“But I think one of the issues here is that if you’re going to opine on matters of theology, you’ve got to be careful. You’ve got to make sure it’s anchored in the truth, and that’s one of the things that I try to do, and it’s certainly something I would expect from the clergy, whether they’re Catholic or Protestant,” he added.

The pope and Donald Trump have exchanged barbs over the past several days, with the pope denouncing the war in Iran and Trump responding by saying Leo was “WEAK on crime” and “terrible for Foreign Policy.”

  • RejZoR@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    To a fucking POPE of all people… Jesus Dumbass Vance, go back to fucking sofas.

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    3 days ago

    They’re really going with ‘lets pick a moral fight with the Pope’.

    … I actually have trouble comprehending this, because it is so obviously a politically stupid thing to do.

    JD is apparently considerably more lost in the sauce than I thought, has od’d on his own fart sniffing.

    It really is wild how immesenly hubristic this all is, but it does serve as a very useful illustration to the rest of the world to drive home the idea that American Christians ™ quite literally think they speak with the authority of God himself, which is broadly regarded as insane heresy by most other Christians in most of the world.

    They’re idiot fascists to the core, and its like 30% of the country that is this way.

    • P00ptart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      “they’re very low IQ.” “Stupid” “losers” all of these weak insults, and they never, ever give examples of such. “How so are they losers?” “What makes you say they’re stupid?” There’s never any push back. These are the things a bully says because they’re insecure and don’t know why. There’s no evidence or thought given to these insults.

      How is the Pope weak on crime? Show me when the Pope said Iran should have nukes. This is the most basic push back. The media just lets him say whatever without questioning it.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Fascists don’t use language the way normal people do.

        They don’t believe in ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ as most people understand it.

        They believe that things just are the way they say they are, because they said so.

        They primarily use rhetoric, and pathos.

        Logos, logic, actually being correct or truthful… they only employ these things to the extent that they can aid either a rhetorical or emotional appeal.

        Their entire strategy is ‘create a collective delusion / cult that appeals to the weak and gullible’.

        Trying to evaluate the things they say, logically, is generally a waste of time.

        The proper way to converse with a fascist is by breaking their jaw with a baseball bat, to disarm them of their weaponized nonsense projection machines.

        Fascists believe language is a weapon, not a means of having a discussion.

        Their real language is violence, so you must commincate with them in their native tongue, to succesfully convey any ‘meaning’ to them.

  • Bakkoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 days ago

    Think of all the leaders who told the Pope to fuck off in history. Nothing but great successes. Surely we’re winning.

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 days ago

    But I think one of the issues here is that if you’re going to opine on matters of theology, you’ve got to be careful. You’ve got to make sure it’s anchored in the truth

    Oh dear, somebody has a lot of catching up to do. Start with Council of Nicea and go from there.

    FUN FACT: Council of Nicea was formed to settle the age old debate of “should priests cut off their balls or not? On the one hand, Jesus said to do so… on the other hand, my balls.”

      • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. ~Matthew 19:12

        Not just priests! He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Castrati and eunochs only recently fell out of favor in the past century

        Christians are surprisingly ignorant of their own history, it’s kinda funny

    • AlexLost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      The other part was to make it a patriarchal church instead of a matriarchal one. The Virgin Mary used to be the holy figure of Christianity, but men didn’t like that.

      • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Correction, used to be one of the holy figureS, there were other sects with their own favorites (like John the Baptist and many others).

        They also tossed a lot of “in between” and after testimonies (Gospel of Thomas et al I think) and more.

        BUT, the pressing issue was balls.

        Coincidentally, the word “testimony” is derived from the old custom that referred to swearing an oath on your balls (testicles).

        Lots of balls. balls balls balls

        That obsession survives to this day

  • Fandangalo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    If a core Catholic belief is the pope is infallible, especially in the domain of theology & religion, then why is Vance saying any of this? Sure seems like his “Catholicism” is name alone or perhaps his faith is more Protestant than he wants to admit. Or, he has values above his faith, and for a Catholic, that seems worse.

    Whatever, Jan.

    Edit: I’m ex-Catholic. I don’t need a theology lesson about the specifics. What the Pope is expressing here is within the domain of church doctrine.

    Stop trying to defend fascists with pedantic details.

      • pleb_maximus@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        The heretical couchfucker.

        On second thought, that might make him sound more metal. Maybe just couchfucker is enough.

    • Astrealix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Not justifying mr couch fucker, but I will point out: modern Catholic doctrine does not actually say the Pope is infallible. Rather, it is that he is infallible when speaking “ex cathedra”, literally “from the chair”, which is also like… weird with different peoples’ opinions on what is ex cathedra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

      • Astrealix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        3 days ago

        on the other hand, Vance’s “catholicism” doesn’t even match the fucking Bible, so, yknow.

        • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          Well, let’s be real… Catholicism doesn’t match the Bible, either.

          It’s a ridiculous book full of contradictions, so par for the course.

      • ViatorOmnium@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 days ago

        He can disagree with the pope but not disagree with the catechism and still consider himself catholic, and the pope is only restating the “Safeguarding Peace” chapter.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 days ago

        modern Catholic doctrine does not actually say the Pope is infallible. Rather, it is that he is infallible

        • Astrealix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yeah, pretty much. What, you expected consistency from the religious sect that has consistently had issues with child sexual abuse?

          • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            I hate to break it to you about other religions, too…

            Obviously the Catholic Church has a systemic problem, and given that it’s one of the largest religions on earth (and their molester shuffling), it’s more universal than in a lot of religions, and I’m not defending them. They’re only unique in scale though.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      If a core Catholic belief is the pope is infallible

      It isn’t. That’s only when the Pope is speaking “ex cathedra” meaning “from the chair” which Pius IX defined as

      when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          3 days ago

          Oh it sounds to you like that does it? And you’re going to substitute your layman’s understanding of the topic for what Catholic scholars determine then? Go ahead and do an image search for “dunning kruger chart” and see if you can find where you fit on it.

          • Lumidaub@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            I don’t know what I did to deserve being called stupid and I’d sure like to know so I can properly repent for my horrifying sin. Or maybe I’m beyond absolution. Who knows.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              3 days ago

              I didn’t call you stupid. But you are willing to take a very layman’s understanding of a technical subject’s jargon and think that you immediately understand it all. So use whatever adjective you feel applies there.

              • Lumidaub@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 days ago

                Then you should know that, generally, an invocation of Dunning-Kruger is understood as a veiled “you’re stupid”. Now you know.

                What jargon am I not understanding?

                • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Then you should know that, generally, an invocation of Dunning-Kruger is understood as a veiled “you’re stupid”. Now you know.

                  If you have people frequently referring you to Dunning Kruger you may want to rethink things a bit.

                  What jargon am I not understanding?

                  I render my former answer. You don’t care to learn, I don’t care to teach.

      • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        A trailer park Avignon, lol.

        (nothing against trailer parks . . . that aren’t hosting their own dollar store pope)

    • FrChazzz@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Nah, Vance is going to jump over to evangelicalism. It’s more expedient; the white supremacists have always been anti-Catholicism and this will only serve his larger purposes. Also, evangelicals are more lenient on divorce (unless Erica has already moved on since she dropped out of that recent TPUSA event that drew like eleven people the other day)

    • Lka1988@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      Take him into a backroom with promises of a soft couch.

      Then just fucking shoot him in the head. Lights out. No fanfare. Just gone.

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      What funny to watch (I mean, gallows humor funny) is that as Trump gets weaker, the various temptations for Crown Prince Couchfucker to coup him just grow exponentially.

      I like to imagine Trump and Vance sitting across from each other, silently weighing each other up, Trump telling himself shit like “JD owes me everything, he wouldn’t,” and Vance just looking back across at Trump like Trump’s a couch.

    • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      No, it’s not. He’ll flourish.

      Watch and see!

      We can’t even get rid of Ted Cruz. They stay in office until they are half-dead (see Biden, Mitch, etc.)

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      He’s banking on being POTUS for the back half of Trump’s term. Trump could keel over any day, but if he’s still alive by New Year’s we’ll almost certainly see Vance try to remove him with the 25th. Once he’s in power, he just needs to be less batshit than Trump for two years and he’ll be in a good position to win an election.

  • IratePirate@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    “Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated France from the Nazis? […] I certainly think the answer is yes."

    So, if you assume God did not like fascists in the 1940s - what makes you think he has changed his mind to now support you and your ilk, couch boy? That’s a mighty big plank to pull from that eye of yours.

      • IratePirate@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Strongly disagree. Previous administrations, yes. Bush, certainly. But not this one. For that, corruption and self-enrichment are too rampant and poorly camouflaged (if at all), disdain for democratic institutions too blatant, preparations for an authoritarian power grab too brazenly obvious. These guys know who they are and who they serve, and they don’t even feel the need to hide it any more. The mask is off.

  • mrdown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    How can he call himself a catholic while disrespecting his own religious leader