David Goldman, a Modern Orthodox Jew, is well acquainted with Catholic thought. In an article for PJ Media Goldman reacted to the Pope's spontaneous "brotherly" and not "friendly", as scripted, affirmation of the PA and Abbas. Goldman has more than once evaluated Pope Benedict as the world's leading thinker. Goldman expressed the view that Pope Benedict was prepared to have a smallerand culturally less influential Catholicism, wherein, let me say, the notion of "salvation" is the telos, not the secular well-being of the world. From this point of view, the cognitive, liturgical and symbolic, integrity of the "faith" is central. Pope Francis, on the other hand, has gone in the opposite direction, that is, embracing the entire world as if the crisis, viz., collapsing Church were irrelevant to his mission. As Goldman, a bit ironically says, Francis is primarily interested in saving the whole world, and in secular terms. Secularity being the only way to address the whole world (here the opposition to Benedict), rather than attending to the salvational needs of fewer souls. ---I also note that Pope Francis has expressed somewhat derogatory opinions about Church cogitive positions of the past. Let me take this one step further. As Goethe's Faust once said: "Feeling is everything!" - very charismatic attitude.

Pope Francis has acted in a charismatic manner, i.e., putting "feeling" above reason. Hence, the calling for shared prayer in the Vatican. Peres is an Israeli, but self-admitted non-prayer. In other words, he belongs to the more secular left in Israel. Goldman fruther notes that no "orthodox" believing Jew, religiously speaking, is allowed to pray in buildings with Christian images. I ask: Did Jesus ever call for a prayer session on an equal level with Roman pagans so as to bring about "peace" between the subdued Hebrews and the Roman "occupiers"? For believing Jews, THE Christian center is outside their faith. Let us look at matters secualarly and all reveals itself in its logic.

The Israelis and the Palestinians are in tension, alas, but one of fundamental values. Turn to Memri-tv or Palestinian Watch and one can locate Abbas taking part of groupies a la mosque calling for the death of Jews and Abbas has made it clear that he will never recognize the Jews as a nation and he has made it clear no Jews will be living in the Palestinian state. So, what do we have? An Israeli of little belief who does not pray will pray and a Muslim political leader who refuses recognition of Jews as a people will come together under the direction of a Catholic Pope, and in a central and holy (for the Catholic Faith) location, viz., Vatican in order to pray, pray and pray. (If only Jesus had prayed with Pilot, well, no crucifixion would have been necessary. Of am I being cynical here?) If the goal of the Pope is to save the world (as Goldman suggests), then the real differences between the religions re salvation plays no role. Who cares if Jesus would share prayer with a polytheistic Roman, for afterall both "believers" acknowledge an "ultimate reality (sic)"? Well, back to the narrative.

A non-praying Jew prays with a Jew hating Muslim together with a world saving Catholic Pope for "peace" ( a term here with no cognitive meaning, just a good feeling), all in a place sacred to Catholics. I suggest that a truely believing Muslim and a truely believing Jew and a truely believing Christian would not utter a cognitively vague prayer aimed at secular goals in center of their faith (let us say Mecca). In the case of the upcoming love feast we have a secular Jew (who is an Israeli), a political Muslim (who pushes anti-Jewish ideology for the PA) and a Catholic who is more interested in saving secularly the world (the Israeli/Palestinian tension being but one part of the world) than reforming his shrinking Church for the salvation of souls. From this point of view, it all makes sense. If any believing Catholic takes offense, s/he has clung to an outdated religiosity bent on saving souls and missed the secular point of it all.

"Libertarianism" is not without nominal value for a certain ideological tendency, like it or not. Most "libertarians" I have read are in one way or another economic fans of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, neither of whom can be said to be libertarians, rather "liberals" in the European sense of the early 20th Century. No Pope nor prelate, simply by occupying an office, even the Magisterium, can in any shape or form or way claim any knowledge pe se about the secular science of economics. Von Mises in his Human Action can be theoretically right or wrong or a mixture re the analysis of human action and its role in economic action. The Pope and the Cardinal badly misuse and abuse their religious prestige when speaking negatively as Pope and Cardinal about economic theory per se, be it a theory affirmed by libertarians, liberals, moderates, conservatives or reactionaries (and I, following the Columbian thinker, Nicolás Gómez Dávila, am a "reaccionario", i.e., I reject the same modernism as that magnicient Catholic did--who would probably feel sick at what his fellow Latin Americans "prelates" are pushing) or, for that matter Keynsians or Marxists of whatever other stripe. I can see some socio-moral difficulties with libertarians that fall under the area poper to a prelate, but that has nothing to do with the validity or non-validity of Austrian economics (usually smeared in Germany with the title of "neo-liberal") or of any other purely economic theory.

There is a central theme common to Mises and Hayek and, indeed, the Austrian school: 1. economic calculation << 2. economic knowledge or epistemology. I will ask two two-fold questions and illustrate them.

What are the theorectcal suppostions (different or the same?) that underlie the following: a. How does human action act rationally in order technologically to modify nature so as to have consumption goods or "How is it possible to apply math to technology?" b. How does human action act rationally in order to carry out economic activity or "How is math applied to economic activity?"
If Pope Francis and his side-kick crusader, the Cardinal, cannot answer these questions they do not have the slightest inkling of what economic calculation is and, hence, know naught what economics is all about. That means that neither can think in a rational manner about the economic dimensions of their leftist hearts' desires. Let me give an illustration.

When I was 11 or 12 my class was taken to view an older damn outside my home city. The damn had very thin walls with buttresses supporting it and needed the involvement of little material, yet labor participation was very high. The guide noted that, were the damn to be built at that time, the walls would be very thick involving less human labor, yet much more material. Here we have two technological solutions that technological thinking cannot decide re construction. Both work. What was the difference that enabled a choice of construction? The choice between alternate technologies is an economic decision-> So, what was the economic factor? Labor in years gone-by was cheaper than at that time. Hence, more material and less labor had become economically rational. With more costly labor, more material and less labor become economically rational. The mechanism for determining the socio-economic value of interacting individuals is the market, free of gov. interventionism. It is the market that profers "knowledge" about social wants and needs relative to which economics applies, not the arbitray dictates of a Pope or an Obama. Destroy the market by gov. directives and one destroys economic rationality, like it or not, be the liker or disliker a Pope or not.

Pope and Cardinal have greviously abused their office and should be resoundly castigated. If the dynamic duo had followed the model of Pope Benedict, I would only be condemning their abysmal ignorance, not their moral integrity. What do I mean?. Pope Benedict published various books, including the life of Jesus, not claiming the authority of being a Pope, rather just being Cardinal Ratzinger. If the PanchoVia's of poverty were to have removed their titles, then they would be free of my censure (though not of economic ignorance). Why is this so important?

In an article about the Pope's blunderings in Israel, David Goldman suggested that the Pope is not so much interested in saving souls as he is in saving the world. This Pope is on a secular crusade, full of Latin American cheap marxism, not to speak of blatant economic ignorance. Let us say that his ideas turn the poor into rich enough people. Then, like those rich enough everywhere, they can buy porno, marry and divorce before just shacking up, buy cars, etc. etc. In other words, they may well remain "poor of spitit" and not saved. And eternal salvation is mediated by the Church, not economic planning. That is a major failure by this Pope, unless he thinks leftest economics (sic) is the way of salvation of souls. Personally, I do not think he cares that much. Goldman seems to have been right, i.e., the Pope is on modernistic secular crusade to save socio-economically the world, which by his definition are the economically poor.

In conclusion: I am furious at the ignorance and failure to observe the limits of one's office. I, for my part, censure Pope and Cardinal.

Please read my comment on "Canada On Verge of Banning Christians from Professional Life". The criminalization of parents who teach the "wrong" things or the "false" values, instead of the new norm of relativism and pansexualism, must be criminalized. It is a logical---and not the last development. It would not surprise me if Christians were to be forbidden to have children (not surrendered to the state). Oh, what am I saying? The handing of a new born after some weeks to the state is a possibllity here in Germany.

You are right, but did not Pope Francis refer to a charismatic (?) service as, well, sort of a Samba? If the "spirit" of Samba can be charasmatically accepted, why not that of Tango? If there is a dance form that beautifully dramatizes the man/woman relationship, particularly in terms of sexuality, is it not the Tango? The Samba is a bit wild and overblown with emotions, the Tango, alas, implies an opneing towards sexuality, an opening not proper for the liturgy of a "divine service". Or am I all wrong again?

I have always enjoyed the statement in logic, i.e., who says A, must say B ... and eventually end up saying Z. There is a necessity built into logical thinking. If one takes this bit of wisdom and treats it as a need in humans to have values woven into the social and, eventually, into the legal fabric of society as normative, one will experience a new type of necessity. I can well understand Roman pagans who found Jews or Christians to be socially dangerous because they refused to place the ONE God into the pantheon of Roman gods. As it turned out, partiuclarly some 50 or so years after Constantine, the gods were banned. This is no accident as Christians could not form and inform a Roman society on polytheistic grounds. Christianity was, indeed, an extremely subversive factor for pagan Rome. A danger to its very existence. The new foundation of value for Christian Rome was no longer the a of polytheism, rather the A of monotheism. And that had desasterous effects, socially and legally, for pagan Rome. What is the value source, imperatively dynamic, of (post)modern society? There are two aspects:

1. Pansexualism, i.e., any form of sex, if freely chosen or wanted, is valid and, as such, demands imperatively its incorporation into the social and legal structure of society. Pan-sexuality per se in its LGBTQ forms is the postmodern normative imperative, the new A which, once accepted into the sociality of a society, will of necessity drive the legal structurre of society to say B, etc., i.e., legally to exclude the heterosexual norm. This is so because it, as a normative value for society, is just as foreign as racism legally was in the US years ago. Homosexuality is being propagated not in order to find tolerance, but to demand acceptance. This demand is behind the Gender Mainstreaming (here in Germany). "Tolerance" is the byword, "acceptance" is the imperative really intended. And how can "society" gain acceptance if not by becoming INtolerant of those whose values do not tolerate the normativity of pansexuality. In what sense?

2. Often I hear the term "individualism" used negatively. This is false. As an individual, one has specific wants, quirks, longings, etc. that constitute the individual ways of one's life. But, and here is the point, the "ways" integrate the indvidual into a social system of norms and imperatives. One's individuality is not permitted, for instance, to eradicate other individuals, if such a saddistic want is felt. In other words, the indiviudal is qua individual within the being of norms beyond individuality, values revealed or natural law. I must agree with Hegel in that freedom is not liciense, rather a freely chosen conformity to some basic imperatives not at disposal of arbitrary choice. Here we come upon the radicality (the new A) of postmodernism, namely there are, particularly sexually, NO "ways", relative to which the individual qua his individualism is obliged, i.e., that have imperative claims upon the indiviudal person, thereby transmorphing the individual into a social atom, sort of a Leibnizian monad that does not reflect the whole of reality. In other words, "freedom" is seen as "being arbitrary". Given the centrifugal nature of atomism for the maintenance of society, one needs a centripetal force and that is sex/sexuality. So-to-speak, the inner dyanmics of the social atom finds engery in sexuality, a postmodern sexuality which evinces polymorphic forms called LGBTQ (and God know whatelse is on the way).

My comment is already too long. I close by noting that the foreign policy imperative of the USA under Obama and Hillary Clinton, is the promotion of LGBTQ pansexuality in any and all countries. This is not accident as "who say pansxuality, must say LGBTQ!!!

Would someone please explain to me what "speaking" in "tongues" means. If one "speaks", I expect the spoken to be open to linguistic analysis. Perhaps, one can trace the history of the pre-phase of the language spoken (e.g., Latin), the development of this phase (e.g., midieval French, Spanish, etc.) and the modern language of, say, Spanish. Because of the term "speech", I feel myself obligated to interpret "tongues" as different languages, identifiable and linguistically open to analysis. Or, as I suspect, "tongues" entails the incoherent and emotionalized babblings of worked up humans in a group context. From this point of view "tongues" means the emotional overflow of sounds uttered by the charismatically possessed participants--a condition that frightens me as it represses the rational function of the mind into a dizzy whirl of corporeal agitation. The Pope's reference to such activity as "samba" is a metaphorical reference of some value, though an understatement. May I conclude that the whooping-it-up, delirious dancing of carnevalists in Rio (which I have seen) is charismatic? Or, at least, a proto-charismatic effusion needing "tongue"-exudings that somehow become a sort of liturgical expression, i.e., an "experience".

The Pope is shown appartently as praying fervently. Prayer, with clear cognitive content, is always a fine thing. Or, is the Pope, overcome by emotions, just emitting feelings and, naturally, in front of the whole-wide-world; in order words, acting out again the emotionality of a narcisstic ("Look at me, look at me!") cynosure? Maybe I am all wrong. If so, I would like to know just what languages were spoken and what was said in the fervernt heat of a charismatic seizure. I suspect it was all jibberish--which may have some religious value, but lacks liturgical dignity and threatens the partipant with loss of self-control in the heat of the group.

"Familiarity breeds contempt" is an English saying. "How can I take the guy seriously when he is always making jokes" is an ancient English saying that I just, on the spur of the moment, sort of an internal tweet, made up.

Pope Francis' personal style is that of self-conscious cynosure who does all kinds of "cool things" such that the whole wide world knows about it--that is the purpose of the mass media, all of which assuages his ego with praise. He exhibits all the characteristics of a narcisstic person who continually draws attention to himself, far more to himself, then to the content said. His pastoral style might well function in a one-to-one evangelization, but not as the "chief" evangelist, viz. realizing the essence of his papal office. Fr. Bergoglio, a parish priest, can clown around, act as a pop star, shock people with his off-the-cuff remarks, tweet to his satiation of his ego, always becoming the talk of the town, whoops, of the WORLD, all that and more if it works in the confines of those few he sees daily. If a priest (a person with various duties) intends to evangelize, he is dealing with a limited number of people, not with the whole world. Billy Gramhan, the very successful Protestant Evangelist, would preach to hugh crowds in a stadium and those, moved by his words, would come forward and then be sent to pastors for the personal one on one evangelization. The preaching of Graham was phantastic and rhetorically effective, Graham being sort of a parallel speech master to Bishop Sheen. Both Graham and Sheen were very successful, non-assuming, convincing and non-cynosures.

Francis is not in the linguistic or rhetorical league of Sheen, let alone Graham (who preached in a Protestant style that seems to attract Francis). Francis simply shows off with his seeming erratic, though constant selfies. That is not the Evangelization proper of the dignity and sublimity of the Papal Office. At best that of a clown. This Pope has become a fun-guy. Who wants to listen to him when he gets, on occasion, serious. The world press? Who is being evangelized by him? Give me the statsitics! Worse, what does an evangilization founded on jealousy of those who have success have to do with converting. Converting? A joke, alas, one of no humour.

A very fine thinking Jew, David Goldman wrote recently in PJ Media (reprinted in First Things) a review of the antics of Pope "Tweeter" Francis in Israel. The "spontatneous" kissing of the wall Israel has built to fend off Palestinian terrorists, his "spontatneous" designating himself not as a "friend" (scripted), but as a "brother" of the Palestinians, whose leader Abbas has just united with the designated terrorist group Hamas, the Pope's discourteous put down of Netanyahu concerning the languageS of Jesus (interpreted as an attempt to distant Jesus from being a Jew like the others of the time), all these "cool thngs" have alientated many Jews, in Israel and elsewhere. Goldman has concluded that the Pope is less interested in evangilizing the world to Christianity, rather he is de facto striving to save the world, and in its terms. The Pope isa social justice "dude", that is where he places his most notable efforts. Goldman has repeatedly praised Pope Benedict as the leading thinker of the world and, like myself, misses such intellectuality. (France emotes feelings, not reflected thoughts.) sBenedict was prepared, for the sake of doctrinal purity, to have a reduced Church of real believer, whereas Francis is the opposite, shooting for the whole world. But it is not working!!! The Church is collapsing (check Voris) and the Pope keeps being political (= secular saving). I Think that Goldman is on to something.

Alas, the more familiar the man Bergoglio becomes, the more contempt I have for him and long for a "real", not a clown, Pope such a Benedict.The time will come when the world and its press become bored of Francis, as only so many shockers make good press.

Luther 1. denied the ontological reality of the Church as being the mystical presence of Christ and thereby made the "Church" into a mere assembly of concurring believers. 2. Tradition was shoved aside for the Bible alone as the origin of and guiding faith. 3. No authority other than the believer decides matters (rejection of the magisterial function of the Papacy). 4.Faith became but the strong emotional acceptance of divine forgiveness of the sinner (who remains a sinner even in the forgiveness) with the concurrent 100% "fundamental transformation" of the divine service into a meeting of believers to whom the word is communicated and wherein attendants give thanks and joy for said forgiveness ("grace" plays no role) -->origin of Protestant liturgy (Many Protestants cannot understand how Catholics have mass without attendance.). 4. Luther's principle of the individual as the sole "magisterium" (sic) led his followers quickly to develop understandings and practices leaving behind the relatively concervative theology of Luther (thanks to Melanchthon, an Aristotlian who wished unity with Cathlicism).

The "children" of Luther did not just disagree intellectually with Luther, rather they sought their certitude in their emotional experiences. In other words, faith IS only real insofar as each individual IS overcome with emotional feelings of salvation and expresses himself in joyous acclamations (e.g., the Pentecostal whooping it up in an emotional delirium). Lose that feeling and one is lost. Alas, one man's delirium and interpretation thereof is not necessarily that of another. The result is that emotionalism and its implications begin to surpress all rational consideration (and Evangelicals do argue text, i.e., do more than "feel" the Holy Spirit and are not always friendly to Pentecostals). Indeed, the only "proof" for the presence of the Holy Spirit in the individual is the intensity of feeling. Woe unto those who do not feel emotionally unto delirium. And woe unto anyone one does not so feel.

Catholic Protestantism or Protestant Catholicism is a theological oxymoron. The author of the article may call himself a Catholic, but is in reality a Protestant functioning, willy/nilly, as a 5th Column. Alas, many of the deeds and words of Pope Francis suggest that he leans very much in the direction of a "Catholic Protestantism". At some point, the centrifical dynamics of Protestantism in Catholicism will force him to make a "to be or not to be" choice between the conflicting forces of such a theological oxymoron.

I am horrified, though I understand now why Pope Francis can have friends who are Marxists. If the man identifies himself with Che Guevera, he is agreeing with a Marxist who has murdered, surpressed religion, tortured thousands and put thousands into political presion camps. The Palestinian leadership wants no peace with Israel, just the elimination of Israel and of living Jews. Check out Memri tv and Palestine Watch and you can listen to very young Palsestian children praising the killing of Jews!!! No doubt the Pope's words will be fit inbetween such tv broadcasts, sort of as a blessing. Pope Francis is overstepping the bounds to his function as a head of a state. He could be mixing into explosive politics. I can now understand why many times many Roman and Italian inhabitants chased popes out of Rome. (What the heck, Che got chased about in So. America until he got his just reward.) Pope Francis will undo all the reconciliation that Pope John Paul II did and revive(with a great deal of justification) the Jewish fear of being once again having their existence threatened by Christianity. Were I in Israel now and should the Pope go political, I would join with the Orthodox Jews in protesting the admission to Israel of a "terrorist", viz. a "Che-Guevera-ist". I sort of miss the good old days of pope chassing out of Rome.

@Dr. Bobus, I should like to thank you for your response. I repeatedly tried to respond to ivarii's diatribe against the US, but was blocked. I do not hold the US (and the EU) for pure as snow. The NGO's in the Ukraine were often paid for by George Soros and he is subversive. And I little care for EU democracy and for Obama's foreign policy. But, the attack was universal and extreme. I hold that Putin is literally struggling to achieve the survival of Russia. I will not detail this thesis. In the May 9, 2014 of the German newspaper Die junge Freiheit Thomas Fasbender (a German living in Russia) published an article with the title "Putins Mission", reading Putin in the light of Solschenizen and his theory of the state (Putin had contact with the man). Fasbender sees Putin as striving to realize S's vision. I agree, only this does not mean that Putin cannot be agressive. I suggest turning to PJ Media and looking up previous articles on the matter by Spengler (David Goldman), and some comments by myself. Goldman holds that Russia has dire need of the Crimea (reasons not listed here) and that a bargaining should have taken place at the beginning. It is US and EU policy that de facto places them into opposition to Putin. Russia is now seeking contact with China as a reaction. And that is not good. But, all this is politics and really not a proper subject for Gloria.tv.

Iivari used The Guardian which is an anti-Catholic journal and, as all quite left-wing journals, anti-American. Indeed, the Catholic Church is the villian in religion and the US in foreign policy. Iivari cherry picked his sources and made sweeping charges bordering on calumny and full of half-truths. This is fine, but not for Gloria.tv. I do and did take offense. I am no fan of Obama, but I am loyal in my heart to my home country and I was involved in politics for decades. The praise of Castro is a give away as to the political orientation of @iivari and an indication of his inablitiy to evaluation evil where it exists.

@Gloria.tv, thank you for your explanation. I tend to look at computers as advanced magic. Years ago I went into a trauma because I had to use an electric typwriter. As any psychoanalyists will tell you, traumas have lasting power. As to posting on ivarii's left-wing Guardian diatribe against the US I think that Dr. Bobus has posted a fine reply. I will add a note to this reply. The Guardian treats the US as it does the Catholic Church, i.e., as the authors of "monsterous deeds". Thanks again. Maybe with a prayer or two I will be granted the gift of understanding computers. I doubt it.

The article has not caught the full perfidy of Bishop Galantino (with some reference to prelate as a Nunzio of Pope Francis). Let us focus upon the oppositional contrast expressed by the prelate.

young (i.e., vibrant) vs expressionless (rosary praying)
fight for quality of life vs opposing termination of life as if "quality of
life" were superior to "sanctity of "life"
goal = "... health, vs preservation life needed by unborn to have and ... right to any life enabling health or capacity to work
work"
their health and their vs "others" have the right to live
right"

Conclusion: Bishop Glatino has laid bare the meaning of "mercy" within the papally chosen prelates, namely "their" life- wants vs the existential exigencies of the unborn "others". This seems to contradict the mouthings of Pope Francis, yet its egotism certainly is another "Bergoglio-Effect". For my scandalized part, Bp Galatino has horrified me into a state of expresionless disgust.

NO, NO, No and double whammy no'es. A short while back Gloria-tv chided its comment contributers for refering impolitely to the current pope as < Bergoglio> and not as < Pope Francis >! NO??? The incredibly judgment by the Italian Bishop's Conference is NOT a function of some "Bergolio-Effect"! No, not at all!! It is the effect of Pope FRANCIS, the occupant of the apostolically established magisterium, of the juricically choosen "functinary". The use of "Bergolio" (misssspelled and without a title preface of "Fr.") simply offends against the Gloria.tv doctrine and, much more seriously, demeans the sacredness of the Apostolic office. What, by the way, does the term "effect" mean?

Say that I, who must wear glasses, am driving in a crowed street and by PURE accident the glasses fall from my face and thereby effect an accident. The accident would be produced by a "Bad-sight-effect". The effect would have no implications that I am at fault or that my essential actions as a driver were morally tainted or, at least, in any way implied as my essence. Is this what is meant by calling the pro-lethal decision of the Bp. Conference a < Bergolio-Effect >? NO!!!

What is meant is that a defining feature pertaining to the very essence, in thought and deed, of POPE Francis elicits (at least plausibly) such behavior by the bishops as an intrinsic EFFECT of the POPE, the successor of Peter, the Magistrium of the Church. If my interpretation is plausible, the manner of thinking and approving by the Italian Bishops is a functional effect of the influence stemming directly from Pope Fancis as he is in himself. If I were Louie Verecchio I would call the Pope's power to effect such abomination as an indication of him being a "material heretic". For myself I simply do not know how to categorize matters. I do know that I am scandalized again. I do know that once again I find it logically difficult to hold the Bergoglio and I belong the same Church. Has my analysis been wrong, foolish or unfair? Please, someone, do correct me and the abyss between myself and Pope (sic) Francis is growing from a crack to a Grand Canyon.

This papal wisdom is balony (I am willfully chosing a tame term)! In religion courses as a teenager a simple, but devout Austine priest dealt with the problem. His answer: God made a Covenant with humankind and sent a savior for humans. If a species from another planet shows up, said species is not part of the God/human Covenant and thereby canNOT be baptized (and perhaps does not need it). Can it be that my former simple Augustian priest knows Catholic doctrine better than the Pope. I do not think that Peter, supposedly confronted with green or, say, red colored living being from Mars, would have baptized the being, rather probably have viewed the creature as a devil. Why not? Who is to ?that Perhaps, the creature from outer space is like those of "The War of Worlds". I can see it now: The Pope pours water over the green monster and he responds by eating the Pope. The Pope is being ridiculous, making it evident that he is a clowning cynasure!!!

G.Tayor, thank you for your support and agreement. The Nunzio is a deviant from orthodox Catholicism and, as such, is a serious scandal. With this you agree. But this prelate was appointed by Pope Francis to an important position. And this is the real SCANDAL for me. What am I to think? I categorically reject the ideas of the Nunzio. And Pope Francis? It seems to me that either Pope Francis agrees with the ideas (and is thereby a material heretic) or he tolerates such abberations as, well, not so bad, certainly not as taboo-ideas. If the former is true, the Pope has fundamentally failed in his duty to protect MY faith (and that of all). Either the Pope is a material heretic or he fails miserably at his duty as the head of the magisterium. In either case, I find it hard to identify myself with the confines of the "Church" being defined by the Pope. The "Church" of which the Pope is a member is becoming logically incompatible with the Church I learned as a child. Here the Pope is more than a SUPERscandal for me, rather he offends greviously against faith and the security in terms of which salvation is sought by me. That boarders on very mortal SIN! Agreement????

Let me freely reformulate the prelates words, but in another context, say, a taboo free discussion with SS murderers at Auschwitz. What does "without taboo" mean? A "taboo" is an act whose evil is so intrinsically terrible (sinful) that one simple avoids it. O.k, Nunzi Galatino arrranges a taboo free discusion about the race improvement policies of the Nazis and carried out by the SS. To have such a talk, the Nunzio would have to disregard the moral status of mass murder for, well, it is for the good of the "superior" race, no? In short, a tabooless discussion of homosexuality implies excluding consideration of its status re sin.

I can imagine the Nunzio scolding those sour-faced faithul rosary praying Cathoics standing in front of one of those ovens used to burn murdered Jews as, well, not having a happy-go-lucky view of life and who prefer serious demonstrating to having fun. I deduce what our Nunzio would seek out, namely the fun-guys of the Wehrmacht and whoop it up with some good old fashion German beer.

In my opinion, Nunzio Galantino should be removed from his position, severly disciplined and sent oft to a monastery in deepest Siberia to pray for forgiveness. He is a scandal for me! But worse is the fact that Pope Francis has appointed the prelate to an important position. Does this imply that the attitude and judgments of the Nunzio, a prelate appointed by the Pope, are shared by Pp. Francis or at least acceptable enough for the subject matter of serious value-free discussion? If this is the case, then Pope Francis is not only a scandal for me, but, as Pope and head of the magisterium, he is a threat to my ability to remain in the same ecclesiatical "outfit" as him. This is no joke, not amusing, rather horrifying to me. I am stunned!

Eine Friedensmacht ist eine Macht, die miltärische (und sonsitige) Macht ausübt, um eine bestimmte Friedenssituation zu erhalten oder herbeizubringen, ist genau für Frieden, die nur durch Macht zu haben ist. Z.B.,: Die Machtausübung, wirtschaftlich und miltär, gegen Japan und Deutschland vor, während und nach des Zweiten Weltkrieg. Die Pax Americana (im Gang zu verschwinden) zeigt Ähnlichkeiten mit der Pax Romana. Die Ausübung von miltärischen Macht von einer Nation (oder von der UNO) ist nicht ein Beweis, daß eine Nation (oder die UNO) nicht für Frieden ist, sondern für Notwendigkeit der Ausübung, um bestimmte Friedenarten zu ermöglichen. Was wir hier haben ist eine widerholte Verleumdung von Amerika, beonsiders von der Linke, aber auch von dem Land, das den großen Krieg verloren hat. Neid? Unter amerikanischer Machtausübung haben die Europäer nicht noch einen Krieg unter sich ausgeübt. Wenn das nicht ein "Wunder" ist!!!

Según la definición simple del diccionario Espasa la ética es "parte de la filosofía, que se trata de la moral de los actos humanos", e.d., un "conjunto de normas morales que regulan ... [la] conducta humana ... en un ámbito específico". Con otras palabras: la ética tiene que ver con la forma de los actos materialmente considerados. !Buena definicíon!

Si la ética adopta como principio fundamental un objectivo material, por ejemplo, el cuidado de los económicamente pobres, las "víctimas!" de la vida, etc., entonces la ética no va a tratar más las propiedades formales de un acto moral en un ámbito específico. Al contrario, el objetivo será un telos material que reealizar. Si la ética determina que ciertos actos materiales (= actos para una realización utópica) deban realizar cierto telos, la ética perderá su escencia formal, lo que terminará en una moral propagandística, e.d., lo bueno es lo que realiza el telos y no la forma del acto de realización. ?Qué es el momento teológico del cristianismo? !La salvación para la eternidad!, y no un estado utópico en que no hay víctimas, no hay "losers", todo lo que implica que no habrá ni muerte ni pecados ni lo que sea malo. Con otras palabras: El artículo me parece decir que la teología actual debe dirigirse como principio teológico a la conctrucción (= conjunto de actos) de una realización utópica dentro de este mundo.

Tal vez yo no haya comprendido el sentido del artículo.