Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[grumbler]

I don't know how you can possibly make definitive statements about what the beliefs and intents are of an enormous, multi-faceted organization like the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church isn't an individual with a single operating mind - rather it is comprised of over one billion adherents, over 400,000 priests, 5,000 bishops and 100 cardinals.

I can made statements about what I can see about the beliefs of the leaders, which is what i did.  Re-read my statement.  I don't know how you can possibly make my assertions about it being "fun to hear leaders say things" into a definitive statement about "one billion adherents."

The church has always been "about" many different things.  Obviously in part it is "about" accumulating money.  Hell to some it was "about" molesting little boys and girls.  But it has also pretty clearly also been "about" spreading love and been "about" serving the poor.

Argument by assertion.  I'd dispute that the church as an institution has been about spreading "love" in any ordinary sense, let alone being poor ("serving the poor" is your statement, not mine - I never disputed that the church served some of the poor).

[grumbler]

No, arguing with you isn't fun. Tedious, perhaps.

Actually, I was specifically dismissing your style of argument from being fun.  Beeb knows how to argue based on assertions and facts, rather than mere dogpiling.  That's why I enjoy engaging with him, but not you.

[Viking]

It's always fun to hear leaders say things about their own organizations that they don't believe, that we know they don't believe, and that they know we know they don't believe.  The Catholic Church has never been about being poor.  It has never been about serving the interests of the failures.  And it certainly hasn't been about spreading "love."  it has been about paying lip service to values like that while pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church.

I don't know how you can possibly make definitive statements about what the beliefs and intents are of an enormous, multi-faceted organization like the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church isn't an individual with a single operating mind - rather it is comprised of over one billion adherents, over 400,000 priests, 5,000 bishops and 100 cardinals.

The church has always been "about" many different things.  Obviously in part it is "about" accumulating money.  Hell to some it was "about" molesting little boys and girls.  But it has also pretty clearly also been "about" spreading love and been "about" serving the poor.

This isn't an organization that is about diversity. It is an organization that claims to have THE TRUTH (tm) in all caps, not just capital T truth. It is an organization with a revelation which claims to have a divinely granted magical superpower to explain that revelation to us. I'm sorry, but using the defense that it is a broad organization with diverse views is BS. FFS, WTF do you think the word "catholic" means?

[Razgovory]

I'm not exactly pro-Catholic, but that's a bit harsh.

Do you believe that the church tries to be 'the poor among the poor?"  It is one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, and getting wealthier.

One could argue against my position, of course.  That might even be fun.  A dogpile of "that's harsh" and "yeah" isn't much fun, though.

No, arguing with you isn't fun. Tedious, perhaps.

It's not even a good troll.

[Razgovory]

No, arguing with you isn't fun. Tedious, perhaps.

Actually, I was specifically dismissing your style of argument from being fun.  Beeb knows how to argue based on assertions and facts, rather than mere dogpiling.  That's why I enjoy engaging with him, but not you.

Something you still struggle with as your argument is based on your ability to read the mind of man you never met.

[Barrister]

It's always fun to hear leaders say things about their own organizations that they don't believe, that we know they don't believe, and that they know we know they don't believe.  The Catholic Church has never been about being poor.  It has never been about serving the interests of the failures.  And it certainly hasn't been about spreading "love."  it has been about paying lip service to values like that while pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church.

I don't know how you can possibly make definitive statements about what the beliefs and intents are of an enormous, multi-faceted organization like the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church isn't an individual with a single operating mind - rather it is comprised of over one billion adherents, over 400,000 priests, 5,000 bishops and 100 cardinals.

The church has always been "about" many different things.  Obviously in part it is "about" accumulating money.  Hell to some it was "about" molesting little boys and girls.  But it has also pretty clearly also been "about" spreading love and been "about" serving the poor.

This isn't an organization that is about diversity. It is an organization that claims to have THE TRUTH (tm) in all caps, not just capital T truth. It is an organization with a revelation which claims to have a divinely granted magical superpower to explain that revelation to us. I'm sorry, but using the defense that it is a broad organization with diverse views is BS. FFS, WTF do you think the word "catholic" means?

cath·o·lic  (kth-lk, kthlk)
adj.
1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: "The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found" (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: "what was of catholic rather than national interest" (J.A. Froude).
3. Catholic
a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

Catholic means universal, or comprehensive.  It does not mean singular or identical.  So in having a universal church, the Church attempts to encompass all of mankind.  In doing so it allows for tremendous diversity!  Just look at the wide variety of catholic orders, of differing rites and services, or differing national churches.

There are comparitively few areas where the Church proclaims to have THE TRUTH(tm) in all caps.  For much of the human condition the Church does not proclaim to have a single, universal true answer.

[Barrister]

I don't know how you can possibly make definitive statements about what the beliefs and intents are of an enormous, multi-faceted organization like the Roman Catholic Church.  The Church isn't an individual with a single operating mind - rather it is comprised of over one billion adherents, over 400,000 priests, 5,000 bishops and 100 cardinals.

I can made statements about what I can see about the beliefs of the leaders, which is what i did.  Re-read my statement.  I don't know how you can possibly make my assertions about it being "fun to hear leaders say things" into a definitive statement about "one billion adherents."

The church has always been "about" many different things.  Obviously in part it is "about" accumulating money.  Hell to some it was "about" molesting little boys and girls.  But it has also pretty clearly also been "about" spreading love and been "about" serving the poor.

Argument by assertion.  I'd dispute that the church as an institution has been about spreading "love" in any ordinary sense, let alone being poor ("serving the poor" is your statement, not mine - I never disputed that the church served some of the poor).

Let's re-read your statement:

It's always fun to hear leaders say things about their own organizations that they don't believe, that we know they don't believe, and that they know we know they don't believe.  The Catholic Church has never been about being poor.  It has never been about serving the interests of the failures.  And it certainly hasn't been about spreading "love."  it has been about paying lip service to values like that while pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church.

You make two arguments.

1. That the Pope is saying things that you know that he doesn't believe in.  I just ignored this one the first time around to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Because you appear to be claiming that you can read Pope Francis' mind.  I certainly can't pretend to know whether he believes what he is saying is true or not.  I assume he's speaking the truth because, unless someone gives me a reason to doubt them, I assume everyone is telling me the truth.  But even then that's just an assumption.  Unlike you, I can't read minds.

2. This is the part I addressed - you said the church was "about... pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church".  If you want to go labelling things, that's just as much argument by assertion as anything I said.

I can only repeat myself - I don't see how you can categorize as large, as diverse, and as old an institution as the RCC as being only "about" one thing.

[Ed Anger]

[derspiess]

I had that book/record.

[Ed Anger]

I had that book/record.

Beeb can figure out which one he is.

[Barrister]

I had that book/record.

Beeb can figure out which one he is.

I'm well aware of which one I am.

[Ed Anger]

I had that book/record.

Beeb can figure out which one he is.

I'm well aware of which one I am.

[grumbler]

You make two arguments.

1. That the Pope is saying things that you know that he doesn't believe in.  I just ignored this one the first time around to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Because you appear to be claiming that you can read Pope Francis' mind.  I certainly can't pretend to know whether he believes what he is saying is true or not.  I assume he's speaking the truth because, unless someone gives me a reason to doubt them, I assume everyone is telling me the truth.  But even then that's just an assumption.  Unlike you, I can't read minds.

You don't have to read minds to know that a person doesn't believe what he is saying; all you have to do is look at their actions.  If their actions belie their words, then they don't believe their words.

In this case, the Pope claims that the Church is about being "the poor among the poor?"  Yet the church has fabulous wealth, and doesn't divest itself of luxuries like property (the Vatican art collection, anyone? the Pope's own garments when he officiates?) in order to be poor and serve the poor.  Sure, there are member of the church and clergy that are poor and serve the poor, and if they talk about being the poor among the poo, I believe them.  When the Pope says it, I don't believe him, and I don't think he really expects to be believed.  Really... mind reading?  Is that what you really think it takes to know when someone isn't telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?  You, a prosecutor?

2. This is the part I addressed - you said the church was "about... pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church".  If you want to go labelling things, that's just as much argument by assertion as anything I said.

I can only repeat myself - I don't see how you can categorize as large, as diverse, and as old an institution as the RCC as being only "about" one thing.

As far as the Pope's sector of the church is concerned, I think I can make such statements.  And I did.  I was specifically referencing the Pope's comments, and the institution of the church itself, which he represents.  I said nothing about people like Mother Teresa-like members of the church.  There are members of the church who does what he claims "the Church" does, but they do that due to personal convictions, not because they are trying to emulate the Pope.

[Barrister]

You make two arguments.

1. That the Pope is saying things that you know that he doesn't believe in.  I just ignored this one the first time around to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Because you appear to be claiming that you can read Pope Francis' mind.  I certainly can't pretend to know whether he believes what he is saying is true or not.  I assume he's speaking the truth because, unless someone gives me a reason to doubt them, I assume everyone is telling me the truth.  But even then that's just an assumption.  Unlike you, I can't read minds.

You don't have to read minds to know that a person doesn't believe what he is saying; all you have to do is look at their actions.  If their actions belie their words, then they don't believe their words.

In this case, the Pope claims that the Church is about being "the poor among the poor?"  Yet the church has fabulous wealth, and doesn't divest itself of luxuries like property (the Vatican art collection, anyone? the Pope's own garments when he officiates?) in order to be poor and serve the poor.  Sure, there are member of the church and clergy that are poor and serve the poor, and if they talk about being the poor among the poo, I believe them.  When the Pope says it, I don't believe him, and I don't think he really expects to be believed.  Really... mind reading?  Is that what you really think it takes to know when someone isn't telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?  You, a prosecutor?

Yes.

You reference someone lying while under oath.  I can tell you from personal experience that prosecuting someone for perjury - of saying something while under oath which that person knows to be false - is one of the most difficult offences to prove.  It is a specific intent offence.  It's not enough for someone to say a false statement.  We must show that that person knew it was false.

That's what makes it almost impossible to prove.  How do you know what's in someone's mind short of mind-reading?  There's only one fact pattern that I've seen support a successful perjury charge, and that's where the person admits to it.  If a person later says "yeah, I was lying while under oath" then, and pretty much only then, can you know what was in their mind.

So, as a lawyer, words matter.  If someone's actions don't match their words, you say that.  You can point to an inconsistency or discrepancy.  But it's foolish to say that someone is saying things they know to be untrue.  After all, humanity's abilities in self-deception are quite amazing.

2. This is the part I addressed - you said the church was "about... pursuing the growth in the power and wealth of the church".  If you want to go labelling things, that's just as much argument by assertion as anything I said.

I can only repeat myself - I don't see how you can categorize as large, as diverse, and as old an institution as the RCC as being only "about" one thing.

As far as the Pope's sector of the church is concerned, I think I can make such statements.  And I did.  I was specifically referencing the Pope's comments, and the institution of the church itself, which he represents.  I said nothing about people like Mother Teresa-like members of the church.  There are members of the church who does what he claims "the Church" does, but they do that due to personal convictions, not because they are trying to emulate the Pope.

Anecdote time:

Back in the 90s I was involved as a law student in sueing various churches as a result of indian residential schools.  I did some grunt legal research in exactly whom to sue.  The result of which is that, legally speaking, there is no entity called the Roman Catholic Church.  Instead what exists is a whole multitude of orders, diocese, monasteries and the like, all of which are under the guidance of the Pope.

So I don't think you can identify "the institution of the Church itself", which doesn't really exist, and then ignore all the component parts that actually make up the Church.

[grumbler]

Yes.

You reference someone lying while under oath.  I can tell you from personal experience that prosecuting someone for perjury - of saying something while under oath which that person knows to be false - is one of the most difficult offences to prove.  It is a specific intent offence.  It's not enough for someone to say a false statement.  We must show that that person knew it was false.

A classic red herring.  No one is accusing the Pope of perjury.

That's what makes it almost impossible to prove.  How do you know what's in someone's mind short of mind-reading?  There's only one fact pattern that I've seen support a successful perjury charge, and that's where the person admits to it.  If a person later says "yeah, I was lying while under oath" then, and pretty much only then, can you know what was in their mind.

I don't "know what's on someone's mind."  That's just moving the goal posts.  I do know that, when a person's actions say one thing and his mouth another, his mouth is the one that's got it wrong.

So, as a lawyer, words matter.  If someone's actions don't match their words, you say that.  You can point to an inconsistency or discrepancy.  But it's foolish to say that someone is saying things they know to be untrue.  After all, humanity's abilities in self-deception are quite amazing.

So it is foolishto say that X "is saying things they know to be untrue" but wise to say "X is saying this, but their actions prove their words false?"  That's foolish garbon-level nitpicking.  I'll stick to the clearer language, thanks.

Your anecdote is not relevant to the discussion.