against this Pope, and speaking against him.
User avatar #285 to #279 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]


Sources, please.
User avatar #289 to #285 - Awesomenessniss ONLINE (11/24/2013) [-]
I don't have a direct source on hand but the specific example i have in mind is a couple months or so ago the Pope made an official statement that absolutely anybody can be sent to Heaven including atheists and gay people. The Vatican didn't like that and almost immediately retracted the statement.
User avatar #308 to #289 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
Anecdotes aren't data.
Please link me a nice source, and I'll believe you.
Please provide more than one anecdotal case, and I'll believe you.

Pope Francis never said that "atheists and gay people are welcome to heaven".
He said that "Christ sacrificed himself for all of humanity".
Which is true, according to the christian doctrine.
But then again, redemption from the original sin is not salvation.

But that isn't my point.
My point is that renouncing to these luxuries is a PR move.
And it is, it's meant to show a pope that's humble and near to the common man.
User avatar #326 to #312 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
Nowhere in those articles do I see the Vatican "immediately retracting his statements".
The Vatican has always acted as the pope's counterpart, moderating his position.

And his openings towards gay people, abortion and atheists have nothing of exceptional.
Pope Benedict XVI had the same attitude, the church has been drifting towards this position for a long time.

Again, that's not my point.
My point is that this is a PR move.
And it is, it's meant to show him as a humble and poor pope.
User avatar #336 to #326 - Awesomenessniss ONLINE (11/24/2013) [-]
But it really isn't a PR move, he is a humble Jesuit, the first Pope of that persuasion in fact. The only way this could realistically be a PR move is that he wants to know that things are changing.
User avatar #338 to #336 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
And that is precisely why I am saying that it is a PR move.
Yes, things are changing, and the church wants to change its image.
Renouncing to the golden throne wasn't necessary, if we rule out the PR part of it.
User avatar #341 to #338 - Awesomenessniss ONLINE (11/24/2013) [-]
It was an action done by the Pope.
The Pope does not equal the Church.
Also clearly you don't care what evidence me or anybody else brings to the table here. Your task is to make people second guess their opinions and bring them to your own side. So I am washing my hands of this conversation. Please be obliged to try again when you actually are interested in what others have to say.
#278 to #273 - kommandantvideo (11/24/2013) [-]
You're pretty ******* stupid, aren't you
User avatar #283 to #278 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
Oh, that's a truly insightful comment.
Please explain to me which of my statements are stupid.
User avatar #288 to #283 - kommandantvideo (11/24/2013) [-]
Well besides being wrong ill-informed and thinking that, if we donated money to africa, everything would be fine, because it wouldn't, the pope currently is changing the church a lot. He has excommunicated priests who speak for the pope and shun gays, he has ordered bishops around the world to sell luxuries and donate them, he has sold his expensive mercedes as well as his other luxuries and donated that money to charity, as well as many other acts. But you wouldn't know that because you choose rather to make rash, uninformed statements about a person who you and I both know you could care less about, because you just want internet attention.
User avatar #313 to #288 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
When did I ever say that "everything would be fine"?
What I said is "money can help poor and diseased people".

Which it can do.
It's been proven by facts.
Look at Rwanda, and how it recovered in just 30 years, thanks to foreign investment.

But that isn't my point.
My point is that renouncing to these luxuries is a PR move.
And it is, it's meant to show a pope that's humble and near to the common man.
User avatar #317 to #313 - kommandantvideo (11/24/2013) [-]
Except the pope isn't a common man, he's the closest man there is to God, and that's why he's the pope. He is a successor to Saint Peter, who Jesus said would be the rock upon which his church would be built. He's far from a common man
User avatar #319 to #317 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
I know what's the pope meant to be, how is this a fitting argument?

What he is (or isn't) doesn't change the fact that the Francis is a "common man's pope", a "simple" and "progressive" pope that's meant to reach out to the masses.
User avatar #333 to #319 - kommandantvideo (11/24/2013) [-]
What do you expect him to do? I honestly can't see your side of the argument, all I see is some neckbeard bashing the pope
User avatar #335 to #333 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
Ah, the good old ad hominem.

I don't expect him to do anything.
I just stated that this is mainly a PR move, and that it should be acknowledged as such.
User avatar #274 to #273 - smokingman (11/24/2013) [-]
 Friends (0)