Why doesn't the Catholic Church have more Veeky Forums-core members of the clergy like Bishop Robert Barron?

Tried to talk to a Jesuit about The Last Temptation of Christ. He said it was blasphemy and the conversation was done.

Amazing!

Reading a wide range of literature and wanting to learn things is something someone high in openness would do, and religiosity is negatively correlated with openness.

Protestantism is shit tier
Catholicism is normie tier
Orthodoxy is fedora unless ur a real Greek/Syriac/Slav
Is Shia Islam the 'next big thing'? It's got nice aesthetics, huge LARP potential.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican's_list_of_films

>The Last Temptation of Christ

There is already an entire subreddit for islamic larping on cripplechan.

>Religion

No, Christianity invented religious tolerance. You have to realise that the days when you could spew out this Hot Topic shit are over, everyone knows it's Christianity or Islam, White Civilization or Death.

Huh, you're right, out of the 420,000 Catholic priests in the world this YouTuber is the only one who reads literary fiction. It's gotta be the Dark Ages gap. It's all Christianity's fault that we are 1000 years behind what we should be.

>Christianity invented religious tolerance.

The Roman Empire was tolerant of all faiths until Christianity became the state religion, and this was before Islam existed.

>The Roman Empire was tolerant of all faiths
Even Veeky Forums isn't this retarded.

No it wasn't. RIGHT NOW, you must choose to be white with no treachery or liberal bullshit, or else a fucked-with carcass under Islamic law.

church is morally bankrupt and soft now

any member of the clergy needs to read quite a lot of literature and philosophy, for some reason even more than literature or philosophy students
it is not understatement to say that clergies are in a position to teach philosophy to most philosophy professors

It's interesting that Veeky Forums criticizes some of the most common misconception of the laymen on philosophy and literature, yet goes along with the misconceptions about religion and members of the clergy

The Reich and the Caliphate are pretty much the same, except in the later you get up to 4 free loli brides. Caliphate's better, no question

>He said it was blasphemy and the conversation was done.

Jesuits have a long and storied history of being memepeople who don't know how to talk to their fellow man.

I think the greatness of doctrine is that it works pretty well with human free will (which includes free thought—in the personal and not the political sense).

Compare it to a poem with a form—the form is, paradoxically, not the limit against which the poet strains, but the limit that produces thoughts from within the poet, and gives life and energy to his intellect. It is the form which impregnates the intellect and gives birth to thought and beauty. Dogma is such a form, setting good bounds on thought, within which bounds the intellect may exercise itself more recklessly, with the result that it is a catalyst rather than a burden on intellectual activity.

Why more clergymen aren't Veeky Forums-core, I don't know. It may be a combination of reasons. One may as well ask why most teachers or most garbagemen aren't Veeky Forums-core. I think a great many of them do read, and even read a lot—but they might be reading things that aren't fashionable right now, just as they serve a faith that isn't fashionable right now.

He was right, though. Startlingly, unusually, inflexibly right. You asked him about a blasphemous movie, he said it was a blasphemy. What did you expect? Religion isn't a hobby

I'm not a /pol/ guy, so I don't really agree with this, but as a Catholic I do have to say that the inexplicable power of the church that I fell in love with when I was a young man seems gone. I don't know if I just got older or if Vatican II and Pope Feel the Bern have gutted the Church of its Order, but I just struggle so hard to care anymore.

I think it's because you're old

church doctrine is still good

You realize the flexibility of Catholicism is ridiculous, right? the catechism is the only semi-authoritative text outside of the gospels and even there there's a lot of room for disagreement (it is not infallible).

you don't need to be /pol/ to dislike the church pandering to secular progressive ideology to be honest

>What did you expect?

Temperance. Diplomacy. Basic human warmth.

You're a memeperson too if you seriously think this is an advisable way to move through life.

Jesuits are known for being cunts.

I'm sorry but you just don't understand Christianity

I'm stunned that someone this retarded is able to operate a computer and post on lit.

>Thinking free thought exists
Also, there's a tremendous amount of theological diversity in the Catholic Church. Catholics agree on the basics, but have animated disagreements about free will, grace, and even the specifics of man's natural end, just to name a few off the top of my head.

I feel like I'm too old to lose my faith.

Ah, yes. The same old line. I suppose you feel yourself absolved of sharing in the very same egotistical caprices of the human condition that your fellow man does in daily life. If you act in a lousy way you can just blame any distaste toward your behaviour on a lack of understanding on their part. Brilliant!

As I said: You are a memeperson.

Am I the Jesuit you met? Because otherwise I don't see how you could presume to know how I act

The truth is that I'm a coward, and I'd probably have said, "Oh, you know, it's blasphemous, but..."

I'm not defending my own practices, I'm defending those of someone else who it's too easy for stupid fucks like you to criticize without understanding

>Because otherwise I don't see how you could presume to know how I act

I thought we were playing the presumption game now? You just set the board and got the pieces ready with that last post of yours.

>The truth is that I'm a coward

Fuck off with the flagellation routine, mate. We all have issues that we are dealing with.

>I'm defending those of someone else who it's too easy for stupid fucks like you to criticize without understanding

And I am attacking ego-addled fucks in denial like you who like to have their cake and eat it too. Proselytize all you want but part of you refuses to accept how much basic human ego is involved here. Meanwhile I accept it readily on my part. Raise the banners and sound the clarion calls of faith. Blast those trumpets real hard, like. You are just a man on Veeky Forums playing ego games with another man on Veeky Forums right now. You are bullshit, mate.

Jesuits don't go through life by parting their cheeks for neoliberal consumerist moral dereliction. Why the fuck would you need 'diplomacy' about a consumer product? How do you think truth-telling is in any way 'cold'? Would you like to deal with someone who only thinks the truth is temperately important?

It doesn't matter what you said, what you meant was 'I deserve Islamic State.'

>Jesuits don't go through life by parting their cheeks for neoliberal consumerist moral dereliction.

And what if that Jesuit has been talking to an Indonesian man who was a convert and was looking for good religious films to try? A man who has no understanding of anything neoliberal and otherwise had lived a quiet life outside of the West with no understanding of these political issues?

I am so tired of burgerburgers going out of their way to bastardise every topic into yet another liberal vs. conservative match. Literally go to /pol/. They love that shit.

Not only part but the whole of me refuses and will continue to refuse to admit that any "basic human ego" is involved here, because I still know that I am not like the person you criticized. Why you won't accept my testimony on that point, I don't know. Have you never defended anyone else without a selfish motive? Can you not conceive it?

You ask him to do what I would do: to express "temperance", "diplomacy", "human warmth". By all of which you mean, not condemning something which his faith urges him to condemn. You ask him to loosen up a little, relax, it's not such a big deal. Such was the attitude of the pagans to the Christians, and such an attitude will always be an enemy of Christianity, and the hard and uncongenial attitude of the Jesuit is absolutely the right attitude to have about hideous and disgusting blasphemies.

He has the faith to be so rigid with another person, face-to-face. I can only be so anonymously, on the internet, to somebody that has already shown himself to be an asshole.

Then the Indonesian man now knows better, and if he's a convert he knows how to accept correction. You are a whiner who should have been told 'no' more often as a child.

>burgerburgers
Fuck off, I'm Canadian, and I vote liberal

He's completely right stop defending autistic Jesuits they're literally NWO enablers

>I'm Canadian, and I vote liberal

You're assisting in destroying your beautiful country, you know that, right?

Stop being a failed human being, it's not too late.

JW is where it's at for hallucinogenic bullshit

>Not only part but the whole of me refuses and will continue to refuse to admit that any "basic human ego" is involved here

Of course not: you can't have your cake too if you eat it.

The truth is that you enjoy these little caprices. These little moment where you can sharper your sophistry. You enjoy the game of it.

So do I. The only difference is I can look at this for what it is and you will go out of your way to avoid ever seeing it. You'll be in another thread in time doing the same old shit and lying to yourself about what it is that you are doing.

>to somebody that has already shown himself to be an asshole

I'm not an asshole, mate. In fact I'm a very kind and agreeable guy. I just wish you'd cop to your shit here. That's all.

>Tried to talk to a Jesuit
stopped reading right there

>You're assisting in destroying your beautiful countr
I said liberal, not Liberal. I assumed nobody outside of Canada would understand what I meant by NDP

I actually hate every single party on offer so I don't know why I vote at all

What constitutes failure?

Stop being a triggered memeperson.

Put the identity politics down, son.

>I'm not an asshole, mate. In fact I'm a very kind and agreeable guy.
You've given me no reason to believe it—though I do admit that you are "agreeable", insomuch as that means spineless, as you'd like everyone to be—

>I just wish you'd cop to your shit here.
If you think this is just a pissing contest between two egos, I won't "cop to" that, and I won't go on. You can win, have the last word, show all the world my dirty laundry (straight from your fancy), if that's what you want. You cannot conceive that anything else is at stake? Then I won't bother

>If you think this is just a pissing contest between two egos, I won't "cop to" that, and I won't go on.

Because you've invested too much of your identity and self-hood into being someone who'd never do that and doesn't understand that. This is your narrative. Like a lot of the militants on the right an the left of politics right now. They do the same thing. They invest their identities into their respective narratives. If you (or they) were to concede for even a second that you might be wrong the whole thing would come crashing the fuck down. So you cling onto this because your very self-hood is at stake. You are holding yourself to an impossible standard that is seemingly impossible because you are literally breaking it right now.

You will be playing the sophistry game in another thread soon. Maybe not today. But soon. Don't be too hard on yourself when you realise that I am right and you enjoy the base thrill of fucking around and talking shit on Veeky Forums just like everyone else. It isn't as big of an issue of you think it is. Just ease up on the proselytizing and be kinder to people and easier on yourself, because I'm telling you right now mate you don't hold the cachet that you think you do in this arena. Neither do I.

Emphasis on the bullshit. They're a theologically bankrupt cult that holds to modern day Arianism and has some weird objection to blood transfusions.

>no counterarguments

I hold an AS in history. Enjoy being BTFO this much?

You're criticising the man appointed by the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Think about that.

Clergymen are some of the most educated people on the planet.
The opposite is true
An Indonesian man probably wouldn't have his English up to stuff for any English movie.

Indonesia is neo-liberal.
You want somebody to abandon their principles to appease you, you're an asshole.
Do what I do, decline your vote each and every year.
The Roman Empire slaughtered Christians, held them as slaves (sexual and otherwise), and often crucified them.

You know, like what they did to Christ and St. Peter.
You clearly do not, since you are ignoring several massive examples that blatantly show otherwise.

You also forget Rome converting other pagans. Why the hell would Christianity, a religion based on faith and very big on doing what is right even if it hurts or seems wrong or hurts others, tolerate non-Christians?

Christians were a fifth column. They had it coming.

No, they were basically non-existent in power before they became the state religion of the Empire.

>You want somebody to abandon their principles to appease you, you're an asshole.

I want them to be bloody honest with themselves about what it is that they are doing on Veeky Forums and why they keep coming back to Veeky Forums to do it.

The only asshole here is you:
>An Indonesian man probably wouldn't have his English up to stuff for any English movie.

How the fuck could you begin to presuppose how much English this random hypothetical Indonesian man could speak? Anything to get it back to the same old us vs. them politics rambling, right? You're as bad the militant leftists you asshole.

Are you saying an Indonesian man that you claim has no experience with neo-liberalism (which means he just came off the boat) could understand dialogue? It's one thing to be able to read and write, and be able to have a simple conversation; it's another to be able to follow dialogue.

Native speakers still have problems with dialogue just because of dialects getting in the way, how would a freshly-migrated ESL be able to?

Why are you putting words in my mouth, you do realize there are more than two people on Veeky Forums right?

Your faith is based on a lie.

>neo-liberalism

What do you mean when you use this term?

The mental gymnastics that you will leap through just to keep this non-existent person within the purview of your political annoyances is really astounding.

I don't know, I didn't mention it in the first place.

If Indonesia doesn't have it and America does, then if he is unexposed and living in America, he must have immigrated very recently.

So, his experience with English is extremely limited
Stop putting words in my mouth.

he has the same copy of shakespeares works as my granpops

Jesus was a charlatan. Judaism is the truth.

>facts and free thought don't blend, sonny

>Jesuits
>like Pope Francis
>like the dumbasses who ruined the July Monarchy

what did you expect

He's still a man who can do wrong. I suppose we can't criticise Pope John XII either? Or Pope Boniface VIII, who Dante placed in the Inferno?

God doesn't make mistakes.

God also doesn't micromanage humans and prevent them from acting sinfully.

That's because he doesn't exist.

So did you ask him an actual question about it or did you just go "so what did you think of this movie which portrays Jesus in a way that is completely at odds with how Church teachings?"

This is bait, right? You don't actually think an associate's degree gives you any credibility, do you? I mean I have an associate's degree in history and I got that shit in my sleep.

I've known a number of bishops, all of whom are very well educated. Barron is just a very public figure.

Pope John XII did a great job

Appointed, not necessarily chosen.

A religion denies all infallibility.

More at 11:00.

Disconnected from reality? Sounds about right.

>Religion is dogma. No discussion.

Yes. We know.

This was before the internet and trolling, dear.

It's a book, by the way. Notice the Veeky Forums at the top of the page.

I did learn an important lesson, that practitioners of a religion generally choose dictation over discussion. That was disappointing for me because I miss having the type of intimacy that comes from honest discussion.

He missed an opportunity to educate someone. He was an emeritus law professor, in fact. But, he was really, really retired and just wanted to hang. He was supposed to be a positive male role model for me so I was disappointed because I anticipated some really neat education.

He did help me scrub the whiteheads off my back, though. I had a serious case of backne.

That's not true. The Catholic doctrine is nothing like protestantism.

Wait, so he was an old guy who wasn't even working anymore? Sounds like you guys knew each other pretty well too, so that kind of manner of speaking was probably tailored to you.

The only Catholic dogma is that the gospels are true. From there, everything else is up for discussion.

No, I was new to him. Your psychic suppositions are failing. My father was educated by him and became a legal aid lawyer. I learned more about him through that interaction. Disappointments can be an opportunity for learning experiences, anyway.

That's a nice idea, but not everyone experiences that kind of openness--and the blame can't always be placed upon the questioner.

Not 'psychic suppositions' user, just an assumption based on you describing him as meant to be a "positive male role model" and that he... scrubbed whiteheads off your back. Makes him sound like your uncle or family friend or something.

There are so many reasons he could have spoken to you that way, maybe he was busy helping your dad or some shit. Maybe he was bored and tired. Not only do you extrapolate ONE comment to this guy's entire personality (and he seems friendly enough to do something like help you with your back), but also to an entire religion.

Keeping the faith, and making sure the core dogma is always adhered to must take precedence. Even if it's just a 51%/49% split.

I understand you want to protect him.

I respect that, but engaging with you is less interesting than engaging with him.

the Catholicfags still haven't realized that Allah is the one true God, so it makes sense that they would be stuck in the past

>inb4 hi omar xDDD

read the Quran and you'll see that Islam does not advocate violence at all

praise Allah

Thank you for the (you)'s, however I sincerely regret that post, and wish to say that my involvement in this thread should no longer be seen as applicable. I just want to post this confirmation before my flight to Islamabad that is due in two hours.

Thanks again.

That's not so. There are more extra biblical dogmas, like the immaculate conception of Mary, papal infallibility and so on.
Gospels being true is the starting point, true, but it's far from being the only one.

have a good flight friend

Sure it doesn't, Ahmed.