The Pope

[Tora Ziyal]

No. But so much goes on behind the scenes in situations like that (dictatorship), it's totally plausible that even those directly effected might not know exactly how and why something happened.

 

[Sagart]

So, after just 4 days of Pope Francis and a couple of, to my mind, very fair and open minded posts from me, you feel you know all about us both. Your eagerness to accept one view in this argument, with seemingly no willingness to listen to a balancing view, is unfortunate and, ultimately, very short sighted.
For the record, I have been reading many articles about the incidents in Argentina in an attempt to understand all that is being said on this matter so, rather than not wanting to know, I'm interested in understanding the full picture. Anyone interested in truth should be open to all views, not just the one that backs up their preconceptions.

You don't know what I've read, either in favor of or against, nor do you know what my preconceptions are. All you have is malicious rhetoric. I suppose that's appropriate to the cause you're defending. Might I suggest that the real problem is your preconceptions about liberation theology that are driving your conclusions? Pope Sucio's extraordinary belief that liberations theology was the main problem is uncontested in the entire range of commentary.

Malicious rhetoric?!? Please, point it out for me.

 

[Amaris]

So, after just 4 days of Pope Francis and a couple of, to my mind, very fair and open minded posts from me, you feel you know all about us both. Your eagerness to accept one view in this argument, with seemingly no willingness to listen to a balancing view, is unfortunate and, ultimately, very short sighted.
For the record, I have been reading many articles about the incidents in Argentina in an attempt to understand all that is being said on this matter so, rather than not wanting to know, I'm interested in understanding the full picture. Anyone interested in truth should be open to all views, not just the one that backs up their preconceptions.

You don't know what I've read, either in favor of or against, nor do you know what my preconceptions are. All you have is malicious rhetoric. I suppose that's appropriate to the cause you're defending. Might I suggest that the real problem is your preconceptions about liberation theology that are driving your conclusions? Pope Sucio's extraordinary belief that liberations theology was the main problem is uncontested in the entire range of commentary.

Malicious rhetoric?!? Please, point it out for me.

He has no idea what he's talking about. Don't worry about it.

 

[Maestro]

Interesting piece, and not surprising when you consider where the early Church Fathers lived and wrote their works, and that this was probably also before the Coptic Church split off.

The split between the Coptic Church and everyone else was mid-Fourth Century, I believe.

 

[stj]

after just 4 days of Pope Francis

very fair and open minded posts from me,

you feel you know all about us both.

Your eagerness to accept one view in this argument

a balancing view,

very short sighted.

Anyone interested in truth should be open to all views, not just the one that backs up their preconceptions.

The first excerpt is rhetoric, of the red herring species. The point is the Archbishop's performance and that was a matter of far more than four days.

The second excerpt is rhetoric. I haven't commented on any of your posts. Also, your first post had no point except to be snarky, as shown by the way the same post fired back at you hit.

The third excerpt is self-pity combined with claims to telepathic powers, imputing an objectionable personal view to me based on no evidence at all. That is, displays malice.

The fourth excerpt also claims telepathic powers and presumes that I haven't rejected much more negative views (which by the way I have,) pretending I am rushing to judgment. Also displays malice.

The fifth except should be a classic example of empty rhetoric. By your lights, what could possibly be a "balancing" view, except blind acceptance of apologetics?

The sixth excerpt is superficially merely a little snarky. My views on the immorality of the Dirty War and the ultimate insignificance of liberation theology are based on memories dating back to Camilo Torres and Archbishop Romero, yet you have dared to presume they are short-sighted. Displays malice.

The last excerpt is more empty rhetoric combined with claims of telepathy. Quite aside from not knowing what my preconceptions are, you have assumed they cannot be fully formed conceptions based on long observation and thinking. Displays malice.

Really, the only way to defend your posts is to hypothesize you're confusing me with someone else.

 

[Amaris]

after just 4 days of Pope Francis

very fair and open minded posts from me,

you feel you know all about us both.

Your eagerness to accept one view in this argument

a balancing view,

very short sighted.

Anyone interested in truth should be open to all views, not just the one that backs up their preconceptions.

The first excerpt is rhetoric, of the red herring species. The point is the Archbishop's performance and that was a matter of far more than four days.

The second excerpt is rhetoric. I haven't commented on any of your posts. Also, your first post had no point except to be snarky, as shown by the way the same post fired back at you hit.

The third excerpt is self-pity combined with claims to telepathic powers, imputing an objectionable personal view to me based on no evidence at all. That is, displays malice.

The fourth excerpt also claims telepathic powers and presumes that I haven't rejected much more negative views (which by the way I have,) pretending I am rushing to judgment. Also displays malice.

The fifth except should be a classic example of empty rhetoric. By your lights, what could possibly be a "balancing" view, except blind acceptance of apologetics?

The sixth excerpt is superficially merely a little snarky. My views on the immorality of the Dirty War and the ultimate insignificance of liberation theology are based on memories dating back to Camilo Torres and Archbishop Romero, yet you have dared to presume they are short-sighted. Displays malice.

The last excerpt is more empty rhetoric combined with claims of telepathy. Quite aside from not knowing what my preconceptions are, you have assumed they cannot be fully formed conceptions based on long observation and thinking. Displays malice.

Really, the only way to defend your posts is to hypothesize you're confusing me with someone else.

None of what he said held any malice whatsoever. Sagart is a very reasonable, considerate poster. Your assessment of his post is in error. You are trying to create a mountain out of a molehill. Don't like what he says? Move on. Telling him his post contains "malicious rhetoric" is nothing but hyperbole, and it serves no purpose.

 

[Sagart]

First off, thank you, J. I very much appreciate your comments. Secondly, as stj's reading of my comments are so incredibly wide of the mark, I realise that the best way to deal with them is, indeed, to ignore them.

God bless Pope Francis.

 

[Amaris]

First off, thank you, J. I very much appreciate your comments. Secondly, as stj's reading of my comments are so incredibly wide of the mark, I realise that the best way to deal with them is, indeed, to ignore them.

God bless Pope Francis.

My pleasure.

While I am not religious, it is my wish that Pope Francis be a kind hearted, compassionate man who leads through wisdom and love. May he be blessed.

 

[Sagart]

First off, thank you, J. I very much appreciate your comments. Secondly, as stj's reading of my comments are so incredibly wide of the mark, I realise that the best way to deal with them is, indeed, to ignore them.

God bless Pope Francis.

My pleasure.

While I am not religious, it is my wish that Pope Francis be a kind hearted, compassionate man who leads through wisdom and love. May he be blessed.

Amen to that

 

[stj]

Translation: The only defense of Pope Sucio's previous career is bullshit. We know for a fact that this clown was a moral misleader and not even the so-called reasonable posters dare to confront the case against him.

 

[Avon]

now i dont like religion, but sagart has been pretty decent in his posts. and though i agree with stj's criticisms of his popeyness, delivering it in a ranty fashion won't help.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Translation: The only defense of Pope Sucio's previous career is bullshit. We know for a fact that this clown was a moral misleader and not even the so-called reasonable posters dare to confront the case against him.

People don't care about what happened in Argentina. Several thousand people disappeared in a backwater Spanish country, it's just a statistic to most posters here. The fact that most of them spoke no English and were foreigners probably just makes them more irrelevant.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

"his popeyness"

 

[{ Emilia }]

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to excuse whatever Bergoglio did during the Junta years.

But I'd like to mention that the Junta and its brutal dictatorship was supported by a lot of really terrible people...

like...

Ronald Reagan and for years also Jimmy Carter and Henry Kissinger.

Just saying. I suppose every poster here is aware of that and despises the aforementioned people for what they did.


Right?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

^ Somehow I doubt the guy with the hammer and sickle avatar is going to object to you bringing them up or calling them terrible.

 

[{ Emilia }]

^ Somehow I doubt the guy with the hammer and sickle avatar is going to object to you bringing them up or calling them terrible.

Well, didn't the Argentine Junta sell wheat to the Soviet Union during the grain embargo? I think the Soviets actually liked them for that.

 

[Starkers]

I’m British and I’d like to stress that we certainly never supported this repressive regime (however we may have been next door chatting with Pinochet…)

I see Kirchner has already been bending the Pope’s ear about the Falklands. Quelle surprise...

 

[{ Emilia }]

I see Kirchner has already been bending the Pope’s ear about the Falklands. Quelle surprise...

For what it's worth I don't think they're the best of friends ever since Kirshner's government introduced gay marriage to the country.

 

[Starkers]

No this is true, but I doubt she'll miss the chance to be seen with him a lot in future and point out that the Pope's Argentinian

 

[Tora Ziyal]

If anyone's interested, this is an article on Pope Francis and the Dirty War by a prominent church historian.

The two jesuits who were interrogated and tortured believed he gave them up to the Junta.

At the time, they did, yes. But read the statement that was just released by one (the other died some years ago): by the time they publicly reconciled in 2000, he had concluded that Francis had not given them up.