Francis I has apologized

lewisnotmiller said:

Let me ask you a question which might help illustrate.
There are a higher proportion of Catholics on the SC than in the general population. Would Roe v Wade have been overturned if the SC was 'less Catholic'?

Click to expand...

Lewisnotmiller, I have a complex view (I think) on the abortion laws in the US....To my way of thinking, it's purely political to decide when the life of the unborn should be allowed to be terminated.... I tend to side with those who think that unborn life should be protected from conception and onward.......At the same time, everyone should have the right to decide when and what kind of medical attention they can pursue. I have to wear the cloak of an Agnostic only because I don't trust ancient writings to be actually inspired by some God. I don't see the concept of God or Gods to resemble human constructs....I don't favor punishing any female for the choice of abortion.......Now , to respect your question.....SCOTUS may not be as impartial as I would like....The appointment of Justices is too politically charged.......As I understand the ruling by SCOTUS, the states will decide what laws will govern abortion rights, at a time when there is Republican strength in many state legislatures and in their Capitols. I would have preferred Roe v Wade to remain as 'settled law' as two nominated Judges stated while attempting to be confirmed. Those same judges changed their views after being confirmed.....I hope I have answered your question..

Stonetree said:

The history of the Catholic Church includes using followers' donations to build hospitals, feed the hungry and other attempts to solve social problems.....Why are Catholics accused of imposing their views on others in a country where voters are said to decide policy?

Click to expand...

Because it's the Catholic - but taxpayer-funded - hospitals that degrade and disrespect pregnant people and the critically ill.

I would be quite happy if my government told the Catholic hospitals that it funds with taxpayer money that legitimate hospitals offer abortion, IVF, and medical assistance in dying, and any hospital that refuses to offer these services will be cut off from taxpayer funding.

In the meantime, I have more than paid for my right to speak my mind about Catholic institutions.

Retired Senator Murray Sinclair, Chair of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission, has issued a statement on the Pope's apology:


“I want to recognize the importance of the Pope’s apology to Survivors, their families, and communities. For many Survivors, I know that hearing the words of contrition from the Pope was, and is, an important factor in their personal recoveries and growth. My thoughts and prayers were with them as they listened.

When we set out Call to Action 58 in the TRC final report, the goal was always to have Survivors hear first-hand not only remorse, but an acceptance of responsibility for what they were put through at the hands of the Church and other institutions.

Despite this historic apology, the Holy Father’s statement has left a deep hole in the acknowledgement of the full role of the Church in the Residential School system, by placing blame on individual members of the Church. It is important to underscore that the Church was not just an agent of the state, nor simply a participant in government policy, but was a lead co-author of the darkest chapters in the history of this land.

Driven by the Doctrine of Discovery and other Church beliefs and doctrines, Catholic leaders not only enabled the Government of Canada, but pushed it even further in its work to commit cultural genocide of Indigenous peoples. In many instances, it was not just a collaboration, but an instigation. There are clear examples in our history where the Church called for the Government of Canada to be more aggressive and bold in its work to destroy Indigenous culture, traditional practices and beliefs.

It was more than the work of a few bad actors — this was a concerted institutional effort to remove children from their families and cultures, all in the name of Christian supremacy.

While an apology has been made, that same doctrine is in place. The Pope and the Church remain silent on the most problematic tenets of its belief system: that Indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world should not have the right to practice their own faith, cultures, and traditions.

Reconciliation requires action, not passiveness. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples specifically calls for action to assist in restoring culture, beliefs, and traditions destroyed through past actions as, to fail to do so, allows for the destructive agency to live with the benefit from those past misdeeds. For the children and descendants of Survivors, it is not enough that you have stopped abusing them, you must act to help them recover, as well as commit to never doing this again.

As the Pope continues his pilgrimage this week to meet First Nations, Metis, and Inuit Survivors, I hope he will take this to heart. There is a better path that the Church — and all Canadians — can indeed follow: taking responsibility for past actions and resolving to do better on this journey of reconciliation.

We must commit ourselves to talk to and about each other with respect.”

NetNewsLedger - Statement on Papal Apology from Murray Sinclair

England my lionheart said:

Too little too late imo,South America suffered too,in fact wherever the church went in the world to spread their version of love ended up spreading abuse famine and decease.

Click to expand...

So if you don't like the idea of Europeans settling in North America, what do you think of South Americans and Central Americans settling in North America today?
And what do you think of China and Africa giving Europeans Small Pox, Polio and the Black Death?

Estro Felino said:

What do you guys think?
Will this be accepted by Native Americans?

Click to expand...

I'm not fully Native American so I can't speak for them fully or specifically. From my perspective, it's a bit late and seems to be about words so far

I know enough that it's good that a chief put that headdress on him. It's ceremonial, of course. But it's a step in the right direction. A tiny little step.

Revoltingest said:

Doing some good is....well....good.
But evil deeds are more memorable.
So I understand not forgiving.

Personally, I'm rather unaffected by the Church.
So forgiveness isn't an issue. Your mileage might vary.

Click to expand...

I've no reason to challenge anyone's opinion.....I'm just voicing my opinion. Beyond any issue such as abortion, as I understand the person the Christian religion is based on, He preached compassion and was opposed to rewarding religious authorities with jewels and life's pleasures. His stated mission was to help the sinner and the poor not to build a monument to wealth such as the Vatican. Religious institutions suffer from the same illnesses that any large institution may fall prey to......

By earth God mass body sacrificed. Nuclear reaction new everyday is by greedy rich men.

Life is going back in time.

Rome took over England to be rich in control. They were English king in a tribe as family leader. English history.

England became rich changed ideals via Roman technology.

English European invaded America to be richer.

Romes history. Takeover English hence takeover America too is inferred.

American father taught English invaders don't keep slaves. Once you were tribal people too and not rich.

They agreed fought slavery to freedom. Versus rich humanity cruelty.

All roads lead to Rome. The saying.

Rich man control.

American church. Let me govern. Fight amongst your communities.

Spirituality legal father is the American native indian.

Rich man problem. Said so. Knew. Predicted. Was advised. Prophecy of old new science began position as lifes destruction. Rome.

As it shifted presence science began again.

Only biology and not science owned evolution. Science point historic destruction activation only.

It's why the same science technique modified caused new near end of life disaster. Was the same technology however. Technique varied. Attack on earth varied.

Pretending a casement now gave you earths natural owned space pressures. A Lie.

Rome history had wanted English ownership by riches taken over from tribes.

Hence had also wanted America's riches too.

We are going back in time by bio mind theism.

American father is a Family spiritual father. He isnt one leader. He's a leader in his own family tribe. Justly stated. Spiritual in his owned rights.

His hierarchy is amongst Indians only.

He's spiritually native American Indian only.

Humans are in biology spiritual.

Science isn't...as the warning. We meet as humans not as a science code.

Tribal history is natural man. Not rich man. See the differences.

Reversal of origin ownership by I want.

American Indian status in America is real. Spiritual father's teachings. Not Romes.

Honour life's nature by six generations does not allow for occult science.

Human.
Grand parents.
Great grand parents.
Great great grand parents.
Great great great grand parents.
Great great great great grand parents.

How great thou are father human life.

The real cornerstone is not stone.
__\

lewisnotmiller said:

Let me ask you a question which might help illustrate.
There are a higher proportion of Catholics on the SC than in the general population. Would Roe v Wade have been overturned if the SC was 'less Catholic'?

Click to expand...

Here I am again trying to directly answer your question concerning a higher proportion of Catholics on the SC than in the general popu lation. Without any way to know why they actually voted for overturning Roe v Wade, I believe those Catholic Justices were biased against Roe v Wade being maintained. There should be more parity on the SCOTUS.

Shadow Wolf said:

I can't speak for them,
but
I get the Pope is up there in years, came from another time, this and all that, but how is it no one around him bothered to point out that was a terrible idea for to wear the headdress instead of his own?

Click to expand...

I could not watch the particular video in the OP but the one I saw had a representative of the Native Americans put the headdress on the Pope.

PruePhillip said:

So if you don't like the idea of Europeans settling in North America, what do you think of South Americans and Central Americans settling in North America today?
And what do you think of China and Africa giving Europeans Small Pox, Polio and the Black Death?

Click to expand...

Americans settling in America today?,im not sure what your point is,it’s not that Europeans settled in North America it’s what they brought with them Ie Christianity and forced it onto the native peoples.

As for China and Africa giving Europeans smallpox polio and the Black Death it was horrific but desease is indiscriminate whereas what the church did was premeditated.

Stonetree said:

Here I am again trying to directly answer your question concerning a higher proportion of Catholics on the SC than in the general popu lation. Without any way to know why they actually voted for overturning Roe v Wade, I believe those Catholic Justices were biased against Roe v Wade being maintained. There should be more parity on the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Hey, thanks for the responses. I read your earlier one too, and it was pretty informative.
My guess (as yours it seems) is that the Catholics on the SC were biased against Roe vs Wade being maintained. This whole scenario became somewhat predictable from the time the makeup of the SC become more skewed.

And that's about where my point ends, to be honest. I don't know if a 'more representative' SC would be good. Or if more parity there would be good. I just believe that in response to your question about 'Why are Catholics accused of imposing their views on others in a country where voters are said to decide policy?' that there are things that can be pointed to...such as the makeup of the SC...where Catholics have a stronger voice (or at least, conservative Catholics do) than their numbers would warrant in a representative democracy.

It's unfortunate how politicized the SC has become. Or maybe always was.

PruePhillip said:

So if you don't like the idea of Europeans settling in North America, what do you think of South Americans and Central Americans settling in North America today?

Click to expand...

If you're suggesting that migration of peoples has occurred without variation throughout human history, then sure. That is true. That doesn't make all migrations equally equitable. South Americans aren't (as far as I am aware) coming with a belief in their own Manifest Destiny...if anything they are attracted by a belief in the USA.

PruePhillip said:

And what do you think of China and Africa giving Europeans Small Pox, Polio and the Black Death?

Click to expand...

I think the accidental transmission of disease, where medical science wasn't sufficiently advanced to allow sensible controls or even basic understandings to occur, is regrettable, but also something that has happened throughout history.
I also think you're taking some liberties with history by suggesting China and Africa 'gave' Europeans Small Pox, Polio and the Black Death. A key transmission event for smallpox was the Crusades...that's not exactly a case of anyone giving anything to Europeans. And Portugese colonisation of Africa led to the export of smallpox from Europe to the African continent.

Spain and Portugal were granted land rights to the New World by the Pope, on the proviso that they convert the pagans to Catholicism. They did this, quite forcibly. Accidental decimation of the population by disease was a massive issue, but not the only one. Not by a long, long shot.

England my lionheart said:

Americans settling in America today?,im not sure what your point is,it’s not that Europeans settled in North America it’s what they brought with them Ie Christianity and forced it onto the native peoples.

As for China and Africa giving Europeans smallpox polio and the Black Death it was horrific but desease is indiscriminate whereas what the church did was premeditated.

Click to expand...

So are you ok with South and Central Americans (ie Mexico, Brazil, Chile etc..) bringing Catholicism to a majority secular nation like the USA ? And then occupying land once belonging to 'indigenous native Americans' ?

Estro Felino said:

What do you guys think?
Will this be accepted by Native Americans?

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm too malicious, but all I see is a dieing institution (at least here in Europe), desperately trying to save its face and adapt to the new Zeitgeist.

Scolopendra said:

Maybe I'm too malicious, but all I see is a dieing institution (at least here in Europe), desperately trying to save its face and adapt to the new Zeitgeist.

Click to expand...

Dying alongside its host society?
See profile below.

PruePhillip said:

Dying alongside its host society?
See profile below.

Click to expand...

Aren't America and Africa the host societies of christianity nowadays? Europe died with World War One, a bit late to cry on its corpse now..

Scolopendra said:

Aren't America and Africa the host societies of christianity nowadays? Europe died with World War One, a bit late to cry on its corpse now..

Click to expand...

I think Europe is still alive, though.

PruePhillip said:

So are you ok with South and Central Americans (ie Mexico, Brazil, Chile etc..) bringing Catholicism to a majority secular nation like the USA ? And then occupying land once belonging to 'indigenous native Americans' ?

Click to expand...

Of course, 95% of them are native American Indians, be it north or south American indian, they have more right to be here than any European descendent IMHO and they are better for the country than most Europeans

Lyndon said:

Of course, 95% of them are native American Indians, be it north or south American indian, they have more right to be here than any European descendent IMHO and they are better for the country than most Europeans

Click to expand...

So you think Europeans, ie English or French, would be better for the USA than Mexicans slipping into the country?
Methinks you would be wrong. For starters it's often said that the further distance an immigrant comes the better that immigrant will be.
I suggest that Asian immigrants are of more value than Hispanic ones, going by educational standards, standard of living, business accumen etc..
How can, say, a Central American person have more 'right' to be on native American soil than a European or Chinese?

Lyndon said:

Of course, 95% of them are native American Indians, be it north or south American indian, they have more right to be here than any European descendent IMHO and they are better for the country than most Europeans

Click to expand...

Your profile suggests you are driven by fashionable ideas, Woke even. Jesus wasn't a woman, or a trans, or a lesbian, or some drug addled 21st Century person living in some 'gay' relationship and rejecting children in preference to a hedonistic lifestyle. And Jesus spoke of God as 'my Father.'