Surreal, bizarre, banal, infantile, beyond comprehension (UPDATED)


My priest this morning, during his homily, referenced ABC 20/20’s airing Friday night of Pope Francis and The People and I was moved by his words, so moved in fact that I made the decision to watch the show for myself as soon as I could.  I finished doing so just moments ago.

It was all that Father Mike had portrayed it to be and more.  You should set out to watch it yourself.  It’ll enhance the faith of the faithful and should give food for thought to those who might consider themselves something other than faithful.

What I can’t comprehend is the kind of strident reaction my Wizbang colleague Warner Todd Huston had to a particular part of the show:

During a broadcast hosted by ABC News, Pope Francis went out of his way to praise Sister Norma Pimentel, an activist nun from Texas who is making a name for herself working on behalf of people who break our laws.
During a “townhall” styled meeting the pope singled the nun out before the crowd.

“I want to thank you,” Francis said. “And through you to thank all the sisters of religious orders in the U.S. for the work that you have done and that you do in the United States. It’s great. I congratulate you. Be courageous. Move forward.

And then the pope, 78, said something she could never have imagined: “I’ll tell you one other thing. Is it inappropriate for the Pope to say this? I love you all very much.“

ABC and multiple other news outlets presented this little scene as if the Pope just somehow happened to spot Pimentel on a TV monitor “hiding” in the crowd and that it was all a big, heartwarming surprise. But, it is obvious that this was an orchestrated event and not spontaneous at all. Francis set this up ahead of time in order to give the USA another jab in the ribs, something he has become well known for at this point.

If you’ve not watched the referenced segment on 20/20, you might be excused for the kind of attitude and cynicism on display here but, if you did indeed watch it and you continue to be this disdainful, it’s an indication of a hardness of heart that Christ alone will have to pierce.  To suggest that the Pope’s singling out of this nun during the virtual audience was anything but spontaneous is to have watched a show I didn’t see and seemingly, to make things up out of whole cloth.  It’s a baseless and shameful charge.

But no more baseless and shameful than Huston’s attack against this faithful nun merely carrying out her vocation faithfully, lovingly and diligently.  

Mr. Huston, and the stone-hearted who applaud his thinking, have indicted her because she dared to see Christ in the least of these, she dared to assist those fleeing their homelands and the infestation of gangs and violence therein, she dared to set aside politics, she dared to see their humanity, she dared to be Christ to them. 

In other words, this nun acted out her faith, acted like her savior Jesus Christ, and in that acting, committed the cardinal sin of offending Huston’s idol, political ideology.  How dare she?  Who does she think she is?

But wait, there’s more that offended Mr. Huston’s sensibilities, more that upset his applecart of ideological idolatry.

Mr. Huston was deeply offended by the Pope’s plan to use his native tongue at the Mass to be held in DC during his U.S. visit later this month:

“… in order to scold the U.S.A. over its already too generous immigration policies, Francis is purposefully giving a Mass in Spanish despite that less than 15 percent of the United States even speaks the language. 

Next Francis has decided to rub America’s nose in its immigration problems by giving his Papal Mass in Washington in Spanish instead of English.
This is a purely political move, one meant as a slam on one of the most generous nations on the planet, one that already ranks number one in the world in the sheer number of legal immigrants is allows in, not to mention illegal ones.
Certainly there is good reason for a religious leader to speak up in the USA–what with the Obama administration’s campaign to put an end to religious liberty and to destroy Christianity–but what is the red pope doing? He’s attacking Americans for wanting to have some control over their own immigration policy and essentially calling the whole country a bunch of racists.
Instead of being a religious leader, this pope is using his position to play anti-American politics.
This pope is a disaster.”


By speaking Spanish, the man’s native tongue, the Pope according to Huston is rubbing America’s nose in its immigration policies, scolding the U.S.A., slamming America, attacking America, calling Americans racists and playing anti-American political games. 

By. Speaking. Spanish.

His. Native. Tongue.

With all due respect to Mr. Huston and those who find his writing fruitful and productive, his thinking on this is banal and infantile, beyond comprehension for those who think rationally.

To read the sort of mindlessness referenced into the circumstance of a nun living out her faith and the rather natural act of a Pope speaking in his native tongue, is to stretch the limits of credulity.

I think we’re better than this. 

Fellow conservatives, aren’t we better than this?

Crossposted at Brutally Honest.

UPDATE: Found this relevant graphic yesterday…


Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners Week of September 4, 2015
"... one draught of that living water..."
  • So, if Norma Pimentel is to be criticized for “working on behalf of people who break our laws”, then are we not to also criticize Kim Davis for violating her oath of office?

    • jim_m

      You cannot criticize Pimentel because to criticize her is to criticize Christ. That is the logical extension of Rick’s claim that if we insult the Pope then we insult Christ because Christ is in every believer.

      Rick believes that we cannot criticize anyone who is Catholic because they are Christ incarnate. He is a cultist.

      • What you do to the least of these, you do to me.

        Do you comprehend that Jim? Seriously, do you comprehend it?

        • jim_m

          I sure do. So you believe that you should aid the criminal who is causing the law abiding to suffer? That is the ultimate effect of your demands.

          Rick and his god, the Pope, have demanded that we harm the law abiding in order to help the criminals and that we abrogate the rule of law to do so. Even Christ said to follow the law.

          By advocating lawlessness you are insulting Christ. You sure are insulting anyone who believes in the rule of law. You’ve got a lot of apologizing to do buddy. That’s a lot of Christ you have just insulted.

          • Jim, I ask again, simply, does the Lord ask us to visit the imprisoned? Or do you have caveats as well for the Lord’s words here too? You are filled with caveats… as if to suggest… you’re a Pope. You must hate yourself as well and that in the end may very well be the source of your problems… may God grant healing.

          • jim_m

            I’m not filed with caveats. You’re projecting.

            You say that the Pope was right to praise Pimentel for her condemnation of US immigration policy. So you are saying that our policy is evil and that contrary to Christ’s own words (when He said “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”) we should disobey the law justly implemented by our elected officials (BTW nearly all of whom have sworn an oath of office on a Bible)?

            This has nothing to do with visiting the imprisoned or helping the needy. This is about lawbreaking and abetting those who break the law and injure others as a result. (we could take far more legal immigration if it were not for all the illegals so law abiding people are measurably harmed by this and by the Pope’s advocacy).

            Why does your Pope disobey Christ’s teachings?

            Are you ready to admit that criticism of the Pope is not Criticism of Christ? Or do you still insist that Christ is in all believers and that insulting a believer is insulting Christ?

          • I’ve not read yet of any condemnation of US immigration policy by the good sister. I’ve read Mr. Huston’s comments making that claim. I’d like to see the good sister’s words in context before I comment on them.

            The Pope was right to praise her because she was doing what Christ has called her, and you, and me, to do. Help the least of these. Period.

            Our immigration policy, as an aside, isn’t working. Not evil, just not working. Period.

            You say this has nothing to do with helping the needy? I would suggest simply you spend some time in the Texas church with the good sister and see if perhaps your stance would soften. I can tell you that my hardened stances against the homeless and the imprisoned softened once I became involved and began to see these people as humans having dignity. I’ve still got a long ways to go frankly to see them as the Pope does or as Sister Pimentel does so pray for me.

            The Pope, as an aside, goes to the Sacrament of Reconciliation frequently, proving that yes indeed, he does disobey Christ’s teachings and seeks forgiveness for doing so. Oh that we might all emulate that kind of humility.

    • Scalia

      Why in the world should anybody answer your questions when you refuse to answer their questions or engage their arguments?

    • Vagabond661

      And criticize Obama, Hillary, oh hell the Supreme Court and the Legislative branch….Did I leave anyone out? How about mayors of “sanctuary cities”? Idiots who RELEASE illegals into the population but jail others for not issuing a piece of paper so gays can hitch?

      Hey Pope, how about Matthew 7:3 “”Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

  • Vagabond661

    In my day, when you gave shelter and food to someone who broke the law, it was aiding and abetting.

    • jim_m

      I’m trying to find the Bible passage that says that people who break the law are never to be punished but are to be rewarded like those who obey the law. Not finding it.

      • You’re apparently also having problems finding the verse about helping the least of these. Try harder.

        • jim_m

          So Christ sau=id fuck the law! Help criminals avoid punishment and if they are stealing from someone who is even worse off then they are so what because God helps those who help themselves.

          That’s what Rick the anti-Christ teaches, not what Christ ever said.

          • No… that’s what Jim is suggesting is being said when it’s not… and this is Jim’s modus operandi, one observed objectively by the most casual of observers.

          • jim_m

            See my latest Jesus er, Rick. You are not Christ no matter what you claim or think .

          • I am so far from being Christ Jim, it’s truly not funny… you?

          • jim_m

            Nope. By your own assertion Christ is with the believer and He is so inextricably connected to that believer that to insult the believer is to insult Christ.

            To insult you or the Pope is to insult Christ Himself. SO you have claimed and so you still have refused to correct.

          • Brucehenry

            Welcome to my world. Jim is a great one for telling you “what you are REALLY saying” when you say what you are, you know, actually saying.

            THe most dishonest, the rudest, the most pompous self important blowhard in this comment section. In the past few weeks, and especially in the past couple of days, he has revealed an anti-Catholic bigotry unparalleled since Luther.

            (That’s hyperbole, Jim, in case you think I am actually comparing you to a towering intellect.)

          • jim_m

            He, I have posted his previous remarks, with links. He does claim that disagreeing with him or with the Pope is disagreeing with God.

            Deal with it.

          • I’ve said nothing of the kind. Not even close.

          • jim_m

            Why, yes. Yes, you have.

            If insulting the Pope is to Insult Christ then why is disagreeing with him not also disagreeing with Christ.

            I have been after you all afternoon to retract that and you refuse to.

    • Accessories before or after the fact.

  • jim_m

    Rick, There are legal ways to enter this country and the vast majority of illegals are not fleeing violence or political oppression, they are seeking economic gain and are committing a crime to receive that gain.

    The Pope’s comments are an affront to our nation and its rule of law. By endorsing this illegality he is endorsing anarchy and is undermining our nation.

    He has repeatedly come out against our society and our way of life. He has embraced socialism and denounced capitalism, making no distinction between what is practiced here and what goes on elsewhere or in the depths of history.

    Finally, your entire article is an insult to anyone who disagrees with you and therefore an insult to Christ. You should take it down and beg forgiveness from everyone whom you have insulted. Otherwise, you have insulted Christ and you continue to insult Him by your refusal to apologize personally to each of his incarnations. (and if you haven’t figured out how inane your argument is on insulting the Pope is also insulting Christ then I will keep on making this statement until it finally sinks in that you are an imbecile)

    • jim_m

      So Rick, when you go to a restaurant and you tip the waiter, are you tipping Christ? So I expect you always give a great tip. When you get bad service do you still give a good tip? Remember, Christ was serving you, so maybe your bad service is Christ telling you that you are a putz.

      When your house is broken into and your property is stolen, remember that it was Christ that burglarized your home. Perhaps that was just His way of saying that you are greedy and covetous and that you need to have your things forcibly taken from you to help those in need.

      Tell me, if Christ is in everyone, what happens with rape? Does that count as masturbation theologically? What happened with all those priests raping little boys. Was Christ raping those little boys?

      Waiting for an answer (or just an admission that your claim was the ignorant claim of a jackass).

      Face it. When we insult the Pope, we insult just the Pope. He’s a man, not Christ as you have just claimed.

      • Good or bad service, I tip a minimum of 30%. It’s rare that I go below that. Waiters have bad days and so who am I to to pile on their bad day by being a cad with a few of my dollars.

        I’m likely quite greedy and covetous in the grand scheme of things. God forgive and have mercy on me.

        I can’t follow your rape analogy, it’s quite nonsensical. What happens with all those priests raping boys in the here and now, not enough, in the hereafter, justice will be meted out.

        When you insult any believer, particularly the least of these, you are by extension insulting Christ. You have a problem with this, take it up with Christ.

        • jim_m

          Look silly. It’s simple. You have said that to insult the Pope is to insult Christ because Christ is in the Pope (as Christ is in the believer). If we follow that logic (or illogic really) then Christ is in the believer when the believer acts as well. So when you get bad service, Christ is in the waiter who delivers it. When the priest rapes an alter boy Christ is in the Priest when he does it. Christ is in the believer so therefore Christ is there when these things happen too. He can’t just be there part of the time because it is convenient for you. He has to be there all the time. (after all the Bible itself declares that he will neither leave us no forsake us).

          According to you Christ is a rapist. Care to back off your asinine claims now?

          Or do you really want t shame the name of Christ further than you already have?

          • I’m going with Scripture Jim… and you’re going with Jim, down asinine rabbit holes and silly rabbit trails.

            “But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.” (Romans 8:10)
            “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20)
            “….so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.” (Ephesians 3:17)
            “To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” (Col. 1:27)
            “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you-unless, of course, you fail the test?” (2 Cor. 13:5)
            “Jesus said, ‘Remain in me, and I will remain in you.'” (John 15:4)
            “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the One who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.” (1 John 4:4)

          • jim_m

            I have denied none of that. I simply have said that the distinction between Christ and the believer still exists.

            You have denied this distinction by claiming that when one insults the Pope (or any other believer, presumably meaning you) one necessarily insults Christ.This is NOT what the Bible says. For if that were the case then when we sin, Christ sins. I have tried to point that out to you by example and you refuse to accept the truth of that.

          • I completely accept the truth of that but again, you’re twisting my words and… more relevantly, completely ignoring Christ’s assertion that what you do to others, you do to Him. Why are you ignoring that assertion Jim? It seems simple enough.

        • jim_m

          In fact your Panentheism goes well beyond Catholic doctrine and is a heresy. Catholic and Protestant doctrine holds that God is omniscient and omnipresent but maintains the distinction that while God sustains the world He is, in fact, not the world itself.

          You have negated this view by claiming that when one insults the Pope one insults Christ. Yes, Christ may be in the believer, but Christ is not the believer.

          Your beliefs are heretical by ANY definition of Catholicism or Christianity.

          • Pope Jim has spoken and all should bend the knee.


            You’re not in the Apostolic succession and so… I’ll pass. Sorry bud.

          • jim_m

            Wait, so you are now admitting that Protestant ministers are not a part of apostolic succession and therefore people baptized by them and who receive sacraments from them are not saved?

            Point out ANY document from ANY time that says that to insult any believer (including the Pope) is to insult Christ himself and that Christ’s presence in the believer is such that there is no difference between the presence of the believer and Christ Himself.

            That is exactly what you have claimed. Now prove it heretic.

          • There you go again Jim… suggesting things are said that in fact are not said. When will you cease from this sort of dishonesty? Or have you so deluded yourself that you actually believe it which would then suggest that you quite simply have a comprehension problem?

            As to your latter point, this won’t satisfy you as at this point it’s clear that nothing less than a Damascus Road experience would help you however, it does help me. From the Catholic Catechism:


            1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

            What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35

            1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

            1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that “everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity.”37 No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a “neighbor,” a brother.

            1932 The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”38

            1933 This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us. The teaching of Christ goes so far as to require the forgiveness of offenses. He extends the commandment of love, which is that of the New Law, to all enemies.39 Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel is incompatible with hatred of one’s enemy as a person, but not with hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy.

          • jim_m

            Either go up to the comment where I post your quoted statement and retract it or don’t. But don’t go around like a lying asshole saying that you never said it.

        • Commander_Chico

          Wow I thought I was good at 20%

          • jim_m

            My work limits me to 20%. Higher than that and I get in trouble with Accounting.

          • Commander_Chico

            So you only tip if you can expense it out? Or is “Accounting” your wife?

            If so, I understand, my ex was a cheap shrew.

          • Jwb10001

            Wow I’m shocked to hear that you’re divorced…….

          • jim_m

            I tip 20% or more when I have to tip personally. When I have to expense it I have to keep it under by corporate policy.

    • I’m an imbecile in many ways Jim. Thank God He’s given me the eyes to see that. I’m not however having any problems seeing that Christ calls on us all to treat the other as we would treat Him. Period. If that’s imbecility, I’m Chief Imbecile.

  • Brett Buck

    I thought Warner’s post was a little over-the-top, too. But to be honest, you have hardly distinguished yourself as a conservative here, so appealing on that basis is a little thin. Moreover, the Pope has decided to insert himself into US domestic politics, and while this particular incident is not exactly the most concerning to me, you have to admit his politics are aligned almost point-by-point with the extreme left.

    And, you have brought a lot of this on yourself. You are the one turning the blog into “Popewatch” by posting every random point of faith that occurs to you. And then torture the interpretations to make it fit the vision you have. The pope is not relevant to the vast majority of readers. At most he’s a point of curiosity.

    His advocacy of the poor is superficially laudable. But I note that he is attempting to shame various western governments into more and more charity – while presiding over an exceptionally, notoriously rich organization that is also noted as one of the most corrupt, at least in matters of finance and earthly concerns. And, at the end of the day – what is more help to the poor and downtrodden – washing their feet and begging for money (while traveling in private jets and with a massive entourage), or growing food for the entire world and presenting a way to raise themselves out of poverty? The Pope does the former, and the US (to varying degrees) does the latter. He’s also advocating illegality, blatantly.

    I will believe in the Pope’s sincerity when the Vatican hovers on the edge of bankruptcy from expending all their OWN funds and has divested themselves of the borderline insane opulence in which they exist. Never mind the fact that poverty would exist no matter how much money is spent.

    Far be it for me to interfere or criticize your faith, or the stated tenets of the Catholic church, But when the church and its representatives insert themselves into the secular world, they are certainly open to criticism, and they certainly have not “led by example” by those standards

    • Good points Brett.

      My personal blog goes back to October of 2003. Nearly 12,000 posts. And I blogged here at Wizbang for a time some years ago. Those posts would, to any objective observer, establish my credentials as a conservative. In 2010 admittedly I began to reconsider some of my more strident views after returning to the Catholic Church where I came to embrace (and in reality, am continuing to more fully embrace) her teachings.

      The argument that I’ve moved back to the Center somewhat may have some validity and I’m willing to concede that but, let’s face it, it does seem that the extreme ends are moving further apart as well and so that too may account in smaller ways for, as you’ve put it, my appeal thinness.

      I didn’t ask to return to Wizbang. An appeal went out, presumably to previous authors and I received an invite, one I accepted with a single caveat. My posts would have a decidedly Catholic flavor. I was told I could return anyway. And so I have.

      I’m not sure I can fully understand the charge that I’ve turned Wizbang into Popewatch particularly when often, I’ve done nothing more than counter the anti-Catholic bigotry put on display by others, either in posts or in the comments. But I’ve also contributed posts that don’t mention the Pope and so I think your claim is a tad hyperbolic.

      I’ll simply disagree, certainly in part, with this notion that the Pope’s advocacy for the poor is superficial. The evidence would suggest quite the contrary. And though certainly the Church has her share of rich and beautiful things, you ignore history of you ignore the fact that it is the poor who’ve contributed to her beauty and her riches. And you seemingly ignore the good the Church has done for the poor. Which is rather typical today. So much of the hatred for the Church is steeped in ignorance and in giving hypervisibility to her flaws.

      I would also state that what the Pope is actually doing for those involved in immigration is advocating for assisting them, asking for a response to the spirit of the law and less the letter of it, something Christ did as well and was chastised for it.

      Lastly, it is the Church’s job to insert herslef into the secular world. It’s what Christ has commanded is it not? And again, though she has stumbled, she has in fact led by example in serving the least of these. To ignore that fact is to ignore much.


  • jim_m

    Let’s get this straight, shall we:

    On the other thread you say that since Christ is in the believer, insulting that believer is also insulting Christ.

    Therefore criticizing that believer is also Criticizing Christ.

    Yet you claim that the Pope and Christ are not the one and the same , but every criticism I make of the Pope you claim is a criticism of Christ, every insult of the Pope is an insult of Christ.

    You are either a liar and a fraud, or a mentally incompetent person who doesn’t understand what he is saying, or you are a deranged cultist in desperate need of deprogramming. Make your choice. I think I have pretty much covered the relevant options.

    Oh, and BTW, this article above Criticizes Warner and therefore criticizes Christ. Either apologize or we know that you are not a follower of Christ, or we know that your whole claim here is just more papist BS designed to silence critics of your god, Francis.

    • This post criticizes what Huston has to say and not who the man is. There is a difference.

      And you’re once again putting words in my mouth when in reality, your real problem is with a central tenet of the Christian faith.

      The sooner you come to realize this, the sooner you’ll be on the road less traveled.

      • jim_m

        No. No difference. You have said that if we insult of criticize the Pope we criticize Christ. You can’t have it only when convenient to you. No one has criticized the Pope for anything other than his words and what he has stood for.

        You’re an ass and with every comment you show yourself to be more and more dishonest and illogical.

        • I’m most certainly an ass at times, a sinner in need of a Savior.

          What exactly are you Jim?

          • jim_m

            I may be an ass but I happen to be a correct ass in this instance. You are a deluded and prideful ass who refuses to accept that you are wrong that there is indeed a difference between Christ and the believer and they are not one and the same.

          • And you continue to misrepresent what I said and then beat me over the head with your false misrepresentation. It’s called a logical fallacy Jim and you’re engaging in it over and over and over again.

          • jim_m

            Look, Jesus Rick, I quoted you directly. Don’t say that you did not make the assertion that because Christ is in the believer that insulting the believer is the same as insulting Christ.

            You said it and now you have lied several times saying that you never did.

          • One more time, the context of what I’ve said and you’ve quoted comes from Scripture Jim, the very Scripture you continue to ignore, the Scripture found in Matt: 25:40.

            Why do you ignore that verse and the context the verse gives my words Jim?

          • jim_m

            10 comments without addressing your quoted text.

            Come on jackass. I quoted YOU directly.

            Defend your words you lying coward!

          • It is pretty amusing that this site now often turns into Robertson and Rice tag teaming and attacking me on a regular basis.

          • jim_m

            Oh no. That is Robertson and Jesus Christ. There is no difference between Jesus and Rick Rice. His received Word tells us so.

            I’m sorry that Becker has disappeared, at least he was a suitable counterpoint to the lefty and the messiah.

          • Well, between the devil and the deep blue sea, I have better things to do with my time.

          • At this point, I think we all do.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, RUn away and avoid adressing your dishonesty.

            I posted a comment on Matt 25 over an hour ago and you refuse to address it. You are dishonest. You have consistently avoided my arguments and then lied about them. Now you claim they do not exist.

            Fuck you Rick. You say you are a christian but you are a lying asshole. You have claimed that you never said that insulting you is insulting Christ and then argue that Matt 25 says exactly that.

          • But have you any pitch hot?


          • Brucehenry

            Becker is a kook and a rube and a ra….err, I mean “nativist.”

          • jim_m

            Yes, some of his stuff is all that. It isn’t, however, the same lying crap that Rick’s is.

          • I’ve not attacked you Warner. I’ve attacked what you wrote. There’s a difference.

          • jim_m

            No there isn’t. And what’s more you have attacked Christ because Christ is in Warner as you have argued all night.

          • jim_m

            Why would you be in need of a savior? You just said that Christ is physically present in everyone and whatever we do to anyone else we do to Him personally.

            Your theology sucks.

    • Commander_Chico

      Is this about how important insulting people is to you?

      • Jwb10001

        Says the guy that calls people Chicken hawk at every turn.

  • jim_m

    Heretic Rick Rice claims that he is Christ and demands that we bow down before him.

    Christ does indeed dwell in his followers, many of whom are Catholic,
    most of whom you’re besmirching. I urge caution and prudence on anyone
    who would willfully and with malice besmirch Jesus Christ to His face…

    That’s right everyone. Disagree with Rick or insult him and you disagree with or insult Christ Himself.

    And he will (mis)quote the Bible to prove it too!

    Never a more arrogant fool has come to these pages. NEVER

    • jim_m

      So when I said that you were claiming that the Pope is god, I was right because you just stated that very thing.

      You really do worship the Pope as god because you just said that Christ is in everyone and you have repeatedly said that you worship Christ.

      Worse yet, you are now claiming to be god yourself.

      As I suggested before, you should probably just shut it because you are making yourself to be a fool. Perhaps going to talk to someone who actually knows something about Catholicism will help you. Or perhaps proper medication that will help you not think that you are god would be a good idea.

      • jim_m

        Note that Jesus RIck has taken the time to post multiple responses on this thread denying that he said what is quoted and linked above, yet he does not respond directly to it.

        Methinks he is being more than a little dishonest.

        • The context of what I’ve said and you’ve quoted comes from Scripture Jim, the very Scripture you continue to ignore, the Scripture found in Matt: 25:40.

          Why do you ignore that verse and the context the verse gives my words Jim?

          • jim_m

            That makes 7 comments and you still refuse to address it directly.

            You have misinterpreted scripture to claim that insulting a believer is to insult Christ. You are without any theological grounds recognized by any legitimate church on earth for the last 2000 years.

            Insulting another man is not insulting Christ.

            Pony up with something that proves me wrong other than your cultist misinterpretation of scripture.

            You are absolutely the most arrogant and most lost person I have seen here and that includes the idiot that said that we should spell everything phonetically.

          • Apparently you missed the Catechism reference Jim… which might simply be due to the commenting format or more likely, because it proves you wrong.

          • jim_m

            9 Comments without addressing it.

          • And for the nth time, you’re misrepresenting what is written.

          • jim_m

            11th comment while refusing to address YOUR words quoted directly above. They were not taken out of context. The whole statement is there.

            I have not mischaracterized them. You said that to insult a believer is to insult Christ to His face.

            You are a liar and a coward.

            I have not denied the scripture quoted I have said that you have misapplied it and that you have denied the difference between Christ and the believer. He is not the same as the believer. Believers may have Christ in them but they are not Christ.

            Your denying the difference would make you a heretic in any church over the last 2000 years.

          • Here’s my 12th comment, likely the 12th time that I’ve actually directly addressed what I said, the 12th time I continue to hold to the fact, the fact, that my words were written within the context of the verse in Matthew 25:40, the verse you continue to ignore because it makes my case.

            I’m a heretic in the Church of Jim and I proudly wear that moniker.

          • jim_m

            Yes, the 12th time.

            You said

            Christ does indeed dwell in his followers, many of whom are Catholic, most of whom you’re besmirching. I urge caution and prudence on anyone who would willfully and with malice besmirch Jesus Christ to His face…

            You said this in the context of claiming that when I insult the Pope I insult Jesus.

            This is not about denying that Christ is in the believer. I do not do that and have stated repeatedly that I accept that.

            This is about you denying that there is a difference between the essence of Christ and the essence of the believer. For me to insult Christ when I insult the believer one has to deny the existance of any difference between the two.

            You know this to be true but you are too prideful to accept that you said something wrong. Either that or your are a heretic.

            All you have to do is go above and say that you misstated yourself that insulting a believer is not insulting Christ to His face.

            Otherwise you are a heretic and a liar and a coward and I will continue to point that out on these pages for everyone to know because your claim is effectively that to disagree with you is to disagree with Christ. Because if insulting a believer is insulting Christ then necessarily disagreeing with a believer is disagreeing with Christ.

            Come one Mr Jesus. Claim that you are Jesus or admit that you screwed up. Are you an insane heretic or so prideful that you wil refuse to admit your mistake?

          • jim_m

            I don’t think I have ever met any priest so arrogant as to claim that to insult him was to insult Christ to His face. I doubt that even Francis is so arrogant as to make that claim. But you have, Jesus Rick.

            I defy you to publish a link to someone saying that it is the same(other than you).

          • 1)


            3) (from Pope Francis no less)

            4) (also from il Papa)

            5) (an excellent homily from Deacon Greg)

            I could go on.

          • jim_m

            1) Des not claim that every person is Christ incarnate as you do and refers to one alleged miracle where Francis of Assisi claims he tended to a leper who then disappeared, which he took was Christ

            2) The title of the sermon is literally “You did it for
            me” so it contradcts your claim directly.

            3) does not claim that actions taken toward another person are taken toward Jesus personally.

            4)cites Mother Teresa’s claim that when she touched touching Christ. Not dispositive of anything other than her personal feelings. While she may have felt so it is not a theological proof.

            5) Also falls short of the claim that everything we do to others is directly done to Christ

            Your problem is that you have extended this to insults and offenses.

            Tell me Jesus Rick, if I offend a muslim for believing in Christ do I offend Christ? Under what circumstances is believing in Christ an offense to Christ?

            This is a circumstance that you allow with your interpretation.

            Matt 25:40 does not say that Christ is in everyone. The passage is to state that when we help the poor and needy we are helping Him. Not that everything we do to everyone all the time we do to Him.

            If you are attacked by another man it would mean that in defending yourself you are defending yourself against Christ. The idiotic interpretations are endless.

            What a prideful ass you are for not admitting that you are wrong here.

          • If, as the Scriptures state, we do positive things to (for) others, we do positive things to (for) Christ, then it would seem logical that if we do negative things to (for) others, we do negative things to (for) Christ.

            I won’t be moving off that axiom no matter how differently you want to spin it.

            I call it an impasse.

            I’ve done what you asked, found other sermons pretty much stating what I’ve been stating as you’ve asked and no matter, Pope Jim disagrees with each of them and finds some nuance or shade of meaning that allows Pope Jim to toss out that which he disagrees with.

            Pope Jim has spoken ex-cathedra and his authority stands.

            But not with me.

            If this means I’m a prideful ass, which in fact I certainly have been and can be, so be it.

            What I think would be fantastic is for Pope Jim to explain how we’re to live out Matt 25:40, what meaning he gives to what appears to be clear so that those who are still reading (and I find it hard to believe there’d be many left) can decide for themselves if they want to kiss your ring.

            I do not.

          • jim_m

            Your statement was that if I insult you, I insult Christ to His face.

            This is not an impasse. This is a heresy. You have declared that everything we do to everyone we also do to Christ. You have denied the separation of essences between Christ and man.

            You are an arrogant ass.

            You refuse to address the internal conflicts of your position.

            You have lied that you have addressed this at all and now you run away because you cannot muster the logic to defend an indefensible position. You have evading dealing with your idiotic assertion that the Pope is Christ Himself and that YOU are too.

            I actually have stated what Matt 25 says and you have now posted 4 comments while ignoring that comment.

            You are accusing me of not addressing it when I already have and you are now refusing to confront that argument as well.

            There are few on this board who argue as poorly, as dishonestly as you.

          • You’re projecting now Jim all while continuing to misrepresent my position.

            I do nothing more ask you to go back to the Matthew passage where clearly our Lord is stating that what you do to others you do to Him.

            It’s that simple.

            You want to go off on tangents and caveats and nuances, go right ahead but I’m going to Christ’s words and it’s on His words I hang my hat.

          • jim_m

            I did so nearly an hour ago you dishonest asshole.

          • Resorting to name calling is usually a sign of desperation and defeat. I’m thinking you should call it a day and get some shut eye sir.

          • jim_m

            Liar. You have lied and lied.

            You have said that you didn’t claim that too insult you was to insult Christ and then said that Matt 25 says exactly that.

            You are a transparent liar and now you claim that I won’t address Matt 25 when I did so an hour ago.

          • jim_m

            There is a material difference between doing something to Christ and for Christ. You have said multiple times that it is “to” Christ. Now you are changing your tune because you have seen that it is unsupportable.

            You are dishonest and a fraud.

          • jim_m

            The proof of the idiocy of your position is that if everything we do to everyone we do to Christ because He is physically present with the other person, is that the reciprocal would also have to be true: Everything that anyone did to us is being done to us by Christ.

            Because you make no distinction between the creator and the created this is a necessary result. So when Catholic Priests were raping little boys you believe that Christ was raping little boys.

            As I have repeatedly said.

          • jim_m

            Matt 25:40 (NIV)

            40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

            Fist of all, this is not exclusively speaking about other believers, it is including all of mankind and since Christ is only supposed to dwell in the believer your claim that it is about believers is erroneous. Your claims fall on that point alone.

            the KJV says “Unto me”. There is a mix of “For”, “Unto” and “To” in various translations. That would seem to substantiate the understanding that it is not literally that we are doing it directly to the person of Christ because if that were the case it would negate the existence of the person we are interacting with and it would negate the difference between the created and the creator. This is your error.

            If it were true that everything we did to one another we then did to Christ directly. Your interpretation is wrongheaded and foolish. No one has ever claimed what you claim. Christ is not present in the manner you claim.

          • jim_m

            Anytime you want to admit that you are either a heretic or wrong is fine with me. Just pick one or the other.

      • If I’m acting the fool on this thread it’s more likely in my continued attempts to in some way clarify and counter your continued misrepresenting of what it is I’ve said.

        • jim_m

          What’s to clarify. You are quoted just 3 comments above this one saying that to insult ANY believer is to insult Christ Himself.

          That means that ANYTHING one does to a believer one does to Christ Himself. You have negated the existence of the individual.

          Either retract it or don’t but don’t go around lying that you never said it.

          • Again, the context of what I’ve said and you’ve quoted comes from Scripture Jim, the very Scripture you continue to ignore, the Scripture found in Matt: 25:40.

            Why do you ignore that verse and the context the verse gives my words Jim?

          • jim_m

            8 posts without addressing it.

            I have asked you for something other than your cultic interpretation of scripture. Surely if the RCC believes this you will have no problem finding some bishop to back you that insulting the pope is insulting Christ to His face

        • jim_m

          It’s a coward and a liar that refuses to respond to the quoted statement directly.

          You are both, sir.

  • JWH

    I do think the current pope is more liberal than his predecessors … and I suspect from his remarks that he would push the Catholic Church in an even more liberal direction if internal organizational politics allowed him to do so.

    As far as immigrants at the southern border, the situation is complex, to put it lightly. There are a lot of folks fleeing from some truly horrible situations, and quite a few of them probably could qualify for asylum based on their situations.

    The biggest problem right now, IMO, is twofold.

    First, the illegal immigrants have learned the correct words and phrases to get themselves considered for asylum, rather than simply sent back to their native countries. Second, the immigration bureaucracy (specifically the part that handles asylum) is just not robust enough to handle the current influx of people coming over the southern border to seek asylum.

    One side effect (and a highly unfortunate side effect, I think) is that people with more legitimate asylum claims (those fleeing political or ethnic persecution, and FGM victims from Africa) find themselves in a years-long legal limbo while the asylum bureaucracy works through the claims influx.

    • jim_m

      The net effect of the pro-illegal immigrant stance of the Pope is to distribute scarce resources to those who are willing to lie and to break the law rather than those who truly need the resources and who are willing to follow the law.

      I guess the Pope really does love the sinner. He loves them more than anyone else.

  • Relevant.

    • jim_m

      Not without a link it isn’t.

      And you have not addressed my discussion of Matt 25. Your interpretation is deeply flawed. Your citations that it means that Christ is physically in all men are erroneous and you ignore that it is about ALL men and not merely believers , which is what you have claimed. As such it is problematic to extend it to the notion that if you insult another man you insult Christ.

      You are invited to admit you are wrong, or you may continue on in pride and ignorance and explain it to Christ later (that is Christ and not Pope Francis, contrary to what you have repeatedly claimed here today they are not one and the same person)

      • Link?

        It’s an image.

        And I’ve never claimed that Christ and the Pope are the same person. Not a single time. No matter how many times you repeat this lie. Not once. I’m merely citing Scripture and applying it logically. No more. No less.

        I’ve also cited others with both Catholic and non-Catholic traditions who do the same, as you’ve asked.

        You continue to argue from a perspective I’ve not posited. And this is where the divide will remain.

        • jim_m


          Christ does indeed dwell in his followers, many of whom are Catholic, most of whom you’re besmirching. I urge caution and prudence on anyone who would willfully and with malice besmirch Jesus Christ to His face…

          You have claimed that to insult a Catholic is to insult Christ. You have claimed that to insult you is to insult Christ.

          You have shown nothing. And I have responded by demonstrating (with only one exception of the description of a personal experience) that their usage does not mean the actual physical presence of Christ as you have demanded it means.

          You have refused time and again to address my specific points in a comment that is directly attached to them. You are dishonest and are dishonestly avoiding addressing things directly.

          You have not addressed any of the inconsistencies and contradictions I have raised about your interpretation.

          You only say that I misinterpret you but offer no further explanation other than to assert that my interpretation of what you said is indeed what you said.

          • I’ve cited the Scriptures that substantiate my position. You’ve substantiated your positions with ad hominems and false charges.

            Time for some shut eye Jim before you bust a vein.

          • jim_m

            I have replied in a calm and polite discussion of Matt 25 and you have ignored it

            2 hours ago I gace that reply and you ignored it because you are a dishonest asshole.

            You are a liar. You are dishonest saying that you did not say that to insult you was to insult Christ and then arguing that Matt 25 says that it does.

            run away you fraud. You have brought shame on your faith by your dishonesty. What’s more I think you know it. I think you know that you are wrong, which is why you refuse to address the comments directly.

          • Brucehenry

            Well you’ve certainly been quite Christlike in this exchange, Jim. After all, Who Would Jesus Call An Asshole?

            Rick’s original statement, which was ON ANOTHER THREAD, and which set you off so bad, was meant as an admonishment to your rudeness and vituperation, nothing more. Your insistence that it was his main point and must be retracted even after he explained what was meant by it repeatedly is soooo typical of you.

            You stay up all night repeating the same insults over and over. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Don’t you have anything else to do, you pathetic shell of a human being?

            The fact that this Festival Of Name Calling is about the meaning of a Bible verse makes it doubly funny/sad. In any case you should take a time out, or be made to, in my opinion, until you learn some manners.

        • jim_m

          The image did not display when the comment first opened up. All the comment said was “relevant”

  • Paul Hooson

    This great religious leader is able to bring Jewish and Muslim religious leaders together in peace and friendship. We need to follow this excellent example from this great man of God…

    • Jwb10001

      And that is exactly what he should do and keep his nose out of US immigration policy.

      • Paul Hooson

        God doesn’t need representatives on Earth that call on men to behave more justly with each other?

        • jim_m

          Do you honestly think that God could not raise up whomever he wanted to serve that purpose?

          Francis is meddling in politics where he has less knowledge than obama (if that’s possible) and ultimately that will detract from his ability as a spiritual leader.

        • Jwb10001

          But again that doesn’t mean the Pope should be tangling himself up in US immigration policy. Isn’t he putting the church’s tax exempt status in danger by engaging in policy and political activity from his position as the leader of a religious organization? Mixing that Church and State thing? Good thing he’s currently preaching at liberals and not against them or he’d be looking at a pretty huge tax bill.