Freemasonry involves a whole system of theology which is plainly incompatible with Catholicism. As for the specific episode, the whole thing was involved with the extremely murky Masonic Lodge P2 in Rome, which operated something almost like a parallel illegal government, having about a thousand members including top businessmen (mr.Berlusconi was a member), generals, journalists, public figures and so on.
What is the offensive part to Catholicism? Someone must have taught men not to join for a reason, and since neither of us are Masons, I'm curious. (I never heard that Catholics aren't free to join anywhere.)
Several succssive Popes and bishops have repeated the condemnation, so I'm sure it must be on serious matters. I am hardly an expert on Masonic matters, but so far as I can see, their notion of God (="The Great Architect") leaves out Jesus Christ, Original Sin and the need for redemption. If you want, I will look it up and let you know.
What are the "less attractive reaches of Freemasonry (a group which Catholics are forbidden to join)"? (No, I'm not asking you to talk about The Book That Shall Not Be Named.) I thought they were a charitable organization that ran burn hospitals and hospices and nursing homes. Why can't Catholics join? It can't be the apron - the Knights of Columbus has some pretty funky outfits, too.
To the person who left an irrelevant and poorly argued anonymous commentfpbApril 2 2005, 17:04:07 UTC
Point one: this was about the Pope, so kindly stay on topic. Point two: you are neither serious enough (or you would have left your name) nor mature enough for your views to be worth the trouble of refuting them. I know the kind of pathetic literature to which you go for your "information," and I am not impressed. If I had been writing about someone else, I would have criticized him or her as I saw fit to criticize the Pope; the point remains that the person you attacked has lived a life you would never in a million years be able to so much as consider. And if you ask me why, I answer, again, that if you are gutless enough not to use your own name in a polemic, then you certainly do not have the moral strength to do anything worthwhile.
Re: To the person who left an irrelevant and poorly argued anonymous commentfpbApril 2 2005, 18:19:14 UTC
People post anonymously on your journal because no one particularly wants to be the target of your polemics. You also continue to attack posters and not their ideas. It's obvious that you are fully able to argue perfectly well without the ad hominem, so it's a little disappointing to see it recurring over and over again. Furthermore, you don't know who I am so your judgements about my actions and moral strength are made from a position of astonishing certainty.
Sebba's biography is also scarely "pathetic literature", unlike Hitchens' raving polemic. Isn't it a little sad when any figure is put up beyond criticism, or it is assumed that only one group can engage in such?
Re: To the person who left an irrelevant and poorly argued anonymous commentfpbApril 2 2005, 19:05:15 UTC
I will let this one stand. I repeat: this article is about the Pope, whom I freely criticized. It is not about anyone else. Your polemic is irrelevant, OT, and a waste of space. And if Christopher Hitchens is your main source of information, God help you. But if you want to argue about something, argue about the Pope. Or have I left you no reasons to insult him
( ... )
Re: To the person who left an irrelevant and poorly argued anonymous commentfpbApril 2 2005, 19:39:17 UTC
I'll just respond to one thing, as it shows your clear inability to read and comprehend: I cited Sebba's book, as being UNLIKE the polemic of Hitchens which is unreliable. How do you go from that into "if Hitchens is your main source of information" other than by deliberately misreading what was said?
I am saying that there are photos of Mother Teresa visiting Albanian in photo ops with Enver Hoxha, laying a wreath at the base of the statue of Mother Albania. This is independently verifiable, as are the photos taken in Haiti with Baby Doc and Michelle Duvalier. I'm saying that she lent her image to those repulsive people, and I think the less of her for it--those were not situations one could have wandered into and simply been exploited by mercenary forces.
Comments 19
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Sebba's biography is also scarely "pathetic literature", unlike Hitchens' raving polemic. Isn't it a little sad when any figure is put up beyond criticism, or it is assumed that only one group can engage in such?
Reply
Reply
I am saying that there are photos of Mother Teresa visiting Albanian in photo ops with Enver Hoxha, laying a wreath at the base of the statue of Mother Albania. This is independently verifiable, as are the photos taken in Haiti with Baby Doc and Michelle Duvalier. I'm saying that she lent her image to those repulsive people, and I think the less of her for it--those were not situations one could have wandered into and simply been exploited by mercenary forces.
Reply
Leave a comment