Twinky

From BBC News: Pope Francis shuns grand apartment for two rooms Pope Francis has opted for the simpler surroundings of the Domus Santa Marta hotel-style residence rather than the traditional palatial papal quarters Pope Francis has decided to shun a grand papal apartment on the top floor of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace in favour of a modest two-room residence. His spokesman said he was "trying out this type of simple living" in a communal building with other priests. In doing so he has broken a tradition which is more than a century old. The decision reinforces the newly-elected Pope's austere reputation. As archbishop of Buenos Aires he refused to move into the Bishop's Palace. Preferring more modest accommodation, he also often cooked his own meals. Since the reign of Pope Pius X at the beginning of the 20th Century every pope has occupied the palatial penthouse apartment with more than a dozen rooms, staff quarters, a terrace and extensive views over the city of Rome. But since his election Pope Francis has been living in a simple two-room suite in the Domus Santa Marta - a hotel-style residence built by his predecessor Pope John Paul II next to St Peter's Basilica. And he intends to go on living there for the foreseeable future, according to the Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi."This morning he let his fellow cardinals know that he will keep living with them for a certain period of time," Mr Lombardi said. He said he could not say whether the Pope would remain in these quarters in the long term. "It is still a period of getting used to things," Mr Lombardi added. Pope Francis will continue to use the papal library on the second floor of the Apostolic palace for receiving official guests and will appear on Sundays at the window used by previous popes to address pilgrims in St Peters Square. About half the 105 suites in the residence are occupied by Vatican staff, who had to move out of their rooms to accommodate visiting cardinals during the holding of the recent conclave at which Pope Francis was elected. The Pope will take his meals in the communal dining room together with other visiting clerics and permanent residents. His simple new communal home contrasts with the much larger accommodation currently being renovated inside the Vatican for the future use of the now retired former Pope Benedict and his staff, reports the BBC's David Willey in Rome. I would be really impressed if he were to convert the Official Residence into say a hostel for homeless people, or use it for some other purpose of benefit to the whole community. And not just the official grand papal apartment, but the whole building.

I think now that I mostly feel sorry, pity, for the head honchos of TWI. Sorry for them that they have never learned, really, what love is, how to walk kindly before God, how to serve as Jesus did. They have missed so much in life. Their eyes are blinded. They have become so wrapped up in their egos or their organisation that they can't see what's clearly before them. Such small people. Small inside. Compassion has to come into true forgiveness. Compassion because the offender was weak, failed, abused. Did wrong, knowingly or unknowingly. As do we all. Only the self-righteous have no need for compassion. No empathy for offenders. And therefore no need to forgive. On another aspect of this thread: "forgive and forget" doesn't occur as a phrase in the Bible. When God forgives, he casts our sins far away. Jesus in his dying breath sought forgiveness for those killing him ... Romans and Jews. But many times, in fact, people are charged to remember, especially bad things that have happened. So that they can appreciate what they have now. Passover, and all that encompasses, is a ritual that ensures that forgetting doesn't happen. Paul, in Philippians, writes that he is forgetting those things which are behind, and" reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." But he also writes to Timothy: "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words." A clearer "Don't forget! Remember his evil!" warning you couldn't get. (We don't know whether Alexander was ultimately forgiven by Paul.) If this is the same Alexander of 1 Tim 1, then he was an apostate and a false teacher - "whom I have delivered unto Satan, that [he] may learn not to blaspheme." It's not "bitter" at all to warn against those that teach wrongly, that hurt others, that mock the grace of God.

He sounds like a nice, useful, helpful sort of guy, Socks. In other denominations (of which I know Anglican best) - even if a person feels a calling to the priesthood at an early age - say in high school, or even college - he is told to go away, learn a bit about life, and apply again a few years later. So people will spend a few years as teachers or accountants or - anything really - and then undertake minister training no earlier than early 30s and often much later. That way, they can bring lots of life experience of real situations, and consider Godly ways to deal with them.

It is... It is a totally nutty defence. That he was married, getting lots of ... married recreation ... therefore didn't need to grope a teenage girl. One really does have to have a chuckle. On the other hand, I do know some teenage girls really come on hard to older males, and make false accusations. Male teachers in secondary schools are particularly vulnerable to this, unfortunately. I wondered if this accusation could be something like that. And on the third hand... if he did grope the girl, he deserves whatever's coming. From secular authorities and from the church. And from his wife. Back to the topic, there have been Popes who have fathered children. And RC priests' housekeepers may perform more than simply housekeeping duties, or so I have heard. From unreliable sources. It would be useful if this could be reconsidered - at least, the process started - to end this manmade practice of celibacy. Perhaps ... when there is appointed a man in his 40s, not yet quite so entrenched in his ways that he can't take a fresh look. And still of marriageable age.

What's nuts, Socks? A daft joke about celibacy? Or a defence of, I never touched that girl because I'm secretly married? Or just being secretly married?? I kinda like the guy for having the guts to get married, and wave two fingers at the RC church's manmade rules. I wonder if he will apply to the Anglican church (or some other church) as a married minister? Even the RC church accepts married ex-vicars but won't allow them to proceed beyond minister staage (ie can't be bishops). You said: Huh, having been elected, it was widely reported that he paid his own hotel bill. What, there was some possibility that he would not do that??Maybe, like politicians, Popes should be elected young and vigorous. A man in his 40s, not yet quite so entrenched in his ways that he can't take a fresh look. And still of marriageable age.

If we'd really seen the power of God in manifestation rather than the works of man (one particular man and it wasn't JC) then things would have been VERY different. Sure some people were delivered from various illnesses, mental prisons and other predicaments. Especially at twig/branch level. We can all attest to meeting some awesome people at that sort of level. But deliverance after being prayed for at BoD level? Nah. Though you might find you were afraid to admit to some need if any of the BoD were around.

By way of comparison, the Methodist church generally posts its ministers to a particular church or churches for a period of 3-5 years. BUT that is done carefully, taking into account the wishes, needs and inclinations of the minister and the minister's family - and the wishes and needs of the receiving church. The 3-5 year period can be extended if that's what the need is, for either party. For instance: my friend, when she took up her first role as minister, was carefully and thoughtfully interviewed. Her family needs included: good schools for her four children, the schools not being too far apart; that they were within about an hour's drive from a major city here where she and all the children had been born and raised - they are a very close family and have huge family Sunday lunches all together, and my friend particularly wished to maintain close contact for her children and their grandparents; her husband's hard-built-up self-employed work in the area, south of the same major city; and as to the length of time, she wanted 5 years because that would help the children settle, the two oldest would be at Uni and the two younger ones would be ready to move to other schools if necessary for the 16-18 year old period of their education. Three years would be too disruptive for the children, she thought. All of that was carefully thought about and she was allocated to one single large church, about 45 mins south of the major city - in the heart of her husband's work area; there are two good schools for the children, the older two went to one school and the other two to another; the congregation was perfectly receptive to the human qualities that she has, and welcomed her plans to move forward (- as much as the average congregation does!). It was a perfect arrangement. At the end of the 5 years, reviews have taken place all round. Her tenure has been (most unusually) extended for another 3-5 years, 5 I think, and after that all the children will be well away and making their own independent lives. The older two are in their 3rd and 1st years of Uni and the third child may go this year if that's what he wants to do. I mention this in detail because she's told me about the careful and very thoughtful talks that took place before she was assigned anywhere. She has to complete a written form which asked about her specific needs, not just her needs but the needs of all those she was closely associated with - her family. There were interviews, not a short one-off interview, but a careful consideration based on her written requests. There was mutual trust and dialogue all round. Not quite how Corps assignments work...at least, at the bottom level. Perhaps only at Prez level.

Joke, a bit off topic but related to the last post: A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old canons and laws of the church by hand. He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript. So, the new monk goes to the Old Abbot to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up! In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies. The head monk, says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son." He goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held, as archives in a locked vault that hasn't been opened for hundreds of years. Hours go by and nobody sees the Old Abbot. So, the young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing. "We missed the R!; We missed the R! We missed the bloody R!" His forehead is all bloody and bruised and he is crying uncontrollably. The young monk asks the old abbot, "What's wrong, father?" With a choking voice, the old Abbot replies, "The word was ... . . .CELEBRATE!"

He and all popes and all cardinals really have to defend the doctrine of celibacy. How else can you justify to yourself the decades of denial of a normal human marital relationship? When you're in your 70s and suddenly realise that actually you could have been married, enjoyed a loving relationship with your WIFE and had the blessing of children? And so, they will perpetuate this myth that a minister must be celibate (in the face of scriptures that say otherwise) and keep younger decent men under repression. A bit off topic but here is an interesting article and very surprising defence against an accusation of an RC priest's sexual assault of a teenage girl: Surprise defence It's been widely reported in the UK but may not have made it to other parts of the world. I'm inclined to believe the priest and not the girl, who may well have been something of a fantasist. But I don't know.

BUT don't forget also that had OS (in this example, but there are many other such examples) used his own noggin and removed the branches or whatever, he would have been punished for that, for going outside his remit. Leaning to his own understanding / using his five senses / some other excuse. Use of common sense is not valued in TWI. Basically, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Now you really are joking. Think on their own??? :blink:/> Can't be allowing dangerous things like that!!

Thanks for clarifying that, HWTB. Glad to learn that it is against the rules. But this worries me and sounds contradictory to this: That sounds kinda like justifying violent behavior: "If for some reason say, some guy in the pub feels the need to hit another guy in the pub, then he may get a punch in the face." "If for some reason say, some driver feels the need to hit another driver (maybe he cut him up at a road junction) then he may punch him up." Restrained behavior is expected in both those events, regardless of provocation; and failure to exercise restraint (ie punching out the other guy) is likely to earn the interest of the boys in blue. Why should baseball be different? Even contact sports like boxing and martial arts have proper rules about where and when an opponent may be hit. In football (soccer), if you deliberately target an opponent and foul him by going for the man not the ball, you're likely to get sent off (ejected) and your team will play on without you and without a substitute, which usually results in the fouler's team losing the game. Doesn't that happen in baseball? I can't see that a strategy of deliberately assaulting an opponent is sportsmanlike. In fact, strategically, it's cowardly because you're admitting you can't beat your opponent legally. And what a terrible example to set young kids that like to play the game, when their role models get away with serious assault.

Okay, you guys, you need to explain baseball to me. I've just been reading a novel by John Grisham called "Calico Joe" about a promising young baseball batter who is deliberately targeted by a spiteful fast pitcher; Joe is hit on the head, severe head injuries, and never returns to the game. I did some reading around this topic and it seems that it's legal to actually throw a ball intending to hit the opponent. WOT??? Sure it can happen that a batter gets hit - by accident, because of an error of someone's judgment - but to deliberately target not just the batter's body but his head... why is this not considered (criminal) assault and dealt with as such? Why only a poxy short suspension and maybe monetary penalty (fine) when there is a clear intention to hit another person with a weapon (ball) travelling at 90 mph? If a car was driven at another person at that sort of speed, there would be a wide range of criminal offences that would have been committed - possibly even attempted murder. There's really no argument that one "consents" to that sort of assault any more than a person driving a car down the road consents to being targeted by some road-rage driver. Do tell me if I've got this wrong, and baseball players really do play like gentlemen. And not like thugs.

There certainly has been a lot of talk about his possible collaboration with a repressive regime. Nothing substantive, it seems, more guilt by association. There are some accusations about him handing over, or at least winking at, the capture of two priests. Maybe he did nothing with the junta. Maybe he did something. Maybe if he didn't do whatever he did do, things would have been even worse. This wiki article refers to it: Wikipedia - Pope Francis The BBC article that I referenced in an earlier post has some other information that is not complimentary; here's the link again: BBC profile on Pope Francis Maybe he was the best of a dubious bunch. There has been so much controversy about so many RC priests at all levels - some abusing, some moving abusers around and covering up, some with too-close male friends... There don't appear to be any such allegations about this new pope. So far, anyway.

Italian bishops... obviously God's not speaking to them. Maybe there is a case for the Pope speaking as God's mouthpiece? :biglaugh:/> Hadn't heard that, Excie. Well spotted.

Now that's funny. Enforcing the "no debt" policy upon unsuspecting members of the public, no less.

Exit door's getting a bit of use, then, LOL.

Or maybe that should be: ¡Hola! - hi, Pope!

So now we've got a new one, or at least, RCs have, not that it affects me, not being RC. An Argentinian, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a Jesuit, a traditionalist, orthodox...but (it's said) humble and lives simply. Well, that's gonna change, unless he sells off the immense treasures held in the Vatican. He's not seen as a "Vatican insider." BBC profile Vatican bio Sooo... Rome finally acknowledges that places outside Italy exist?

I completed my Half in 2h32m44s which in the circs I thought astonishingly good. I didn't do any prep or training. It was far too cold. Great, though, no aches or pains. My glutes (big bottom muscles!) hurt during the race, my ankle hurt and was still tender the next morning - but my knee didn't hurt at all and that is very often a problem. The sore ankle was an annoyance when I came downstairs but I'd forgotten it was sore within an hour or so. So far I've raised over £1,100 for the charity I ran for. I'm pleased at that, too. I have promises of more from some people who haven't yet given me cash or sponsored me online. Should go over £1,200.

Now watch Johniam jump in and say something about educated responses and discussion thereof. And the "quality" of responses being aligned with one's PoV. Why does every thread become about Johniam? Can't you just ignore his least outrageous posts (at any rate) and continue the discussion without his knots in the thread?

Lovely clown suits, Excie. There's a man inside the room that has another interesting trouser suit. As for the cardinals, looks like they couldn't decide quite what to dress in so a couple of them grabbed the net curtains on the way in.

I did that, Thomas. Yep, can agree that burning the chaff is immensely freeing. Kept the woodburner going for a looooong time.

Woh, Argus, you got your money back?! :drink:/> Many others would like to do that. I spent 2 yrs in rez with LCM as Prez and never thought he was a homosexual. However, the vehemence of his persecution made me wonder if he was hiding something. But I knew nothing of homosexuality (male or female) at that time and he'd probably have to be the campest gay you could imagine... It never occurred to me that head honcho wouldn't be "doing the word." Later, I thought his vehemence was due to Donna taking up with Rosie and his increasing feelings of powerlessness, loss of control, and himself being manipulated that brought out all the anger he displayed. He was permanently angry. He called it "spiritual anger" and encouraged it to spread through the whole ministry. I've never heard these allegations of threesomes or him watching two women at it. Not in all the years I've been reading these threads.

:offtopic:/> Ummm...Mayberry...what are you talking about now? I don't really want an answer to that, it's just that the response seems a very long way from the thread topic.

I'd like to know too, Skyrider. Please do start a thread. VPW did tell some horror stories about deprogramming...but who knows how believable those stories were?