Pope Benedict to resign

While I understand the skepticism, it's the opposite now, the reality is the same for them now as it is for us all. Tradition can't beat technology.
Back in the day the Pope could have been crazier than all get out, a front, dress him, put him out on the balcony and have him wave.. voila, the church always takes care of itself. Now, if that face is in anyway compromised, the world hears of it in minutes.
If the Pope is incapable of leading because of health, either mentally or physically, then schism could or will occur.
Again.

Apparently you've taken one of those "Build Your Vocabulary" courses in which "facile" was featured.

At least you're trying to improve yourself.

still no fiber, huh finny...

It suits you so perfectly. I am enamored of it.

What you call skepticism, I call cynism in the context of the fact that there are a bunch of folks who feel compelled to think the worst of the Catholic Church (while, I might add, they conveniently have all sorts of forgiveness for non-Western religion and their leaders). It's peculiarly sad that these people save their most potent bile for people like the Pope.

I don't, for a minute, think he is any more sacred a being than the lowliest among of us, but what are his sins?

The sexual abuse scandals that have, rightfully, tainted the Catholic Church are not to be minimized, and to the extent that this Pope may have abetted the dispicable cover-up of the Church, he is clearly at fault. Does anyone think, though, that he commaned the brethren under his charge to go forth and seually abuse?

That the Catholic Church covered up these crimes is terrible, particularly because of what it professes to be, but let's face it, the majority of its critics, on this score, never believed it to be what it does.

If someone chooses to define the Church and this Pope by this scandal, that's fine, but I would then expect them to be so singular in their assessment of other leaders and organizations, and (as far as the critics on A2K go) they are not.

The term hypocrisy is often confused with inconsistency.

What is truly inconsistent is criticism of the Catholic Church and this Pope for their sins and an utter dismissal of the sins of other organizations and their leaders of which the critics somehow feel they must be tolerant.

What is truly hypocritical is criticism of the Catholic Church and this Pope for their sins and an utter dismissal of the sins of organizations and their leaders of which the critics approve.

The notion that the Catholic Church is some sort of evil entity is as imbecilic as the notion that organized Islam is as well, and yet one can bet their last dollar that a majority of the folks who are all too ready to castigate the former are just as ready to defend the latter.

The mantra of the Stupid West: That which we know is bad; that which we don't know is good.

Hi Ceili

I guess - except that the last years of JP2 he was clearly infirm, it seemed a cruelty to make him struggle through the motions, and there was no schism. I don't know that scrutiny has increased that much in 7 years - but don't have a strong argument against your theory either.

If that's what you think it is.... says a lot for your mental ability's.

How gratified I am that I am a source of amour for you.

Of course, now that you've learned the dictionary definition of "facile" you may want to educate yourself on the fact that the trully dull are likely to call any argument they cannot comprehend as "facile."

It's the common trap of Vocabulary Builder devotees.

I would prefer him constipated.... less **** to come outa his mouth.

Now that's a retort that would level anyone!

Which you go on to minimize.

On this thread the bile meter peaks in your posts - Andy was merely asking the question why. I too ask the same - not because I already have a pat answer. It is genuinely intriguing.

You're slashing away at the strawman you've created - there may be cynics railing away at the catholic church somewhere in the world but they're not on this thread.

This was the best bit:



Double irony. 1. The west is a substantially created by the very body you're using this phrase to defend - and, 2. do you ever read what you write in periods of self-reflection?

I'm starting to think you have no idea what facile means.

Speaking of retorts - this one of yours is about a centimeter from 'I know you are, but what am I'

Well done you.

Let it not be Pell!!!! Pell is hell.

It backs up when he has no fibre.

Not at all, and one might suggest that your response was facile.

I've not minimized it. What I have done is to suggest that those who think it is terrible (as do I) should be prepared to view other organizations and their leaders with the same prism (as do I).

What can I say Hinge?

You've not demonstrated an intellect that can recognize what is truly facile.

Clearly you disagree, but your disagreement is of little import.

Do you really expect me to subscribe to your liberal philosophy and tell you that no matter how assanine your comment, it has great value?

I've thought for a few minutes about how to reply to this comment (obviously directed at me) and keep coming back to:

Idiot.

Sorry if that is too brief.

There's no way it will be Pell. Rest easy.

And that's the strawman - who else has suggested that only the catholic church should be soon through this prism?

I'm sorry but your apologism does minimise the issue.

Right, so only those who are too simple to realise an argument is too simple can determine what is facile. Wonderful. Put your analyst on danger money.