The Pope was flat told
(files.catbox.moe)
Comments (27)
sorted by:
The global, insanely wealthy, guilt-peddling Catholic Church does some good, and plenty of bad, but it certainly isn't what Jesus was trying for with His ministry.
You misspelled PEDO-FILLED.
Pentagon officials told a representative of the Pope that B-52s were stronger than God and then told him to look up the Avignon Papacy. Fucking based. About time someone puts the Papal States in their place.
Too many socialists in the papacy during the last decade. Who knows what kind of men they promoted to Cardinals.
The same. Father Malachi Martin, an Exorcist in the Church, warned what would happen if a Jesuit ever became Pope. Francis was a Jesuit.
There is no position of pope in scripture.
Neither the pope (any of them) nor catholic priests meet the biblical requirements for pastors or elders laid out clearly in scripture.
It must be a married man that is above reproach with obedient children.
Catholics ignore God's word for their traditions that can't be supported by scripture. Jesus admonished the Pharisees for the very same thing.
Truthfully? Maybe it's because I'm Catholic and used to having the Pastor of a church be unmarried -- but the thought of any Pastor having a wife horrifies me.
There is enough trouble with the bossy and interfering ladies who run the auxiliaries and various clubs attached to the church. There is power tripping, petty gossiping, back stabbing, all the usual garbage you get when there is too many women together.
I can not for the life of me imagine what would happen if there was a "Mrs. Pastor" lording over the whole mess. And I don't believe for one moment that Protestants don't have their share of these ladies "helping" (?) around the church.
At least this way, an unmarried Pastor has a fighting chance of maintaining some measure of control over these types of ladies. He doesn't have a wife yanking his chain and "suggesting" (?) what he needs to do so there is some sense that he can get these women to behave.
So I'll take the Catholic method -- thank you very much because "church ladies" no matter what denomination are a force of nature that need to be contained.
Truthfully. That's what God says in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. You should read them.
There is no role of Mrs. Pastor at any solid Protestant Church and women are not allowed to be in positions of leadership or have any authority over men.
At my church any ladies that participate in gossip or become problematic get talked to privately at first, then they undergo church discipline if they don't heed that warning, then they are asked to leave the church if they continue their actions until such time as they're ready to repent and obey the pastors and elders. That's how these issues should be addressed biblically.
It's interesting that you prefer your own method to God's word. Do you think you're more wise than God? Do you think that you're pragmatism Trump's obedience?
Here's one of the rotten fruits that the Catholic Church experiences from disobedience to God's word: Homosexuality & Pedophilia.
Many persons struggling with homosexuality or attraction to children go into the priesthood attempting celibacy and to suppress these desires. In many cases once they land into a position of power with a little oversight that send overtakes them and when they do act out on those urges your church buries it in many cases.
I'd rather be in a church without fagots in the leadership trying to diddle kids more than I'd worry about some old cows being Post menopausal Karen's.
So you believe that people should follow everything that's in the Bible? I assume then, you approve of the conduct of Lot's daughters and advocate that young ladies follow their example because, after all, it's in the Bible.
Personally, I think the Bible has to be read with some level of intelligence lest one get carried away with things which, are either destructive (as the behavior of Lot's daughters) or simply don't have any practical value (demanding someone be married) to be a pastor.
The reason priests are unmarried I've always suspected has more to so with the fact that they hear confessions. A married couple -- by nature of the sacrament of marriage should have no secrets from one another. So you can clearly see the conflict which arises between the two.
As for your other point...I almost hesitate to burst your bubble because you so ardently believe in the perfection of your own belief system. But you're not being realistic. Sex offenders exist everywhere -- even in Protestant churches.
I regret that I have to be the one to tell you this. It would be lovely if I could let you go on wearing your rose colored glasses, but I don't know if that could lead you into a situation down the line where you trust someone you shouldn't. Because if you believe such things are not possible in your world -- you won't be keeping an eye out for anything that looks odd.
With that thought in mind... I'm going to give you a link to one site. There are many others on the net if you choose to search. Sex offenses are not unique to Catholicism. They're just more widely reported because the thought of someone who is supposed to be celibate committing such offenses is titillating to the public and generates more income for the people who publish news.
https://dc.swosu.edu/qc/vol12/iss1/3/
.... And then you proceed to make an unintelligent response with atheist level understanding of theology.
This is the classic “if it’s in the Bible, you must endorse it” maneuver. It’s a bit like walking into a police report, reading about a bank robbery, and concluding the officer is pro-robbery because he bothered to write it down.
The Bible is not a children’s sticker book of moral gold stars. It records what happened, not just what should have happened. There is a difference between description and prescription, and flattening that distinction is how you end up accusing Scripture of endorsing the very sins it plainly condemns.
Take Lot’s daughters in Book of Genesis 19. The text does not present their actions as noble, virtuous, or worthy of imitation. It presents them as the rotten fruit of a thoroughly compromised household. Lot had already pitched his tent toward Sodom, then moved into it, then needed to be dragged out of it like a man reluctant to leave a burning building. By the time you get to his daughters, you are not looking at a moral Hall of Fame. You are looking at the aftershocks of Sodom still echoing in the family living room.
And Scripture does not leave you guessing. The offspring of that act become the Moabites and Ammonites, perennial thorns in Israel’s side. That is not a gold medal ceremony. That is a warning label.
So no, Christians do not read every action recorded in the Bible as a command to imitate. We read it as a truthful account of humanity, warts and all. The heroes sin, the villains sometimes tell the truth, and the whole thing points beyond itself to the need for redemption.
If someone reads that passage and concludes, “Ah yes, a model for young ladies,” the problem is not with the Bible. It is with the reader, who has managed to miss the point with impressive accuracy.
That argument tries to solve a moral scandal with a marketing theory, which is a bit like explaining away a house fire by critiquing the smoke detector’s tone. Even if the media enjoys a lurid headline, that does not manufacture the underlying problem.
Of course sexual sin is not unique to Roman Catholic clergy. No one with a functioning brain thinks it is. The question is not uniqueness, but pattern, protection, and response. And here the issue becomes far less comfortable.
When abuse shows up across many dioceses, across decades, and is repeatedly handled by quiet transfers instead of open discipline, you no longer have a few bad apples. You have an orchard with a soil problem. Investigations tied to events like the Boston clergy sex abuse scandal and the Pennsylvania grand jury report on Catholic Church abuse did not reveal a media mirage. They uncovered documented patterns of concealment, reassignment, and institutional self-protection.
Blaming this on public “titillation” is also a curious move. It suggests that the real problem is not the violation of children, but the unfortunate fact that people are talking about it. That is like scolding the town crier for announcing the invasion while the barbarians are still kicking in the gate.
Now to the celibacy point. If a system formally requires lifelong celibacy, while simultaneously creating layers of secrecy and unaccountable authority, it should not be shocked when corruption finds a comfortable hiding place. Scripture’s qualifications for church leaders assume ordinary family life as a proving ground for character, not an optional accessory. When that design is set aside, unintended consequences tend to arrive right on schedule.
So yes, abuse exists in many places. But when it is shielded, shuffled, and systemically mishandled, the spotlight grows hotter for a reason. The press did not create that fire. They merely reported the flames licking through the roof.
And you do not think sex offenders are shielded in the Protestant churches? You really do need to take off your rose colored glasses.
You totally underestimate the monetary value of titallating scandal to publishers! I think your hatred for the Catholic church has blinded you to some very obvious facts about media and how it operates. No matter. You will believe what you want to believe.
As for the Bible verses -- you've missed my point. Either you take the Bible literally or you choose which verses you believe are instructional and "Godly". That is no different than what Catholicism does. The only difference is which verses have been chosen. This is the same issue that has divided Catholics and Protestants for centuries.
I have absolutely no intention of arguing the Reformation with you. I do not live in the 1500's and I really don't care what you believe. The days where people really care about what their neighbors believe is long gone.
I'm going to end this here because it's pointless. Neither of us are going to change one another's opinion on their own faith.
Well, that was a confident speech, right up until it tripped over its own shoelaces.
First, no one here said Protestant churches are immune to sin. That’s a straw man you dressed up, paraded around, and then bravely defeated. Congratulations. The actual point was about systemic handling of abuse, not the shocking revelation that sinners exist in churches. If your grand rebuttal is “other people sin too,” you’ve managed to bring a butter knife to a gunfight.
As for your “rose colored glasses” line, that’s rich. You’re the one insisting that widespread, documented patterns of abuse and cover-up are basically a media business model with good lighting. That’s not realism, that’s willful squinting. The scandals tied to events like the Boston clergy sex abuse scandal didn’t materialize because journalists needed ad revenue. They materialized because victims kept records, investigators dug them up, and the truth refused to stay buried. You don’t get decades of documented transfers of abusive priests by blaming the headlines. That’s like blaming the scoreboard for the loss.
Now about your media theory. Yes, scandal sells. Water is wet. But pointing out that newspapers make money is not an argument, it’s a distraction. If a man robs a bank and it makes the evening news, the problem is not that the anchor got good ratings. You keep trying to relocate the moral center of gravity from the crime to the coverage, and it’s not working.
Then we arrive at your attempt to flatten biblical interpretation into “you either take it all literally or you’re just picking and choosing like everyone else.” That’s not a serious argument, it’s a false dilemma with training wheels. Every coherent reader in human history distinguishes between narrative, law, poetry, and command. The Book of Genesis records murders, lies, incest, and betrayal without endorsing them. If your method can’t tell the difference between “this happened” and “go and do likewise,” then the problem isn’t Protestantism, Catholicism, or the Reformation. The problem is that you’re reading like a man who thinks a warning label is a recipe.
And the Reformation jab is a bit of a tell. You say you don’t live in the 1500s and don’t care about it, which is convenient, because the entire structure you’re implicitly defending was challenged there for reasons that haven’t magically expired. History didn’t become irrelevant just because it’s old. Gravity is also quite ancient, and yet here you are, still subject to it.
Finally, the “this is pointless, I’m done” exit. That’s not a conclusion, it’s a retreat with a speech attached. You’ve made a string of assertions, dodged the central issue, waved vaguely at media incentives, and then declared the conversation unwinnable. Of course it is, if your standard for winning is never having to answer the actual argument.
You’re free to bow out, but let’s not pretend it’s because the case was too weak to consider. It’s because engaging it would require more than slogans, and slogans are doing most of the heavy lifting for you right now.
Do better.
Catholic charities facilitate 3rd world migrants into Western countries
I'm sorry this just reads like an edgy fanfic.