Arch Bishop meet Stupidity

Even setting aside the level of bigotry, arrogance, maliciousness of Arch Bishop Liberati, his statements regarding both Muslims and atheist are horrendous. The basic premise presented in Christian Today's "In 10 Years, Italy 'Will All Be Muslims Because of Atheism, a Weak Church, and Stupidity,' Archbishop Warns" is incredibly stupid. The extent to which it defies logic and reason is impressive even coming from a very conservative Christian. How a complete lack of religious belief can lead even a small fraction of the Italians to a specific set of religious beliefs is a mystery that no one in this shitty little piece ever bothers to examine.

Liberati, of course, never once concedes that Italians might being leaving the Catholic Church for reasons directly related to said church's doctrines, policies, and practices. Maybe, some Italians are leaving because of the terrible example right-wing assholes like Liberati are, and have been, setting. It just might be that on top of realizing how political and self centered the church is they also have come to realize that demonizing and denigrating other Italians who are not Catholic is unethical and immoral.

Hypocrite be thy name

And the hits just keep coming from Pope Francis. A June 20th Religious News Service post titled "Pope Francis to Catholics: 'Who are you to judge others?'" is a classic case of projection as any I've come across to date. Just three days before he was quoted passing judgement on a huge chunk of the world's population. Among other media outlets NBC news ran a piece on his public pronouncement about modern marriages. "Most modern marriages are invalid, Pope says in off-the-cuff remarks" makes it pretty clear that he was not just referring to Catholic marriages. He was making judgments about all marriages.

So, not only is this pompous self righteous prick being a hypocrite he is claiming knowledge about matters he has no real experience or understanding. What the fuck would this dumb ass actually know about intimate romantic relationships? And, he seems to think its okay to meddle in the lives of those who have not chosen to join his bullshit infused criminally complicit club. I genuinely do not understand how Cathiolics can continue to accept this asshole as an authority on anything. Non-Catholics affording him any respect is really confusing. He has yet to earn any of the good will and accolades that continue to be gifted to him.

Isn't that what the clergy do?

Pope Francis is back to his hypocritical dumb-ass antics that the media so adores. A recent Religious news service piece, "Pope Francis: A ‘my-way-or-the-highway’ faith is heretical" noted:
"Pope Francis has called on Catholics to adopt a 'healthy realism' in their approach to their faith, and he decried rigid idealists as heretics."
First, I don't think Francis quite understands what the term "realism" means. Is there a single Catholic doctrine that is realistic in any sense of the word? I can't think of one. And, rigid application of faith is pretty much one the major functions of all clergy. 

Yup, he's a leech

No doubt you've seen all sorts of fluff pieces about Pope Francis' pending visit to the United States. Have you seen even one that mentions the fact that we tax payers are going to being footing a large chunk of bill? I have not. Instead you occasionally come across pieces like this one: "Secret Service director: No credible threats against Pope Francis." Of course, we will not be passing on that expense to the Catholic Church. Instead of letting one of the wealthiest organizations on the face of the planet pay for it's own propaganda campaigns we get to do it.

As much of an affront to our Constitution as this is (think Separation of Church and State) it is also rather revealing in terms of religious philosophy. What threats can civil authorities protect the "Vicar of god" from? The Pope is supposedly God's representative on Earth. Shouldn't God be protecting him? I want to be clear on the next point, I do not want to see the Pope hurt or killed. That said, why would it be such a big deal to anyone who happens to be religious if the Pope is assassinated? Wouldn't such an occurrence by it's very nature be the will of God? And, being such a holy figure wouldn't he be getting an express ticket to Heaven? Doesn't sound like such a horrible consequence if you really believe in that sort of thing.

Basically, we all get to pay for a representative of one specific church to further spread it's lies and bullshit. The media won't talk about that. They will, however, continue to give the overprivileged pompous bishops and cardinals a venue to pretend their religious liberties are being violated when they can't force their views and opinions on the rest of us even more than they currently get away with. Francis and the rest of the Catholic Hierarchy are hypocritical, dishonest, social and economic leeches.

A bit late, and far too short

It is nice to see at least a few mainstream outlets acknowledge perceptions of the current Pope are inaccurate even if those pieces tend to be rather shallow and weak. One of the few recent articles to feebly point out this disconnect from reality came from Time in the form of "The Top 4 Misconceptions About Pope Francis." In comparison to all the misconceptions surrounding Francis this really is pathetic. If it were just a starting point for a series of short pieces on the myths surrounding the current Pope it might work well as a gentle way to broach the subject but I doubt Time will follow it up with anything even remotely resembling a substantial analysis. The author, a liberal leaning Catholic activist, never bothers to point out that the Pope has not actually even hinted at let alone attempted to change a single Catholic doctrine. The few practices he's made minor adjustments to are of little to no consequence and are easily ignored and/or over-ridden by local clergy. Sadly, this does not seem to be accidental either. The minuscule steps taken by Francis to combat economic corruption and child rape seem to have been designed to allow a lot of leeway for those most responsible for such crimes. The very few who have been punished in some manner are simply being used by the Vatican and its pontiff as a relief valve, a public relations sacrificial goat.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this Pope really is no different in reality from his predecessors.

Hypocrisy be thy name, Francis

I've never fallen for Pope Francis' PR veneer. He has done little to nothing to earn the praise he has routinely received since becoming Pope. Recently, even his superficial veneer has been wearing thin. Sadly, very few have actively criticized him for these massive doses of bullshit. One episode of hypocritical deceit that he recently unleashed should have every self-respecting historian calling foul. An AP story that the HuffPo reposted is just laced with an absurd level of hypocrisy.

"Pope Francis: 'Great Powers' Did Nothing When Jews Were Taken To Auschwitz"

This statement is a lot like someone finding the need to chastise his neighbor for playing with matches only moments after the whiner accidentally burnt down that same neighbors house with a flamethrower. Apparently a little paper known as the Reichskonkordat slipped the Pope's mind. The Vatican and the German government signed a treaty with each other in 1933. Even though Germany very quickly played fast and loose with the terms the Vatican stuck pretty close to it. In other words, in order to not get in trouble with the Nazis the Catholic Hierarchy did nothing to help the Jews or any other minority. If he actually did any fact checking he would have discover that the only reps of his beloved church to get off their asses to help were local parish clergy who frequently acted against the wishes of their superiors.

Francis is full of shit.

King of Contradictions

It seems that the Pope is looking to earn himself a title similar to one commonly ascribe to Jesus. Instead of the "King of Kings" Francis is vying for the "King of Contradictions." His stance on cracking down on frivolous pampered clergy really does seem to be just a matter of PR window dressing. The Religious News Service headlines for February 10th unintentionally provided an excellent visual reference:

Notice the juxtaposition of "Ousted 'Bling Bishop' makes soft landing in Vatican" with "Pope Francis faces a big week in his effort to reform the Vatican." Umm, what reform? The German Bishop was supposedly fired for his flagrant misuse and abuse of funds. Problem with that line s that he wasn't actually fired. Just so we are clear about the message I will quote a National Catholic Reporter piece from March 2014.

"Pope Francis on Tuesday effectively fired a German bishop who had attracted controversy for extraordinary expenses on a new diocesan center, sending a signal that he is willing to oust bishops who do not align with his vision of a 'poor church for the poor.'"

What really occured was that the Pope set him aside while a new cushier position could be created for this corrupt asshole. According to the "Ousted..." piece shown above, "The post was created for Tebartz-van Elst and has the hallmarks of a “make-work” job because the Vatican couldn’t figure out what else to do with the prelate." What's wrong with doing what they said they'd do: fire his greedy ass.

This, by the way, is just another example of Francis contradiction. Another recent one includes his statements like "Pope Francis Says Catholics Don't Need To Breed 'Like Rabbits'" being quickly followed by "Couples Who Choose Not To Have Children Are 'Selfish,' Pope Says" I have pointed it out before and I'll keep pointing it out that this Pope is only set apart from his predecessors in style. When it comes to substance he really is indistinguishable from other popes.



Synod Silliness

It is nice to see that at least a few people are paying more attention to details during the latest round of "Pope-a-palooza." Far too many are still being incredibly naive and delusional about the Synod Pope Francis has been heading. Many of the reports in the mainstream media have taken the minor step of pointing out that the document being talked about is "preliminary." Sadly, virtually none of the mainstream sources have acknowledge that it is at this point strictly a matter of rhetoric. A few sources have even confused this report as having actual substance. The subtitle to a Salon piece read "The Church issued a document indicating a profound shift in doctrine on civil marriage and homosexuality." It is not only misleading but blatantly false. The "document" in question is a draft and does not contain anything that will alter official doctrine or practices.

One of the most talked about phrases from the draft that relates to the church's views on homosexuals is about the “gifts and qualities to offer.” Few have really looked at what that really means. Many of the mainstream sources are still bending over backwards to make it seem like this is a major breakthrough for homosexual rights. They have used terms like "earth shaking" and "revolutionary." It isn't. Even if it is taken at face value, which there is little reason to do so, it is at best a very, very tiny step in the right direction. Again, there is nothing to indicate a change in doctrine or policy. There is nothing to bar the church from continuing to lobby against homosexual right on a variety of fronts (marriage, adoption, workplace, housing, etc.). Homosexuality is still viewed as a sin. Basically, it is the equivalent of the clergy smiling at homosexuals while explaining they are welcome to sit in the pews, donate to the church, serve as volunteers for the church, but that they will still be receiving a one way ticket to hell from the church.

I still don't see how the current Pope is that different from his predecessors. There isn't any reason to see this latest round of reporting as an intentional move to generate positive PR for the church after decades declining membership and increasing criticism.

Below is a short list of some of the more intersting pieces floating around about the synod.

At the Vatican, a Shift in Tone Toward Gays and Divorce (New York Times, 10/13/14)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/world/europe/vatican-signals-more-tolerance-toward-gays-and-remarriage.html

Vatican urges Catholics to recognize “gifts” same-sex couples have to offer (Salon, 10/13/14)
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/vatican_urges_catholics_to_recognize_gifts_same_sex_couples_have_to_offer/

A new welcome for gay Catholics in the church (CNN Belief Blog, 10/13/14)
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/10/13/a-new-welcome-for-gay-catholics-in-the-church/

Under conservative assault, Vatican backtracks on gay comments (CNN Belief Blog, 10/14/14)
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/10/14/under-conservative-assault-vatican-backtracks-on-gay-comments/

Never Mind, Catholic Church Will Probably Just Keeping Hating Gays Like Always (Wonkette, 10/14/14)
http://wonkette.com/563359/never-mind-catholic-church-will-probably-just-keeping-hating-gays-like-always

Everyone Keeps Falling for the Catholic Church's Good Cop/Bad Cop Routine (Slog, 10/14/14)
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/10/14/everyone-keeps-falling-for-the-catholic-churchs-good-copbad-cop-routine

Initial Report From Vatican on Families Is Criticized (New York Times, 10/16/14)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/world/europe/initial-report-from-vatican-on-families-is-criticized.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

What? The Vatican Lies!?

"The Vatican acknowledged on Friday that close to 400 priests left the priesthood in 2011 and 2012 because of accusations that they had sexually abused children."

Slight problem with this statement in that it is an intentional deception.

It was further explained in "Update: Vatican clarifies number of defrocked priests" that in fact, "Bishop Charles Scicluna, formerly the Vatican's top prosecutor of sexually abusive clergy, said 384 priests left the priesthood – either voluntarily or not - in 2011 and 2012, the last two years of Pope Benedict XVI's papacy."

Did you catch that part about "voluntarily"? If you resign it is not the same thing as being "defrocked." They also conflate all those that were defrocked with those specifically removed for sex-abuse crimes. The number actually includes priests that were removed for supporting women's rights and homosexual's rights. A practice detrimental to basic civil/human rights that the current Pope has continued to enforce.

It should be noted that the number of priests defrocked for sexual abuses during the specified time-frame is actually 125. I am certainly glad that they have been removed but is no where near the 400 claimed. In other words, the Vatican lied to make itself look better without having to actually do much to address the serious issue of pedophile priests.

"Rebalance"?

One of the latest narratives to emerge from the mainstream media related to Pope Francis is interesting in that it is more accurate than most of the pieces they have produced but is still grossly misleading. The main theme present in most of these pieces is that the Pope is looking to create diversity within the upper echelons of Catholic clergy. However, writing like "What the Pope's choice of new cardinals means", are incredibly superficial in their approach to the basic concept of diversity. As far as I can tell from reading such examples no one has bothered to look into these cardinals beyond where they are from geographically.  What part of the world each cardinal hails from is by no means trivial but it also is not the epitome of diversity. I found nothing that would indicate they vary in any other aspect. At this point, for all we know they will be a bunch of strict "traditionalists". I see no reason to draw any conclusions about the effect these men will have on the Catholic church at this point.

So to the mainstream media, NO, this is not further proof of their favored premise that this Pope is a reformer.

Better PR Doesn't Equal a Revolution

I really didn't expect the mainstream media's love affair with Pope Francis to end just because the facts refute their favored view of him. However, I also didn't expect such a ridiculous piece to come from the BBC. Of all the mainstream outlets the BBC is usually one of the better ones. "Pope Francis gives Catholic Church gentle revolution" is chock full of bullshit. Most of the changes referenced are either completely imagined or exaggerated far beyond the superficial nature of them. The main piece of evidence that there has been any sort of revolution, gentle or otherwise, is that Francis is making the Church more palatable. People's perception of the Catholic Church has improved. Improvements in public relations does not qualify as a "revolution." The church has not actually changed. Not even a little.

Definitely Anti-gay

I would love it if the mainstream media finally started paying attention to what the Pope actually does, or doesn't do as opposed to the frequently disingenuous superficial rhetoric he offers on a regular basis. It is doubtful but one can hope. Francis has once again provided ample evidence that when it comes to substance he is no different than his predecessors. He has made his opposition to extending adoption rights to gay couples known. How is opposing equal rights to homosexuals "gay friendly"? Seems to be rather anti-gay to me. Even though some mainstream outlets have reported on this they are comparably short and unenthusiastic. Time's "Pope Francis ‘Shocked’ by Same-Sex Adoption Proposal" is an excellent example. It's wishy-washy tone is predictable. They did afterall just name Francis their Person of the Year. For a better piece on the incident read Hemant Mehta's December 30th blog post "Pope Francis Encourages Bishop to Condemn Same-Sex Parenting."

The Catholic Church is Anti-gay

Michael O'Loughlin's entire HuffPo piece, "The Catholic Church Isn't Anti-Gay, but Are Its Bishops?", is based on a rather foolish conflation. What he seems to be trying to say is that the average self- described Catholic isn't anti-gay. On that point I agree. The majority of people who identify as Catholic are not homophobic and don't seem to have an interest in telling others how they should live their lives. That is not the same thing. The average Catholic has no power or influence when it come to either the church hierarchy or the church's doctrines.

The Catholic Church as an organized religion is indisputably anti-gay. The hierarchy and doctrines still insist that homosexuality is a sin and that equal rights for gays (including but not limited to gay marriage) is unacceptable. That is the church's official stance and it routinely meddles in politics to enforce that view. Anyone who cannot see that being anti-gay is a complete moron.

Not Ideological?

Why do people give Pope Francis so much credit? He has yet to match anything he says with positive actions. In fact, he frequently acts in opposing ways. All the talk about being friendlier to women and homosexuals seems to have been pretty well negated by his actions. He has stated definitively that the Vatican will not even consider ordaining women (In the Catholic church only the clergy have power). He has excommunicated a priest who advocated for homosexuals.

With those examples in mind, head lines like "Pope Francis describes 'ideological Christians' as a 'serious illness'" come across as outright farcical. How the fuck is the Catholic Church itself not ideological? It isn't as if the church bases its doctrines and policies on objective criteria. Only a completely clueless and delusional ass could make such a blatantly hypocritical statement. By his own words in combination with a basic understanding of the term "ideological" there can be only one conclusion. The Pope is very ill!

Still Spinning Francis

This past week there was another round of disingenuous misleading wave of fawning over Pope Francis. I would preface this post with a clarifying statement of my own. I am not opposed to positive coverage of the Pope any more than I am oppose to the Pope actually reforming the Catholic Church's approach to non-believers. That said, it has yet to be demonstrated that the Pope is actually making any effort to improve relations with non-believers. The media coverage of an open letter Pope Francis published through the Italian news paper la Repubblica has been blatantly skewed to reinforce the preferred story line that this Pope is a reformer and is making a concerted effort to reach out to atheists.

There are two things virtually every outlet has either glossed over or outright ignored. First, the only way Francis' "outreach" can be characterized as "friendly" is by redefining the term itself. It would be nice if it were true but it can only be true if "friendly" means not being overtly hostile. I've read and re-read two separate translations (I have included links below) of the letter in question and fail to see its tone as friendly. I would describe it as being neutral at best.

The more important detail that has been spun to the point that it seems like it should have its own gravity is the purpose of the letter. Most have portrayed it as another example of Francis offering a gesture of acceptance and/or friendship. Actually, if you read it it is clearly a theological response to a previously published open letter by an atheist. The piece has far more to do with answering criticisms. The Pope's main intent seems to be to make the Church seem reasonable and civil. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is a PR ploy.

There are, of course, other problems with the letter. If you read with any interest in critical thinking a variety of issues emerge. If it really was meant as a way to reach atheists it fails miserably. Virtually everything he comments on that could be interpreted as friendly is immediately justified by scripture/doctrine. This, to me, makes it feel impersonal and even authoritarian. I do not get a sense that he wants to play nice with atheist because it is the right thing to do but rather because it fits his interpretation of various religious doctrines (assuming his rhetoric is sincere in the first place).

A lot of what he writes also seems to refute the media portrayals of him. Telling atheists to "obey their conscience" seems to imply two things. The Pope seems to think we don't already do so. Really? What does he think we follow? Bronze age superstition laden mores don't mean shit to me. This also makes him seem far more arrogant than humble. As the head of the Catholic Church it makes some sense for him to tell Catholics what they should be doing. How does telling atheists how they should behave support the favored "humility" story line? If his idea of reaching out to atheists is constantly droning on about scripture and doctrine rather than the values that may be held in common Francis is going to fail no matter how sincere he might be. And, as I've pointed out before, rhetoric alone will not accomplish anything no matter how pleasant and welcome it may be.

The La Republica translation
Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: "An open dialogue with non-believers"
http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/09/11/news/the_pope_s_letter-66336961/

The Zenit translation
Pope Francis' Letter to the Founder of "La Repubblica" Italian Newspaper
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-letter-to-the-founder-of-la-repubblica-italian-newspaper

Rhetoric is not Doctrine

I was hoping that by now the fawning over Pope Francis would have subsided but the media seems insistent on proving just how inept they are. The coverage of this Pope has been, right from the start, as overabundant as it has been superficial and downright idiotic. A number of outlets now are latching on to the false notion that the Pope either has or might change Church doctrine on Homosexuality. Why? Because he said a few things that are not as harsh as previous Popes? That is nice and it could be a step, though a very minor one, in the right direction.

Even when it is acknowledge that words do not always translate into actions many reporters, commentators, and pundits still seem to think Francis' more polished PR style is somehow an amazing feat. Have they forgotten previously reported items that referenced the fact that the Church has been more careful about public statements or that it has hired different PR individuals and firms to handle their image? As I've said before the only real difference between the present Pope and previous ones is simply a matter of personal style. It is superficial.

A Shallow Sense of "Humility"

Apparently, an individual's choice of what car to ride in is definitive proof of whether they can be said to have humility. "Pope Francis' Car Shows His Commitment To Humility: Catholic Leader Chooses Ford Focus" is as short as it is silly. Hafiz notes that the Pope has suggested that clergy should not be driving around in expensive cars but does not bother to point out that he has not sought to institutionalize (like in the form of policy) what seems to be a personal preference. She also never bothers to ask where the money saved on the vehicle has gone. Maybe if he actually drove his own car and required all clergy, who are able to do so, follow the example I might take it seriously. Perhaps all the money saved could be earmarked toward reparations for those the church has sexually and/or physically abused.

Admitting to his own short coming and the crimes of the church would be a first step towards humility. Then, of course, he would have to follow it up with actions. Lip service is what I, and many other, have come to expect from religious leaders. Minor actions like being chauffeured around in an economy car doesn't cut it.

Just Another Pope

I'm getting pretty fed up with all the bullshit hyperbole surrounding Pope Francis. He really is not that different from the previous two Popes. His style of conducting public relations may come across a little differently but that is a rather superficial distinction. There were two recent pieces that caught my attention largely because they allow a tiny grain of doubt regarding the false narrative of Francis as a "reformer." Ultimately, however, they do seem to buy into the notion that he is significantly different.

John Gehring's "Opinion: How the 'Francis effect' could rescue the church" simply accepts that there is such an "effect." He gives a few examples where these effects supposedly are playing out. Among them are;
     "He criticizes a 'self-referential' church that becomes spiritually 'sick' when it hunkers down and fails to look outside its gilded cathedrals.
     He has little patience for pastors who act like religious border guards by making it harder for lapsed Catholics to return to the faith and receive the sacraments.
     Francis decries the 'cult of money' and the 'dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly human goal.'"
Simply acting as a stenographer does not prove any of it. I have not found any instances where these have gone beyond the rhetorical realm. In fact, there are plenty of instances where it is clear that the policies and practices endorsed by both John Paul and Benedict are simply being carried on. I have previously posted on some of them.

I do find the idea that the church needs to "rescued" rather entertaining. It ignores that the Catholic Church is still one of the most influential, powerful, and wealthy organization in the world. It also seems to imply that perhaps it really is a completely human institution. If it were really favored and/or founded by God what would it need to be rescued from, and how could it be rescued if God couldn't save it?

Slightly less interesting was Allessandro Speciale's "Benedict and Francis: How much difference is there?" The obvious answer is, of course, little to none. His few examples of differences of substance completely fail any scrutiny. Even the more superficial differences are highly debatable in this piece.

For example, "What’s more, Francis has embraced a much more low-brow view of the papacy, shunning Benedict’s red slippers, ermine capes and papal apartments for a simpler lifestyle that finds him sleeping in a Vatican guesthouse and wearing simple black shoes beneath his white papal cassock."

Really? A few minor adjustments to personal preferences somehow translates into any significant doctrinal or policy differences? That does assume that he has adopted a "more low-brow view." Seems to me that he is still quite happy to use all the same pomp and privilege of his predecessors. When he starts wearing jeans and donating some of the vast amounts of the Churches resources to external non-profits, then I'll start taking his rhetoric seriously.

It won't happen since this Pope really is no different in practice.

Just kidding, and F You

Wow, didn't have to wait long to be proven right about the Pope's latest PR ploy. A day after the Pope made his comment about atheists being redeemed a Vatican spokesman nullified the sentiment. That wasn't what surprised me. I was assuming they'd find a weasle-way to negate it without drawing too much attention to their intention. What did make me pause was the way Rosica attempted at reconciling the Pope's statement with it's correction*.

"[Pope Francis] is first and foremost a seasoned pastor and preacher who has much experience in reaching people...His words are not spoken in the context of a theological faculty or academy nor in interreligious dialogue or debate."

To me, that sounds like an admission that it really was a PR ploy. It also seems to imply that the Pope has little to do theological doctrines. Really?! Isn't he the top guy? "God's vicar" here on earth?

In comparison to a few other implications from the statements made by Rosica this is also of little consequence. Inadvertently, this spokesman has effectively admitted to a number of other points I, and others, have been making for years. He made it clear that the Catholic version of Christianity is by its nature divisive and bigoted. He justified his alterations to the Pope's statement by pointing out that the Catholic Catechism states,
"All salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body,..."

If you stop and think about that for more than a minute it is a rather horrible statement. Essentially, only Christians can be "saved." It implies, at best, that everyone else is automatically damned. All non-Christians, whether atheist or theist, are wrong. It implies that billions of people are morally and ethically inferior to Christians. That is the theological equivalent of a big old Fuck You to the rest of us.


*Officially, the Catholic Church still maintains the doctrine that the Pope is infallible. They won't even admit that his statement was corrected since that would imply a mistake. They like to couch such corrections in terms like "clarified" or "amended."

Pope Unchanging

Why people keep blathering on about the new Pope being a reformer is beyond me. Not only has he not actually changed anything or even attempted to do so, he can't even talk about change in any substantial way. This should not surprise any one who has ever attempted to study Christianity and the various other world religions. When they change at all it is very slowly and in very small increments. The Religious News Service has recently added a new feature wherein they share a quotation from the Pope. One such quote I found particularly revealing in how it reflects both Catholicism and Christianity more generally.

“I try to maintain the same way of being and of acting that I had in Buenos Aires, because if I were to change at my age it would certainly be ridiculous.” – Pope Francis, in a letter to a priest friend in his native Argentina, quoted by the Zenit news agency.

What would make change ridiculous? Why would your age matter? Shouldn't it be a goal of every thoughtful person to constantly assess and re-assess what you believe and why? Nope, nope when it comes to religion. I cannot think of a single religion that encourages critical thinking in regard to itself. It is, of course, fine to critique other faiths but never their own. Even when they make claims to the contrary they never actually do so. Occasionally they will pretend to self-evaluate but the moment you look into their process/method you can easily find all sorts of double standards and special pleading.