The Pharisee From Rome

pope francis

A man went to Rome and became a Pharisee.

The Pharisee went out to the people from time to time, so they would be able to see him. And he pointed out the sins and faults of people he didn’t like.

The Pharisee was rich, but he did not feed the poor when he visited them. But he blamed other rich men.

The Pharisee had many properties and lived in a palace with high walls, but took in no refugees when he met them. But he blamed others for what he saw as their greed.

The Pharisee wore clothing that was hand-tailored for him, all in white so everyone would see what a holy man he was. But he blamed others for not giving away what they had.

The Pharisee held no office but issued orders to those who were elected.

The Pharisee did no work, but he condemned those who enjoyed the fruit of their labor.

The Pharisee allowed his servants to sell tokens and trinkets to the poor, to increase his popularity. But he condemned the materiality of everyone else.

The Pharisee enjoyed his visits and the feeling of power and self-righteousness he got from condemning other people for their faults and weaknesses. But the Pharisee never met Christ in all his travels, for everything the Pharisee did turned away from Christ.

A Hit and a Miss for Pope Francis
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Retired military

    I am sure Rick will post soon in indignant outrage.

    I do not believe the Pope is an evil man. I merely believe that as head of a religion he should stay out of political matters.

    • Not outraged at all… Mr. Drummond has expressed an opinion, one steeped in his understanding of what went on. I disagree with it of course but DJ has every right to express that opinion.

      Something that may or may not shed light on this I excerpt from this piece at Aleteia:

      Excerpt from our October 1, 2015 interview with Cardinal Robert Sarah:

      Your Eminence, your new book is entitled ‘God or Nothing’. Why did you choose this title, and what is the heart of the message of your book?

      […] The heart of my book is this: How do we find God in what we are, in what we do, and in what we think? … But I also touch upon many issues and problems in the world today: issues and problems in the Church, issues in marriage, in the priesthood. All current issues that affect the life of the Church: mission, the Pope. . .If the Pope speaks about the economy or politics, it is not his field of expertise. He can offer his vision or opinion, but it’s not dogma. He can err. But what he says about Christ, about the Sacraments, about the faith must be considered as sure.

      If he speaks about the environment, the climate, the economy, immigrants, etc., he is working from information that may be correct, or mistaken, but [in these cases] he is speaking as Obama speaks, or another president. It doesn’t mean that what he says on the economy is dogma, something we need to follow. It’s an opinion.

      But, if what he says is illustrated and illumined by the Gospel, then we ought to regard it seriously. “God wills this; this is what the Bible says”. Or “God wills that; this is what the Gospel says”. Thus politics is illumined, the economy is illumined by the Gospel. That, too, has some surety because it is not his own thought. It is the thinking of the Bible, the mind of God.

      For me, it’s clear that the Pope cannot not speak about these issues. But when he does, he is saying what any Head of State can say without it being the Word of God. We need to distinguish.

      Distinguish away but do so prayerfully and considerately.

      • retired military

        Still waiting on you to answer those questions Rick.

        • I’ve responded, not to you liking I’m sure but I just think your questions are unanswerable because your frame of reference in asking them are flawed and your understanding of the Pope’s job, his duties, his calling if you will, is completely skewed.

          You’re entitled to your views don’t get me wrong, I just think that you’re playing gotcha games rather than seriously attempting to understand the Pope and what his role is as pontiff.

          • Retired military

            Flawed? How about totally dodging the intent of the question

            Gee lets see the questions you havent addressed.
            Lets number them so you can provide answers?
            1,. Why doesnt the Pope tell Obama that he is not a Christian with his views about abortion? (or is buiding walls worse than abortion?)

            2. Why doesnt he talk about the border fences in other countries like NK , China , and Russia where people get shot for illegally crossing the border? (he answered a question regarding Trumps statements regarding a wall)

            3.WHy does he insist on saying capitalism bad but hey that capitalist coutnry should allow in millions unchecked? (a paraphrase but darn close to his meaning)

            4 .The Vatican has a wall surrounding it and it has the strictest immigration laws in the world. Tell me Rick. What do you think would happen if 1000 refugees showed up in St Peter’s square and set up their tents and said “We are here, this is is our new home”? Would they be greated with open arms or with the Vatican guard and forcibly removed from the Vatican property?

            5. Answer me this Rick. Lets say you had a couple of 10 year old kids going to Catholic school here in the US. One day a bunch of immigratns showed up at your kids school and started campoing out on the grounds there. Comes to find out that several of the immigrants were convicted child molestors and rapists? Would you fight for their right to make your child’s schoolyard their new home?

            6. or would you be demanding that the church do something to make them leave?

            Try those.

          • Retired military

            Oh and RIck. The last person that said that my questions were flawed were Chico. Kinda hard to be a flawed question when I am asking your opinion. what’s the matter? The Pope hasnt given it to you yet?

          • Have care, Our resident pharisee is banning commenters.

          • Jim-M12345

            That’s right. Rick Rice has permanently banned my account and IP address from Wizbang.

            Apparently he feels that he must siulence anyone who red=fuses to bow down and kiss his ass and the popes.

          • Game On.

          • Not true… as usual… you were blacklisted for less than 30 minutes because you repeatedly violated my personal ban against you on my threads.

            Rodney has banned Chico, Bruce and myself from his threads and to my knowledge, none of us have attempted to repeatedly violate his ban.

            You did. Repeatedly. I made the reluctant decision to give you a timeout. You were restored in short order.

          • jim_m

            It was far more than 30 minutes. I had time for conversations with Disqus and others.

            And yes, you banned me for asking you to substantiate you accusation that RM slandered the pope.

            Apparently, you are above having to backup your bullshit.

            You made a false accusation and you are embarrassed that someone would ask you to back it up because you know that you cannot.

          • It was less than 30 minutes…

            And you’re responsible for what took place…

            You exercise some self-control on these threads and you wouldn’t be banned from my threads…

            You quit repeatedly reposting to my threads after I delete you and I wouldn’t have to take an extreme measure, as short lived as it was, to deal with you.

            You are responsible for this. You alone.

          • jim_m

            I posted perfectly reasonable comments that were not vulgar, not attacking you, even defending your god, pope francis. You deleted them anyway.

            If anything you have proved yourself to be a thin skinned child, incapable of accepting criticism, demanding that everything you say go completely unopposed.

            You are now threatening RM, one of the more mild and courteous commenters on this board. If ever there was evidence of what a rigid ideologue you are it is that you are threatening him.

            You accept no criticism of yourself, you almost never admit when you are wrong and you have made everything personal. You delete my comments not because they are out of line but because they are from me.

            I will note that you haven’t stated that you removed the ban. I doubt it was you who did it. I am certain that were it left to you it would have been permanent.

          • jim_m

            I emailed Kevin protesting the ban at 10:04. I received an email saying it had been lifted at 12:05.

            That’s 2 hours. You are proven to be a liar.

            I expect an apology for your lies. Your God demands it. You willing to imperil your immortal soul just so you can lie to me? Go right ahead.

          • jim_m

            I have time stamped texts that show it was more than an hour.

            Once more you are proven to be a liar. Your God sends liars to Hell Rick. I suggest dressing appropriately.

            By your own definition you are headed straight there. Either that or you are a fucking hypocrite.

            And it doesn’t count that I had to create a second account to get back on so I could protest your ban. When Scalia removed the ban it was much, much later than you claim.

          • I dont doubt that Scalia whitelisted later but I had already done so earlier, again, when both the blacklisting and the subsequent whitelisting takes effect may be impacted by how quickly the Disqus servers are able to process the requests.

            As God is my witness, the timing of my actions is as I’m describing them.

          • jim_m

            Your reputation for dishonestly is against you here.

            You say that you want civil discussion yet you delete posts that are just that. You threaten RM with banning and he is always civil.

            You make false accusations against RM and refuse to back them up and then ban me for demanding that you do.

            Your reputation is as a thin skinned, religious zealot and the furthest thing from a Christian that could possibly be.

            WHen I state that you bring shame upon the Catholic Church and upon Christ I am not just engaging in insults and hyperbole. I am being purely objective and factual.

          • rm, here:

            I give the Pope profs for saying a lot of the things he does and trying to do things that Catholicism teaches. That IMO doesnt excuse him being the willing pawn of those who would love to see the Catholic church destroyed and everyone who utters Amen be imprisoned or dead. I say willing because noone gets to the office of Pope without being a politician nor can they get there by being an idiot. Pope Francis is most assuredly a politician and most assuredly is not an idiot. He cant be so insulated or naive to not know that everything he says can and does cause ripples across the globe. Why he chooses to then put forth his message which in and of itself is a good one in such a way that allows the enemies of the church to use it to further their own ends.

            I find it slanderous (more technically, libelous) to make the suggestion that the Pope is aligning himself willingly with those purposed in destroying the Church. This would mean he’s an ally of Satan. If this isn’t libelous (slanderous), particularly coming from someone who calls himself a Catholic, nothing is.

            Now Jim… why don’t you produce the evidence to back up your claim that I’ve threatened to ban RM.

          • jim_m

            Should that principle be applied to you RM based on who it is you’re aligning yourself with?

            Insinuating that you feel that since RM was taking a similar tack as I that you intended to ban him for his opinions.

            And what did RM say? Why he said this to you: ” I don’t track who you have and have not banned. Just wondering when I will be joining the list.”

            Seems pretty conclusive that regardless of what you claim you meant, everyone, including RM, took it as a threat to ban him.

            Now be a man and admit that it was exactly what you did. Or continue to lie about it in the face of God. I don’t think you believe that God’s commandments apply to you.

          • Weak… so weak… and RM’s words fearing banning were fanned and fueled by your invalid, wayward, foolish and desperate claims.

            May our good Lord, to Whom I lifted you up this morning (along with myself), shine His face upon you and grant you the much needed and obvious peace you so desperately need.

          • jim_m

            Weak? I just showed that everyone believes you are an intolerant ideologue and that everyone believes you threatened him.

            Deal with it. I just won again, just like I did when I showed that you spoke like a fool claiming to be Jesus Christ. Everyone has pointed out that you misspoke. You fought for months trying to avoid having to admit so yourself. You are a prideful hypocrite and you shame the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ.

          • I offer you God’s peace and his blessings Jim.

          • They are not yours to dispense.

          • I offer them for you as well Rodney… as I did for you this morning at Holy Mass…

          • They remain what you may ask for, not what is yours to bestow (or withold).

          • Brucehenry

            I can’t decide which of you two is the more pathetic. Jesus. Him with the “I offer you peace and God’s blessings” or you with the “I just won again.” Losers, the both of ya.

          • Lifted you up as well this morning Bruce… and if offering the peace of God and His blessings to another is the sign of a loser then brand that capital L on my sizable forehead… I’ll gladly wear it.

          • jim_m

            At least I’m not a hypocrite.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL

          • jim_m

            Seriously. There is none of this pretending that I care about you or Chico or Rick. We all know that Rick’s pious pronouncements about how he prays for me and how he is concerned about my soul are BS. They are deflections and pretense. You know where I stand and I am open about it. We know where Rick stands, he just won’t admit it.

          • jim_m

            And RM’s statement does not say that Francis is aligning with the enemies of the church. He says that Francis is saying things in such a way that allows them to use his words for their own purposes.

            There is a difference between aligning with someone and allowing one’s words to be twisted.

            Only a complete fucking moron would say that this is a slander of the Pope. You are fucking fool and your worship of Francis like a god is blinding you from the reality of what people are really saying.

            Maybe you and I would have fewer problems if you actually could read English with anything resembling comprehension.

          • His use of the word willing is damning here jim… you can choose to ignore that as is your filtered and incredibly small-minded wont.

            May our good Lord, to Whom I lifted you up this morning (along with myself), shine His face upon you and grant you the much needed and obvious peace you so desperately need.

          • jim_m

            The only god you pray to is Francis. I don’t believe in him. You can stop praying to false gods on my behalf.

            The language suggests only that he fails to guard his words properly. You shoudl be aware of what that means, you who claimed that insulting you was the same as insulting “Jesus Christ to His face”.

            Someone who is so incompetent at expressing himself should show others immense amounts of grace in that regard.

            But you are an intolerant ideologue worshiping a false god, no such grace exists inside you.

          • I offer you God’s peace and His blessings Jim.

          • jim_m

            Nope. You offer me the pope’s. Francis isn’t God. I see no evidence you worship anyone else but Francis.

          • Nevertheless, my offering, sincere and genuine, remains.

          • jim_m

            Now was actually trying to defend your accusations really all that hard?

            If that was too intellectually pressing for you, you shouldn’t be here. I sincerely believe it was.

          • jim_m

            I was banned around 10PM CT. I did not get a notification that it had been lifted until 12:05AM CT.

            That’s two hours for people who aren’t lying assholes like you Rick.

          • It might take a couple of hours for the servers to act on the whitelisting and that’s not my problem…

            You were blacklisted at approximately 10 EST give or take a few minutes and you were white listed before I went lights out just before 10:30 EST.

            And again, this action was taken as a result of your repeated attempts to circumvent, within a very short time, my ban of you (and you alone) on my threads.

          • jim_m

            You lied. Period. You doubled down on that lie. Now you claim it isn’t your fault.

            You delete my comments not because they are offensive, but because they are form me. It is proof that you are not a Christian. You are as Hell bound as anyone else on this planet.

          • jim_m

            Really? Somehow you expect everyone to believe that banning me is instantly effective but whitelisting me takes hours to propagate through the servers?

            You really are amazing in your dishonesty.

          • I banned you around 10 PM EST… you wrote yourself you couldn’t get in around 10 PM CST…

            Get your calculator out to help with the math or phone a friend.

          • jim_m

            OK, so since I could not get in at midnight you are now claiming that you banned me for 3 hours.

            Either that or you banned me, it never took effect as far as you or anyone else could tell, and then you unbanned me.

            This makes no sense because :
            1) you would have stated that up front had it been true.
            2) Scalia would have found it unnecessary to unban me at midnight.

            1st rule of holes Ricky. You should stop digging. You should also restore my ability to vote on comments.

          • Jim-M

            It’s been over 15 hours and I am still unable to vote on comments.

            Waiting for you to correct that. Your job isn’t done until you have restored ALL the access you took away.

          • Look in the mirror sir… take your anger to him who stares back blankly… you alone are responsible for anything that has occurred here… or in the future.

          • Matthew 7:5 pertains.

          • Jim-M

            If you thought I was an asshole before Ricky. You ain’t seen nothin yet. You better work you r ass off to get me unbanned

          • Scalia

            Jim, I’ve whitelisted your old account. You should be good to go now.

            Rick, I AM ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO BANNING JIM FROM OUR BOARDS AND WILL RESTORE HIS PRIVILEGES EVERY TIME HE IS BANNED.

          • Brucehenry

            Jim is indeed a huge asshole but shouldn’t be banned.

            On the other hand, look at his above comment “If you thought I was an asshole before Ricky.” I understand Rick’s temptation. Geez what a butthead.

            Rick is too prone to butthurt. Jim has been commenting here for years, and Rick knew what an asshole he was before his return, as a super-Catholic, to these boards. If he can’t take the heat he should stay out of the kitchen.

          • jim_m

            Yes, I can be a jerk. But I have stated that I would be civil on Rick’s threads and have been so, right up to the point that Ricky decided to delete my civil posts simply because they were form me.

            I will note that Rick is even offended by RM. Please. RM is not offensive by any measure. Rick threatens to ban RM because RM is persistent in requesting an answer to pertinent questions.

            Rick wants to post his material here and never be questioned, never be contradicted.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, that is why he is wrong to try to ban you.

            But you excuse your own behavior too glibly, in my opinion. In any event, it is in the Wizbang tradition NOT to ban people unless their behavior was so egregious it was warranted. Jay Tea used to do it too often, I always thought.

            I think your behavior was borderline. You were pesky and mosquito-like and said outrageous, offensive things. Every few threads you would vow you’d be civil going forward, but it never lasted. Even now you are warning that Rick “ain’t seen nothing yet.”

            On the other hand a writer less insecure and prone to butthurt than Rick would have let some of this stuff go, like water off a duck’s back. Unfortunately he always chooses to take (pretends to take?) personal offense, despite your long history of assholishness to EVERYONE.

          • jim_m

            The “Ain’t seen nothing yet” was borne out of exasperation. I won’t be doing anything beyond my normal.

          • jim_m

            And I have been making an attempt to be reasonable on Ricky’s threads. But he will not accept that. He claims his deletions are for cause and that is a lie. They start purely as petty, vindictive expressions of his hate toward me, deleting reasonable comments.

            If he would admit that I would be fine. He can hate me all he wants. Just don’t lie about it.

          • Scalia

            I am weary of these deletions by Rodney & Rick. There’s little I can do, but I won’t stand for banning anybody unless in the most extreme of circumstances.

          • Don’t believe I’ve deleted aught in the last week or so, even left the spam on the Pharisee’s posts for him to handle.

          • jim_m

            I would upvote that but Rick has not restored that ability to me.

          • Scalia

            I don’t think Rick is able to do that. The only moderator who has absolute privileges is Kevin (at least, I’ve not been able to tweak how Disqus restores voting).

          • jim_m

            Whatever the outcome, I notice that I am unable to vote on any messages. As soon as I reload the page they disappear.

          • Scalia

            I don’t know why you can’t vote. I’ve researched it but haven’t found anything so far. I know Kevin is opposed to banning you, so you shouldn’t have an issue with your account going forward.

          • jim_m

            It is what it is. I can vote from my new account but not from my old

          • Scalia

            I’ll contact Kevin about it. I can easily restore your commenting privileges, but I’m baffled why you can’t vote. Did you try clearing your browser and restarting it?

          • jim_m

            Yeah, doesn’t help.

          • Scalia

            Kevin’s looking into it now.

          • jim_m

            Thanks

          • Jim-M

            Seems to be tied to my IP address. Cannot vote from new account when I log in from the old account’s IP address.

          • I consider Jim’s behavior, on the night of his 30 minute time-out, to be extreme… he continued repeatedly, in violation of my personal ban of his comments on my thread, to attempt to post time and again over a very short period yet another of his twisted and clearly false accusations. After deleting his comments multiple times, I took what recourse I had available at the time to enforce that personal ban. I then reinstated him after what I figured to be a decent cooling off period (approximately 30 minutes, give or take).

            I have no qualms whatsoever for what I was forced to do. Keep in mind that most blogs have a comment policy that Jim breaks far more frequently than most. He would be considered a troll and dealt with elsewhere. Why his vituperativeness, his obscenities, his temper tantrums have been tolerated here is beyond me but I’m of the belief that this tolerance, this laissez faire attitude, feeds and encourages his behavior. Decency requires boundaries. Indecency does not. It’s past time in my view to encourage some semblance of decency on these threads. Repeatedly telling people to get fu*ked, calling them pansies, pussies, etc and discussing the sex lives of their spouses goes beyond the pale.

            I’ll take the barbs and arrows that will come my way for opining on this, such is the nature of the beast in this culture, but decency should be upheld by example certainly (and I’ve failed at times over the ages, trust me) but also by rule.

          • You’ve done a lovely job of describing chica-puta and brucehemorrhoid and their behaviors…

          • Not on my threads… unless I’m missing them… and I’ll tell you that once a thread gets past a certain number of comments, it’s easy to lose track of them so I can understand that some of these comments slip past the moderators… but to my knowledge, neither Chico nor Bruce have personally attacked yours truly with the level of vituperativeness displayed by your bosom buddy Jimbo. Bruce called me a loser the other day but hey, in many respects and/or circumstances, that label fits… not a biggie… not reason for me to lower the hammer. Jim, quite the different story.

          • Scalia

            I think you take things way too personally. It’s your call what you allow on your threads, but I’ll not stand for banning Jim.

          • Banning Jim outright… of course not… giving timeouts when Jim leaves me no other recourse? Talk to Jim. He controls his destiny.

  • yetanotherjohn

    Heh

  • Charles Harkins

    As Rick says, DJ is entitled to his opinion. My opinion is that he has jumped the shark!

    • DJD60_TX

      Do I look like Fonzi to you, Charles? (DJ)

      • Scalia

        I remember that episode. The leather jacket looked goofy out on the water, but that was Fonzi.

        • jim_m

          test

          [edit] Yes it works. Thank you for your help.

        • jim_m

          rebanned?

  • DJ’s post has one flaw. It includes a photo of Pope Francis instead of a photo of Pope Benedict XVI. The latter fits DJ’s description, not the former. Whereas Benedict XVI enjoyed the luxuries of the Papacy, Francis rejected them.

    • Retired military

      I give the Pope profs for saying a lot of the things he does and trying to do things that Catholicism teaches. That IMO doesnt excuse him being the willing pawn of those who would love to see the Catholic chruch destroyed and everyone who utters Amen be imprisoned or dead. I say willing because noone gets to the office of Pope without being a politician nor can they get there by being an idiot. Pope Francis is most assuredly a politician and most assuredly is not an idiot. He cant be so insulated or naive to not know that everything he says can and does cause ripples across the globe. Why he chooses to then put forth his message which in and of itself is a good one in such a way that allows the enemies of the church to use it to further their own ends.

      • Jim-M12345

        I would be careful RM. Rick has banned me from all of Wizbang. It’s a matter of time before he does so to you as well.

    • Paul Hooson

      Overall Pope Francis is a far better man than Pope Benedict, and far better public relations for the Catholic Church than not.

      • Retired military

        I give the general message a A+. The delivery a D

        • jim_m

          For who? Benedict or Francis?

    • jim_m

      Not being a Francophile (if you will) I am not aware one way or another if Francis has eschewed the luxuries available to him as Pope. Denouncing such things is quite different than renouncing them and not partaking. Has he actually done the latter?

  • Paul Hooson

    In Jewish history, it was actually the Sadducees who were elitists, and companions of the ruling classes, and supportive of the Hellenization of the Jewish faith. besides often rejecting the prophets. By, contrast, the Pharisees were the roots of modern Rabbinic Judaism, where Jesus and other Jewish prophets had friends among these learned keepers of the Jewish faith. It is too easy, but not historically or factually accurate to paint all Pharisees with some brush. At the time of Jesus, perhaps 6,000 of these learned keepers of the Jewish faith existed, most of which were religious and holy men, most concerned about belief and trust in God and the Torah than anything. Most rank and file Jews could put their trust in the Pharisees than the elitist Sadducees, who too often were too friendly to the enemies of the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans. The Jewish tradition of Rabbi grew from the Pharisees.