Posted on 12/03/2007 8:37:11 PM PST by Alex Murphy
While some ignorant Catholics may have believed in this legend, it has never been accepted by the Church or by educated Catholics. Scholars certainly don't accept it. The fact that some novelist wants to make money off of it only means that there are still people today who are ignorant enough to believe such nonsense.
I see that the quality of your topics has remained consistent. :)
Same hate-mongering, different century. I see no reason why it isn't.
I suspect this entire posting is in response to the thread from yesterday. (Link to a relevant post I made on the thread.)
I gree that it should be banned. It’s right up there with 1918 KKK tracts ending with the college of Cardinals murdering the Joan woman when she gave birth during a Papal procession.
Maybe - I see your point about it being Anti-Catholic, as USN&WR is usually anti-Christian, but it’s not exactly in the same league as Jack Chick. It’s a legitimate mainstream news magazine, whether you like it or not.
I agree...I’m talking here specifically of the Pope Joan nonsense.
Have you gone insane? What is that picture?
Apparently I'm not here enough anymore. What is that?
Indeed. But all five that you cite are in response to then-ongoing discussions on television about this issue (a Jeopardy question and a Diane Sawyer TV program), and all of them have as their object the direct rebuttal of the myth of Pope Joan. It is for those reasons that all of these threads were posted by Catholics. Are you implying that those Catholic posters were trivially “perpetuating” this issue on FR? I would say that they were merely refuting it.
Does your posting of a 7 year-old article have the same aim of refuting a currently ongoing discussion in the MSM? If not, then why bring it up afresh now? Since the massively overwhelming opinion of historians is that the story is bogus and leads to nothing good, one can only wonder what prompts this article’s presence here. While the article does, in fact, get around to citing the usual denials of authenticity for the legend, its first third is murky enough to plant a seed of doubt on the scholars’ findings. Is that, in fact, the goal of of posting such sensationalist nonsense now?
How can it be maligning your church when the history has been written by people of your church???
Besides, isn't there a history of some of your popes as being homosexual??? And some that fathered children???
I'd much rather admit to a female pope than a homosexual pope...But that's just me...
What is Jack Chick? I don’t want to step on any toes, but I have never heard of him.
Is this a different Catholic thread list than the one NYer has??
Thank you
A rather insane cartoonist who spreads vicious lies about Catholicism: the Holy Eucharist is some kind of “death cookie,” thinks like that.
Just in time for Christmas we have US Snews and World Distort bashing Catholics over the head with fairy tales.
Why would you "admit" to a falsehood?
That's just stupid.
Wikipedia has what seems to be a fair (and also pretty respectful) biography of him.
Does your posting of a 7 year-old article have the same aim of refuting a currently ongoing discussion in the MSM? If not, then why bring it up afresh now? Since the massively overwhelming opinion of historians is that the story is bogus and leads to nothing good, one can only wonder what prompts this article’s presence here. While the article does, in fact, get around to citing the usual denials of authenticity for the legend, its first third is murky enough to plant a seed of doubt on the scholars’ findings. Is that, in fact, the goal of of posting such sensationalist nonsense now?
This whole paragraph is just a backhanded way of attributing motives to a poster by questioning the motives of the poster.
"Attributing motives to another poster or otherwise reading his mind is “making it personal.""
Everything we write says a little about who we are, I believe.
When one frequents a forum such as this on a daily basis and reads multiple postings by the same author per day, I'd contend that it is impossible not to a) get to know the poster's personality and b) develop an understanding of his/her motives. Unless of course, one has no critical faculties nor intelligence. It's not judgment. One simply reads what is put out by the individual in question.
You can protest somebody's judgment about a poster but it's usually been made as the result of deja vu. On any given day, there may be nothing remarkable about a person's behavior. However, over the course of months and years, certain patterns appear. The same things are repeated, the same issues are returned to. The same reactions occur. A picture begins to emerge.
Of course, we're not allowed to voice what we've seen and learned but that's OK. We all know how the game is played by now and most of us understand what's happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.