this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
967 points (96.8% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2596 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- People who act shocked that a priest would bless a gay couple but have no problem with him blessing a crooked businessman are hypocrites, Pope Francis said.

“The most serious sins are those that are disguised with a more ‘angelic’ appearance. No one is scandalized if I give a blessing to an entrepreneur who perhaps exploits people, which is a very serious sin. Whereas they are scandalized if I give it to a homosexual -- this is hypocrisy,” he told the Italian magazine Credere.

The interview was scheduled for publication Feb. 8, but Vatican News reported on some of its content the day before when the magazine issued a press release about the interview.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RawrGuthlaf@lemmy.world 94 points 9 months ago (8 children)

I'm not a religious person, but I think some views in this thread are coming off a bit narcissistic and ignorant. Religion has been a large part of humanity for literally forever, and people can't expect it to just go away completely. People turn to religion for comfort, often when they won't receive it in other ways. There will always be someone in the world who needs religion, and we all need to coexist. The important thing here is he is attempting to drive his members to be empathetic and improve moral compass. Just be grateful for that at least. People expect too much.

[–] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 24 points 9 months ago (2 children)

you never would have heard this come from the church, let alone the Pope 20 years ago. I don't know why people can't be happy that at least one religion is at least trying to be relevant and adapt to the times, and be more tolerant and inclusive. can't say the same about every religion unfortunatly

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I don't want them to adapt, I want them abandoned and left in the Bronze Age.

[–] 20hzservers@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Well we don't always get what we want. Life isn't fair like that I don't mean to start an argument I'm not religious either and also get upset at people hiding their own bigotry behind religion but looking down on others for having different beliefs is in of itself biggoted no?

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Depends on the belief. Do they think that 2 + 2 equals 5? I'm not going to respect that. Do they argue for facts that are, from a sense of logic, mutually exclusive? Or something that we have empirical evidence against? Doesn't make much sense. Do they support an idea that, while not impossible, we only have very limited evidence for? That's a kind of personal belief I can respect, as long as they're aware of its epistemological frailty. Is it an idea that could be possible, even though we have limited evidence for, and actively harms society? Then I'm back to not respecting it, for different reasons.

[–] 20hzservers@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Agreed, I don't think that's what the comment I replied to was talking about though.

[–] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 6 points 9 months ago

very progressive of you

[–] uis@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

and people can't expect it to just go away completely.

At least 79% went away. Only 1% of my country's population visited churches for christmas. For 20% of people who claim to belive in something other than sky fossil I have no data.

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.id -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Your puny country does not represent the whole world.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Millions of people is a pretty good dataset for statistical reliability. That country can be considered a useful example of what's possible.

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.id 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No. One country is not diverse enough.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why not? What are your assumptions about diversity in the context of the range of emotions and political tendencies?

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.id 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How is this case political?

Again, one country's population does not represent 7 billion people. That is a fact. Those who say otherwise should check their math's grade.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is it a fact because you want it to be, or are you some kind of statistics savant? It doesn't represent the planet anthropologically, but it does psychologically, and whether it is possible for a population to drop organized religion is about brains not tradition.

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.id 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Small part*.

Like I said, like a broken record, statistics need to be representative.

This case you brought up, is not.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, it is, psychologically. You only need a few thousand to be highly accurate.

Individuals can drop attachments to organized religion. The example given, if true, can be seen as evidence. If you are making an anthropological argument that there's a fundamental and practically immutable psychological difference between societies, you should say so, and address the occasional rapid shifts in social structures evident in modern history.

So far, you merely assert, with no explanation about your terms of reference.

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.id 1 points 9 months ago

Lol yeah you wish.

Have fun with your delusion, you clearly know nothing about statistics.

This is my last message, bye.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'm not a religious person, but I think some views in this thread are coming off a bit narcissistic and ignorant.

I encountered something similar in another Lemmy instance a couple of weeks ago with someone who believes all Christianity is bad, period.

The irony is, it's the very same black-and-white thinking one would expect from a religious fundamentalist.

(Some Christian denominations are liberal, LGBTQ-friendly and not at all like that, such as United Church of Christ and Unity.)

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"People expect too much".

Yeha, I expect an organization that protects pedophiles to be dismantled. Sorry if that's expecting too much.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

While I'm all for phasing out modern religions over time, currently they still hold giant influence on hearts and minds of people, and, like it or not, Pope is an influential person; moreover, he's essentially part of conservative camp, where we need change the most.

Also, let's finally separate pedophiles and child molesters, as it's both essential to understanding the dynamic that leads to this happening in churches (celibate warping people's minds and children being easiest to lean to non-consential sex more often than actual pedophilia), as well as to create two distinct and effective solutions at child protection.

Actual pedophiles often need to get therapy to avoid mental traps that lead them to accept offending behavior, and those with severe lust over everything (which constitute over half of all child molestation cases) need other kind of therapy to manage their desires in a healthy way.

In case of the church, it means dismantling institute of celibacy alone can have a strong positive effect on child safety, as there would be no barriers for those "underfucked" to maintain a sexual life that would keep their minds in order. Maybe there is a point in going for that first?

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean.. I don't know if that's gunna be the complete answer. The Boy Scout leaders had no expectations of celebacy but they had an endemic issue with child molestation. The idea that it's the lack of adult access to sex that creates these situations ignores a lot of the realities of predators.

Personally I think the best thing to do is to actually mandate age appropriate sex ed. They piloted that program in our district when I was a kid. For a youngster of the tender age of 1st grade all this needs to be is "Here's the proper names of the different genital types and if someone wants to touch in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable it's okay to tell a parent, a teacher a doctor or an adult you trust where and how you have been touched to help make it stop.

You would be quite frankly shocked how many kids in the district blew whistles on adult some right out the gate from that first briefing. Preserving some nebulous children's "innocence" isn't worth even one child suffering in ignorance.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago

Sex ed is an absolute must! It's just that it's one of many things that need to be done.

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Or maybe if they stopped giving them immunity for their actions they would think twice before commiting a crime and ruining a child's life.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Better be both

But yes, everyone involved should be properly prosecuted.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Ditto. Not a particularly a religious person (spiritualist more generally) and generally pretty critical of the Church but bloody tired of people who have been religion burned taking it out on others who are just clinging to comfort to get by in a hard world. Lemmy has a rather large Christian Atheist community. You know the sort, the "I don't believe in God but the God I very stridently don't believe in is the Christian God" type of person. It does come across as fairly insecure at times. I am reminded of the way I used to behave as an angry teen.

I think we are seeing a historic waning of faith and a reassessment of cultural values...but looking at the cycles of things that generally means there's a backlash which might be still building or we might be facing it right now. I think it's far better for those traumatized atheists to build solidarity with people inside the faiths who are pushing for and building the foundations for changes as "enemy of my enemy is my friend" alliances. Sadly a lot of them seem way too busy trying to attain personal catharsis by just scalding anyone who treats religion with respect.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Religion has been a large part of humanity for literally forever, and people can't expect it to just go away

Don't crush my dreams like that.

[–] RawrGuthlaf@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

Just keep pushing for a better society that doesn't need to lean on religion for comfort, and that dream may come true. But not forcing people to abandon things. That just makes resentment.

[–] themelm@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

Well spirituality will never go away but we can still try to shape our society in such a way that keeps institutions like the church from gaining massive power.

[–] dullbananas@lemmy.ca -2 points 9 months ago

You are the dream crusher

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago

Religion is a reflection of humanity. A lot of people are thinking that humanity is a reflection of religion.

This is a bizarre sort of logic. If humanity is a reflection of religion, then where does religion come from? Perhaps from an omnipotent force of some sort?

If you believe religion is a creation of humans, than any issue with religion is ultimately just an issue with humans. And yeah, people suck.

Methinks lot of weird anti-religious ideas come from people who once believed religion came from an omnipotent being, then were in some way negatively affected be religion and realized that even religious people suck sometimes too. But the disappointment from discovering religion isn't what they previously believed remains. The thought patterns about religion being a reflection of God and not being a reflection of humanity also remains. Even when someone no longer believes in God, the religious thought patterns remain.

[–] kamenoko@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

As a baseline I'd expect the major religions to clean up their own shit, but it seems like they're never quite able to. I'd like my ancestor worhip to be a little less rapey and a little less reliant on an unknowable higher authority that mentally ill people think they can talk to.