This Pope is Special

[Danmark]

I am not a theist, but there is something special about Pope Francis.
We can all learn something from him.
The most important things cannot be put into words.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

As It happens I learned a lot from my teaching; I do not regret the experience at all.

That’s actually really cool of you to admit. Yes, it is difficult to not be affected even by the secular beauty of the Church. Her teachings, traditions, music, art, etc. are rich and inspiring.

My words were your words once and my heart believed them absolutely.

Yes, I believe you. It is important to recognize that while one can appreciate and even fall in love with the beauty of the Church, if that is where one stops, then his faith was not solid. It amuses me the number of people who actually think and believe if only the Church were less boring maybe they could get on board. They wish the priest was a better speaker, the homilies more entertaining, the choir better, the church building more architecturally appealing, etc. But it is never actually about those things. Some of those things can be beautiful manifestations within the Church, but they aren’t what it is about. Mother Teresa was not surrounded by the physical beauty of the Church – quite the opposite, but she none the less recognized Christ in everyone.

I meant simply that REFORMERS (such as Zwingli, Calvin, Luther...) changed something sweet (the previous faith) into something sour. The magnificent Latin music and its rich solemnity were abandoned, for example. I was speaking figuratively..... and I suspect you agree.

I knew you were speaking figuratively and I knew what you meant, but I was trying to make the point that if you are expecting only the asceticism of the Church then you miss it. Yes, I agree and get your point, many groups that followed abandoned some of the more beautiful aspects and practices of the Church, but again, the fault is not that they abandoned wine for vinegar. The fault is that they never saw that the wine was not just wine.

They shouldn’t have simply kept the Latin because it is a beautiful language that shouldn’t have been abandoned because it is pleasing to the ears. Rather they should have recognized the point of the Latin. Latin is a dead language which means it cannot now be changed. It remains what it is. This is awesome to know the words being used will always mean what they always mean. Referring to the Latin allows for less confusion, mistranslation, and universality. Had they known that, they might not have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree with your logic. If Christ promised to be with his Church it is essential to accept that, in times of uncertainty, he will infallibly guide his servant. I accept that Alexander Borgia or Sixtus vi were perhaps imperfect instruments that could still, mystically, pass on God's word. So if I were to opt for an institution that conveyed a divine message across centuries, I would not hesitate to accept the one you defend.

Again, thank you very much for recognizing this. I often try to make the point with other Christian religions that even nonbelievers or atheists can at least recognize that if they were going to be a believer, the Catholic Church makes the most sense. Like I said, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ Himself. The historicity is there. Only the Catholic Church even has the audacity to claim they are the one, true faith. Most other Christian denominations don’t even bother to make such a claim. Why would anyone want to be part of a church that doesn’t even claim to be the Truth. Only the Catholic Church claims the Holy Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Every other denomination says it is a mere symbol. The Catholic Church has not caved on her teachings like many other denominations have done. She has remained constant. And I will never understand how or why someone would want to belong to a church that claims all one needs is the Bible. Quite frankly, I think the Bible can be pretty darn confusing. I think it is necessary and logical to think God would have left an earthly, visible, Church to insure we are getting it right. NOTHING ELSE MAKES SENSE!

My quarrel is not with the Son, but with the Father. I can accept there is no real Yahweh, just an artefact, but indubitably Jesus is his son. His message is sensible.

The Father and Son are one.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 30 by jgh7]

Your justifications about how the times were different back then make little sense to me. Why do times matter at all?

I don’t think you actually believe that. Of course, right is right and wrong is wrong and truth does not change, but are you telling me you would judge a slave owner 300 years ago equivalent to someone who wanted the right to have a slave today? Yes, slavery is wrong whether it was done 300 years ago or today, but it was a way of life then. One should be able to recognize that while the truth of the immorality of slavery hasn’t changed, those who lived during this period of history need to be judged according to the culture and the time.

I believe a time will come when people will no longer be able to deny the immorality of abortion. Improvements in science allow us to see the human life sooner and sooner. So if abortion does become illegal, I think one could only judge women who had abortions when it was legal accordingly. Yes, of course their abortion was always immoral, but the culture and time period allowed them to miss the atrocity of their actions. Women who had abortions are not evil monsters – they are victims of a tragic period in history.

The fact that they tortured countless people during the Inquisition should be judged with more lenient standards because it happened during a more uncivilized time?

Again, you are simply missing the point. Even though things like the Inquisition are often exaggerated and points of history where other groups other than Catholics often using similar cruelties and tactics resulting in the deaths of many Catholics under emphasized, it still doesn’t mean the Church is not Christ’s Church and cannot err in teachings regarding matters of faith and morals.

The Roman Catholic Church has shown such corruption throughout its distant past and recent times that I fail to see how it is any different than any other religious organization claiming Godly representation.

Yes, I agree you ‘fail to see’. You can’t imagine a Church comprised of fallible men. Perhaps, because you can’t imagine the strength and power and existence of a God who could work with such fallible men.

And yes, its power is an ounce of what it once was. The church no longer polices us. We police the church.

Ha,ha,ha . . . How exactly do you police the Church? You have no power over the Church.

It is also worth mentioning how much the world often denies the power and influence of the Church and yet can’t seem to stay away from hearing and listening and reporting on what our Pope has to say

Interesting that.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 30 by jgh7]

Your justifications about how the times were different back then make little sense to me. Why do times matter at all?

I don’t think you actually believe that. Of course, right is right and wrong is wrong and truth does not change, but are you telling me you would judge a slave owner 300 years ago equivalent to someone who wanted the right to have a slave today? Yes, slavery is wrong whether it was done 300 years ago or today, but it was a way of life then. One should be able to recognize that while the truth of the immorality of slavery hasn’t changed, those who lived during this period of history need to be judged according to the culture and the time.

I believe a time will come when people will no longer be able to deny the immorality of abortion. Improvements in science allow us to see the human life sooner and sooner. So if abortion does become illegal, I think one could only judge women who had abortions when it was legal accordingly. Yes, of course their abortion was always immoral, but the culture and time period allowed them to miss the atrocity of their actions. Women who had abortions are not evil monsters – they are victims of a tragic period in history.

You're basically putting your church on the same level of fallibility as the rest of mankind. I guess I just gave your church more credit than you did. I thought that they wouldn't be influenced by the corruption of the times. I see I was wrong. Not only were they influenced, but they themselves spread and oversaw the corruption in many cases.

The fact that they tortured countless people during the Inquisition should be judged with more lenient standards because it happened during a more uncivilized time?

Again, you are simply missing the point. Even though things like the Inquisition are often exaggerated and points of history where other groups other than Catholics often using similar cruelties and tactics resulting in the deaths of many Catholics under emphasized, it still doesn’t mean the Church is not Christ’s Church and cannot err in teachings regarding matters of faith and morals.

Okay, so Christ's Church can err to the point of spreading fear, torturing and unjustly killing thousands of innocents. Got it.

The Roman Catholic Church has shown such corruption throughout its distant past and recent times that I fail to see how it is any different than any other religious organization claiming Godly representation.

Yes, I agree you ‘fail to see’. You can’t imagine a Church comprised of fallible men. Perhaps, because you can’t imagine the strength and power and existence of a God who could work with such fallible men.

Literally all I'm doing is imagining a church comprised of horribly fallible men when I imagine the Catholic Church. If God is working solely with the Catholic Church, then He has done nothing to make it stand out as more noble/holy/superior/godly than any other Christian religious organization. If anything, it has appeared to be one of the most corrupt.

And yes, its power is an ounce of what it once was. The church no longer polices us. We police the church.

Ha,ha,ha . . . How exactly do you police the Church? You have no power over the Church.

It is also worth mentioning how much the world often denies the power and influence of the Church and yet can’t seem to stay away from hearing and listening and reporting on what our Pope has to say

Interesting that.

The Church was exposed for its cover-ups of its officials numerous child molestations. Something I said in a previous post which you conveniently did not address. We do police the church; we do not turn a blind eye and try to hide these horrific incidents away like the church did. I alone may not have power over your church. But should its corruption ever again become unbearable, mankind will exercise its power and put the church in its place as it has recently done with the child molestation incidents.

[RightReason]

[Replying to jgh7]

You're basically putting your church on the same level of fallibility as the rest of mankind

Sure, you bet I am when it comes to individuals within the Church. The Church has never claimed otherwise. You continue to miss the point . . . infallibility refers to teachings regarding matters of faith and morals. And I stand by my claim that the Catholic Church is Christ’s appointed Church on earth and cannot err in her teachings on matters of faith and morals. So, yeah that sets us apart from the rest.

I guess I just gave your church more credit than you did

No, you don’t give the Church or God any credit. You are simply spouting the age old complaint that blank can’t be of God since blank makes mistakes. <yawn>

Then they scoffed, "He's just the carpenter's son . . . “ –Matthew 13:55

I thought that they wouldn't be influenced by the corruption of the times.

Open your eyes. How many Christian religions have caved to now teaching that birth control is acceptable? Did you know -- prior to 1930, all Christian religions taught the immorality of contraception? Who still does? How many religions are just fine with divorce? Pre marital sex? Same sex relationships? Abortions? Pornography? Guess where the Church stands on those things? Exactly where she stood 2000 years ago.

Literally all I'm doing is imagining a church comprised of horribly fallible men when I imagine the Catholic Church. If God is working solely with the Catholic Church, then He has done nothing to make it stand out as more noble/holy/superior/godly than any other Christian religious organization. If anything, it has appeared to be one of the most corrupt.

Then maybe you need to broaden the books you read or channels you watch or websites you search. Are you familiar with St. Jose Maria? St. Therese the Little Flower? Mother Teresa? St. Francis? JPII? St. Maria Goretti?

The Church was exposed for its cover-ups of its officials numerous child molestations.

Thank God. Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.� And they marveled at him –Mark 12:17

Jesus admittedly acknowledged that the Church is in the world and must abide by the laws of the state, but He also acknowledged the state has now power over Him.

"You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above�. –John 19:11

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 29 by marco]

Marco, can I ask was your falling out of love with the Catholic Church an intellectual journey or more of an emotional one or a little of both? And was it gradual or a sudden change?

A quote from one of my faves G.K. Chesterton:

"These people merely take the modern mood, with much in
it that is amiable and much that is anarchical and much that is
merely dull and obvious, and then require any creed to be cut
down to fit that mood. I do not mean in the least that the
Catholic Church is arbitrary in the sense of never giving reasons;
but I do mean that the convert is profoundly affected by the fact
that, even when he did not see the reason, he lived to see that it
was reasonable. I know that Catholicism is too large for me, and I have not yet explored its beautiful or terrible truths. But I know that
Universalism is too small for me; and I could not creep back into
that dull safety, who have looked on the dizzy vision of liberty."

[marco]

Mother Teresa was not surrounded by the physical beauty of the Church – quite the opposite, but she none the less recognized Christ in everyone.

Again I had the honour of meeting this remarkable lady. She moved in my direction, suffering her dark night of the soul and possibly uttering "Why have you forsaken me?". But her piety did not allow her to cross the pagan Styx and her light shone for the Church she served and for the God she found it hard to see.

The fault is that they never saw that the wine was not just wine.

Oh, I believe they saw the wine all right. Asked whether she believed in transubstantiation Elizabeth 1, if I remember correctly, replied:
" 'Twas Christ himself that spake it,
He took the Bread and brake it:
And what that Lord did make it,
That I believe and take it. "
There are vestigial elements of belief in this ambiguity, though I understand the Queen is said to have favoured a figurative interpretation rather than a literal one.
Luther liked CONsubstantiation but Calvin wanted neither. Their initial dissent was against the human element in the Church; that emboldened them to question further and change doctrine.

Referring to the Latin allows for less confusion, mistranslation, and universality. Had they known that, they might not have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

I am in total agreement. Latin demonstrated universality; you attended mass in Spain, Poland, Australia or Chile and you heard the same words. Latin illustrated the apostolic mark and it demonstrated ONE language for many. It was also distinguished by the holiness of its presentation: Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum. As a missa cantata, there is no lovelier expression. The new format is a lot closer to the original Latin, of course.

The Father and Son are one.

It was fine for Tertullian to say: Credo quia absurdum est (I believe because it is impossible) but I cannot quite find such divine acceptance for my own very fallible reasoning. My estrangement is not for the superficial reasons you suggest: I can (with difficulty) overlook a bad homily or sacerdotal incompetence and frailty. In my youth, Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not quite on the index librorum probititorum, but for all we heard of them they might well have been. The God depicted there is not one I would want to meet or sing to or praise. For me he is the imaginative concoction of misanthropic old men obsessed with sin. Jesus does his best to show us photographs taken of him in a sunnier light, but he cannot erase Scripture and doesn't seek to change one iota of it.

Go well.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

Again I had the honour of meeting this remarkable lady. She moved in my direction, suffering her dark night of the soul and possibly uttering "Why have you forsaken me?". But her piety did not allow her to cross the pagan Styx and her light shone for the Church she served and for the God she found it hard to see.

It’s funny how two people can have such different takes on the same event. You see it sad that her “piety did not allow her to cross the pagan Styx� Whereas, I see her as recognizing that one cannot leave the Church without leaving God too. She experienced a dark night of the soul demonstrating all the more how deeply she believed what she believed. Her belief in God and the Church she served was not based on emotion – on any warm and fuzzy feelings she was experiencing. Truth isn’t dependent on our feelings. It’s funny you say, “God she found it hard to see� as if seeing a supernatural being should be easy to see. Mother Teresa knew and believed a faith that teaches, “Blessed are they who believe, yet don’t see.� Her entire life is a good demonstration of love being an act of the will. Feelings come and go and cannot always be used to determine love. Mother Teresa got it.

“you do not fail in obedience through lack of love, but have lost love because you never attempted obedience." –C.S. Lewis


Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling... Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go... But, of course, ceasing to be "in love" need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense—love as distinct from "being in love"—is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit.� –C.S. Lewis

Oh, I believe they saw the wine all right.

You are correct – some did and yet perhaps didn’t recognize that breaking from the Church would prevent them from actually receiving. If they truly believed, then how could anyone be ok with grape juice over the Blood of Christ? Yet, they forged ahead, often oblivious to what they were leaving behind. Even those wise detractors who saw the Eucharist for what it is, were now part of a new group that denied the True Presence because they were forced to realize without Apostolic Succession Christ cannot become truly present in the Eucharist. They were now left with no choice but to accuse proclaimers of “This is my Body� as literal as pagan idolaters and cannibals despite the fact they themselves were once partakers of the Precious Body and Blood! ( as was shown in the early Church writings what all believed to be true.)

Their initial dissent was against the human element in the Church; that emboldened them to question further and change doctrine.

Yes, their initial dissent was against the human element, but that would be like complaining Jesus couldn’t be God because He was also a man. Such a faulty understanding of the beauty and mystery of it all is not something I would describe positively as “emboldened them to question further and change doctrine� It is not a good thing to change doctrine just because one finds something difficult to believe or understand.

It was fine for Tertullian to say: Credo quia absurdum est (I believe because it is impossible) but I cannot quite find such divine acceptance for my own very fallible reasoning.

And yet Tertullian would probably be the first to admit he also believes because it is as Chesterton says as well – reasonable. That is the beauty of Truth – it can be both an amazing mystery that could never be fully comprehended while simultaneously having its roots in logic.

The words I say every time I kneel before the Blessed Sacrament are, “I believe. Now help my unbelief.�

My estrangement is not for the superficial reasons you suggest: I can (with difficulty) overlook a bad homily or sacerdotal incompetence and frailty. In my youth, Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not quite on the index librorum probititorum, but for all we heard of them they might well have been. The God depicted there is not one I would want to meet or sing to or praise. For me he is the imaginative concoction of misanthropic old men obsessed with sin. Jesus does his best to show us photographs taken of him in a sunnier light, but he cannot erase Scripture and doesn't seek to change one iota of it.

Ahhh . . . you are in this camp . . .

“We have two bits of evidence about the Somebody. One is the universe He has made. If we used that as our only clue, I think we should have to conclude that He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place.) ...The other bit of evidence is that Moral Law which He has put in our minds. And this is a better bit of evidence than the other, because it is inside information. You find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built.� –C.S. Lewis

As C.S. Lewis however went on to make these comments on the subject . . .

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?

“Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk.�

“All that we call human history—money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery—the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy�


I’m sure you are aware Leviticus and Deuteronomy are to be understood in historical context and really as a story of man’s journey. There is also a distinction to be made in understanding the difference between Mosaic Law and the Moral Law. Since the beginning, man has tried to turn to other things over God. The OT and much of Mosaic Law is God bringing man around. God has seen the need to take ‘baby steps’ with us. We aren’t yet ready for all He wants to reveal. We wouldn’t be able to get it. It would be like trying to explain the properties of heat and electricity to a 2 year old in hoping that prevents the 2 year old from touching the hot stove. Of course, until the 2 year old is ready to properly understand, we for now just yell, “Hot! Don’t touch!�

Can you imagine trying to explain to a barbaric culture steeped in slavery and oppression and pagan rituals the fullness of the dignity of the human person? Instead, baby steps were necessary. Things like, since you are a people that have slaves and treat your women as property, here are some rules to help you begin to understand a smidgen of the dignity of the human person – rules about not beating your slaves or abandoning widows in your community. And since you are a pagan people and love your rituals, here is a list, so we can begin to start your practice of trust and obedience and identifying you as God’s people. A people of war cannot see beyond things of a war nature. How could they have turned to a God that to them was not seen as a warrior? Timing is everything. If Rosa Parks had refused to get off the bus even 5 years prior, she would have just been hung – end of story. With each story in the OT though man continues to be taught and learn that such ways are not God’s ways. God is bringing mankind to the point when He sends His only Son to finally show us that stoning isn’t the answer.

So, no Jesus does not attempt to erase Scripture -- in hopes man recognizes the journey of the human race. God sent His son to clean up the corruption of mankind. Yes, we are and have been that wretched. So wretched we don’t even realize our own wretchedness. The OT reveals our ugliness, how far we have come, and how far we still have to go . . .

There is value in storytelling like this.

“The Value of story is that it takes all the things you know and restores to them the rich significance which has been hidden by the veil of familiarity.� –C.S. Lewis

We can learn something from the OT. And even though we may no longer stone people to death, the familiarity of rash judgment and violence to the human person are still alive and well in our culture today. The OT holds a mirror to the human race and if read properly always shows God was always more concerned about the Moral Law and hearts of men.

Go well.

You too. I’m afraid I have a hard time understanding your stumbling block with God. How are you not afraid you are seeing him through your own distorted lens? Would an immature son not sometimes make that mistake in how he sees his own father? His punishment and fear he may have put upon him as a youth could certainly prevent the boy from seeing clearly the full picture.

“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.� –Mark Twain

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

But her piety did not allow her to cross the pagan Styx and her light shone for the Church she served and for the God she found it hard to see.

It’s funny how two people can have such different takes on the same event. You see it sad that her “piety did not allow her to cross the pagan Styx�

I never used the word "sad" and I do not judge her adversely for staying on the side of faith. Why on earth would I? I admired her. I also admire your assistants C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. I disagree with their conclusions.

That is the beauty of Truth – it can be both an amazing mystery that could never be fully comprehended while simultaneously having its roots in logic.

In mathematics and in chess truth is triumph, the vindication of our pursuit of reason. In the Trinity I see only a human attempt to make sense of references to three supernatural entities without calling them three gods.

Ah . . . you are in this camp . . .

Why is it necessary to place me in some camp? Am I a prisoner?

When C.S. Lewis says:

“Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk.�

he loses my interest. There is no "of course"; there is no true clause after "God knew" and there is no sense in saying "He thought it worth the risk." I don't know why people arrogate themselves to the position of making such pronouncements on what God does and thinks.

I’m sure you are aware Leviticus and Deuteronomy are to be understood in historical context and really as a story of man’s journey.

Yes. From the pronouncements there, pasted into the Koran, people are still being stoned to death today. The OT is a mix of wisdom, stupidity, endurance and sadism. We have the same mix today but God is silent rather than thundering.

I’m afraid I have a hard time understanding your stumbling block with God.

Possibly because I haven't detailed it and now is not the place. Our Pope is special, as popes go, and is to be admired for attempting to live as Jesus prescribed despite being surrounded by the stunning splendour of the Vatican, which I visited a couple of months ago. When a Pope decides to do good works without the world knowing - as Jesus suggested - he often incurs odium from ignorance. It is nice that Francis has overcome that difficulty to some degree.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

I never used the word "sad" and I do not judge her adversely for staying on the side of faith. Why on earth would I? I admired her.

I understand that you admire her. Just like I understand that you appreciate the beauty of the Catholic mass. Those things are obvious. If one sees in the Saints only their human drive and passion or in the mass only its ascetical relevance then they don’t get it. Mother Teresa is not admirable because of her work with the poor or even her commitment and dedication. She should be admired because she saw Christ in the person. Similarly, to not see Christ in the mass is to not see the mass. You think it fair to suggest since you can appreciate the beauty or commitment you understand. But once again, IMO, if you can’t see both the divine and the human aspect of the Church then you aren’t seeing the Church.

In mathematics and in chess truth is triumph, the vindication of our pursuit of reason. In the Trinity I see only a human attempt to make sense of references to three supernatural entities without calling them three gods.

Interesting. Why do you reduce the Trinity to human concoction? Can’t a human explanation of something be both a human explanation and true? Why dismiss the reality of the explanation of the mystery?

Why can’t the Trinity be what the Church claims it to be? Why reduce it to what you think makes sense?

Why is it necessary to place me in some camp? Am I a prisoner?

Sorry, just trying to determine your objection to God (different people have different ones). As I’m sure you’ll agree there is nothing new under the sun. Anyone today who thinks they have some new epiphany regarding why to them Christianity must be a farce; I can assure you is a little late to the party. Often the same old heresies spring up in new clothes.

I don't know why people arrogate themselves to the position of making such pronouncements on what God does and thinks.

Because it is logical to do so and we human beings do so all the time. It makes sense. If I know that Jane’s father is a loving and omnipotent father and therefore knew that Jane would eat too much junk food and stay up past her curfew if she went to a certain slumber party, but he let her go anyway, it would be reasonable to conclude that her father thought it worth the risk. That isn’t exactly speculation – more like observation.

Yes. From the pronouncements there, pasted into the Koran, people are still being stoned to death today. The OT is a mix of wisdom, stupidity, endurance and sadism. We have the same mix today but God is silent rather than thundering.

I agree with this though depends what you mean by silent. He does have a visible Church that He speaks through – so not exactly silent.

Possibly because I haven't detailed it and now is not the place.

Fair enough.

Our Pope is special, as popes go, and is to be admired for attempting to live as Jesus prescribed despite being surrounded by the stunning splendour of the Vatican, which I visited a couple of months ago.

Again, why see the stunning splendour of the Vatican as a negative? Nothing but the best was used for The Ark of the Covenant. Should it be seen as wasted extravagance? Should a groom giving his bride a diamond ring be considered wasted extravagance?

When a Pope decides to do good works without the world knowing - as Jesus suggested - he often incurs odium from ignorance. It is nice that Francis has overcome that difficulty to some degree.

It will always be a temptation for man to not boast or desire to be seen doing good, but that doesn’t mean having beautiful churches or even being surrounded by beauty or living in a comfortable setting is not what Jesus wanted. Also, it is important to understand how beauty lifts the soul and how lavishing those we love with nice things can be a sign of love. What can we human beings do for God? Offering him our finest gold and expensive shrines sends the message we consider him worthy of our time and money. It is a natural human trait to desire to do or give something to those we love. We can’t resist the urge to shower them with gifts. Nothing wrong with that. Can it be abused? Sure. And if it is -- that’s wrong, but nothing intrinsically wrong with the splendor of the Vatican. And perhaps thinking otherwise is letting one’s anti-Catholicism show.

[marco]

Mother Teresa is not admirable because of her work with the poor or even her commitment and dedication. She should be admired because she saw Christ in the person.

In your haste to prefer the divine over the human you forget Christ's words. We serve by offering help to the needy, our actions raised to the status of service to God. Consequently she is indeed to be admired for her earthly labours. What she saw of Christ or how is a personal matter for her, not the observer.

Interesting. Why do you reduce the Trinity to human concoction? Can’t a human explanation of something be both a human explanation and true? Why dismiss the reality of the explanation of the mystery?

A mystery is a truth above reason, but revealed by God. There is no such thing as "explaining" it. In fact attempts to rationalise the Trinity have famously fallen into heresy. In any event my view is that the Trinity was a concept born on earth not in heaven.

As I’m sure you’ll agree there is nothing new under the sun.

This aphorism dispenses with originality. But I agree there is truth in it. You have a magisterial way of dismissing your opposition and I feel myself sent in shame to the lower tables as punishment for my presumption in supposing my private take on theology is not old hat.

it would be reasonable to conclude that her father thought it worth the risk. That isn’t exactly speculation – more like observation.

And what would make it reasonable is that the father is a human with traits that are predictable and understandable. Making deductions about what we think we know of God is quite different. That is why I said it was arrogant to make them with seeming certainty.

Again, why see the stunning splendour of the Vatican as a negative?

I think you reply more in expectation than in observation. I wasn't making the usual condemnation of Vatican wealth. I was making the point that Francis is not at all sidetracked by his opulent surroundings - to his credit. The surroundings are fine - it would be absurd to let the seat of authority be in a mud hut.

What can we human beings do for God? Offering him our finest gold and expensive shrines sends the message we consider him worthy of our time and money.

This sounds rather like a play on JF Kennedy: Ask not what God can do for you....
Building golden temples in God's honour is fine; I see nothing wrong with that; nor with making paintings and sculptures that have the quality of a lovely canticle. But I am also reminded of the virtue in the widow's mite. One must be careful in one's praise and in one's exuberance.

I think we have exhausted the subject of the goodness of Francis. And we have taken some liberties with our remit by descending into Marco's agnosticism. Let's conclude that Francis is special; I am not.