StJohnOfPatmos
16d ago
I severely doubt any Popes in any historical Era would have approved of "extinguishing an entire civilisation", since it would condemn dozens of millions of souls to Hell or purgatory without having had a chance of conversion.
StJohnOfPatmos
16d ago
This argument was already dumb propaganda back when it first emerged - historically, no one is more on bad terms with a Pope and tassels with him more predictably than a Catholic Monarch. The Pope is not Jesus Christ and papal infallibility is an extremely narrow domain with few actual applications. The entire institution of Gallicanism in France should be enough to prove that a Catholic head of State has enormous leeway in dealing with Papal authority.
StJohnOfPatmos
16d ago
then there is absolutely no reason that "Eternal Rome" can't be located in Dillwyn Virginia.
Aside from basic decency and taste, perhaps.
StJohnOfPatmos
16d ago
This is a serious insult to an entire country over a political dispute involving a transient administration
The Pope has no allegiance to any specific country, since he's...the Pope. Why the fuck should he be present or make a formal appearance for America's birthday party? Do you understand what the Papacy is? I'm unsure, since you're literally expecting the Pope to express a national preference. Do you think Pope Benedict was hanging out in the German Reichstag to celebrate the anniversary of Reunification?
I'm assuming this is news to you, but Lampedusa is an infamous island since it's been a major receptacle for illegal migrant boat crossings long before the 2015 Refugee Crisis began. It was constantly in the news here in Europe for not having the logistical ability to properly house and feed the throngs of migrants arriving there. The word "Lampedusa" used to act as a byword for illegal immigration into Europe and still is an emblem of the migrant crisis, especially in Italy - leftists and the Papacy see it as an example of unjust human suffering and indignity, while right-wingers see it as a cautionary tale of mass migration. For you to call it a "completely irrelevant island" immediately classifies you as lacking the basic insight to have much of a meaningful opinion on this matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampedusa_immigrant_reception_center
You heard that the Pope would be in Lampedusa and actually, sincerely thought he was doing so because the last three letters of the island's name spell out "usa"? This is something you actually think is true? Are you ok?
I actually agree - as a Catholic - that the Pope's knee-jerk defence of any and all immigration is wrong, misguided, and ultimately a very narrow reading of Christian doctrine on the matter. But this kind of completely braindead reasoning does us no favours.
StJohnOfPatmos
16d ago
They would likely be the first ones to confirm the story and so far, their stance is ‘thé meeting happened but nothing of note took place- no threats of Avignon’.
Without this, there essentially is no story - so the article OP posted appears to be a fabrication, which is unsurprising.
StJohnOfPatmos
16d ago
This doesn't confirm it as real, but that it wasn't immediately denied and dismissed like the typical M.O. is quite interesting.
It actually makes it exponentially more likely that it's fake in my view: if it actually happened and the administration knew, they would obviously just deny it. The fact that it seems to have caught the White House off guard, i.e. Vance not having heard of it previous to the story breaking, makes it more likely to be a fabrication since they didn't have a planned response for it.
The very interaction recounted in the article is somewhat hard to believe - why was this meeting necessary? The Pentagon wants to apply pressure on the Vatican to do what, exactly? Publicly proclaim they're abandoning the basic anti-war messaging they've held on to consistently for a century and will now be picking sides in armed conflicts? Really?
The Pentagon was issuing explicit threats of military violence against the Vatican, which is a tiny complex of buildings and gardens located inside Italy's capital, and was referencing the Avignon Papacy in doing so? Really?
This current administration is excellent at lastingly damaging relations with allies for little gain, but the idea that they would suggest using military force against a peaceful, greying religious order that both enjoys excellent standing amongst world leaders all while really not having any meaningful practical influence on world affairs seems laughable. I seriously doubt anyone in the Pentagon gives a fuck about what the Vatican says against their military operations, since they never gave a fuck in the past, nor ever felt a negative consequence coming from the Vatican for having done so.
This could help explain why Pope Leo has felt so emboldened to speak up against Trump's war efforts in Iran
Pope Leo has said the exact same things every Pope in recent history has said about non-defensive wars waged without a meaningful cassus belli - that they condemn them wholesale, call for ceasefires and diplomacy, and remind everyone that being a Christian means acting from love and forgiveness. Virtually nothing Pope Leo has said or done represents a shift or sharpening of that basic Church doctrine.
John Paul the IInd, essentially a proactive right-wing culture warrior Pope, immediately condemned the Iraq War and called it a crime. This is not special or particular, it's a basic requirement of being the Head of Christendom.
I have absolutely no idea why you think the size of the local population has any bearing on the importance of Lampedusa when the island itself is considered a symbol of the Refugee/Migrant Crisis - which is of course a highly relevant issue for the West and the Third World. Furthermore, if big numbers are what determines relevancy to you in a symbolic gesture, consider that since 2023 alone, over 120.000 migrants have passed through Lampedusa on their way to Europe - it's literally the biggest migrant reception camp in Italy, a nation at the forefront of illegal migrant arrivals. As an individual migrant center, its quite literally the most relevant in Europe after Moria in Greece.
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/62189/italy-more-than-120000-migrants-passed-through-lampedusa-since-2023#:~:text=From%20June%201%2C%202023%20until,Cross%2C%20who%20manage%20the%20center.
So is it an irrelevant island, or a springboard for the total destruction of Europe? It can't be both.
I agree with you that this immigration is bad and stopping it is an existential priority, but this kind of incoherence is pointless - either we are talking about the Papacy's stance on immigration, in which case we're probably on the same side, or we're talking about the implications of the Pope not attending America's 250th anniversary, but you can't just jump back and forth between two separate conversations.
You literally said "we get the pun, Leo" - the only way to interpret this is that you mean the "pun" is Lampedusa including the letters "usa" in its spelling. I think sincerely believing that the Pope chose this location based on this "pun" is ridiculous and unserious, since once again, Lampedusa is infamous and has been a byword for mass migration since over 20 years.
Considering that the last time a Pope visited my hometown Vienna - a historic centre of Catholic Power and the symbolic seat of Christendom's victories against the islamic Turkish invasions - was 19 years ago, I don't consider 13 years long or rare by any means.
I still don't understand why you expect the Pope to appear at a state event commemorating a national independence day. Your entire argument hinges on Pope Leo slighting Trump by not attending - when Popes just simply do not do that in the modern age. John Paul the IInd was a proactive right-wing Pope, but even his role in world politics was organised under very clear theological lines: Communist states oppressed the Church and Christians as a matter of state policy, so obviously he was completely within reason to speak out against them as the Spiritual Leader of said Christians. Pope Leo being critical of Trumps immigration policy is easily defendable by Christian doctrine, even if I could maybe come up with better counter-arguments.
More options
Context Copy link