ADVERTISEMENT

Rolo going "scorched earth"

For what it is worth, that is pretty much standard procedure at large companies to Have an escort when one is ‘let go’ / fired. All very normal. It doesn’t ever look good, but it’s pretty normal.
Hank escorted Michael Scott off Dunder-Mifflin property per Charles request.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeGravy
The last acceptable prejudice. On full display here.

First, with respect to charity, if you think the Church and the Vatican are somehow immune, take a look at just about any charity ever. And again, as I posted before, the larger the organization the greater incidence of fallen people doing selfish, greedy things. But if you claim is that the Church creates these charitable arms just so it can enrich itself, that's laughable. Talk to any of the front-line folk working there. Talk to any who are helped. Only a cynic--of which WW is apparently overflowing--would think so. Or at least say so in the anonymous world of the interwebs.

As for "hoarding" this has been addressed. You just don't like the answers. And if it was just to be rich for the sake of being rich, what's the point of holding onto priceless works to do nothing with them. And to do so for generation after generation. As Pope Francis stated when asked about this "it’s not the property of the Church. It’s inside a church, but it belongs to humanity."


That's alright. I've been used to these accusations. I've heard them for decades now. But this sure is fun to talk about. And maybe some lurker will get something of value out of these exchanges.
 
The last acceptable prejudice. On full display here.

First, with respect to charity, if you think the Church and the Vatican are somehow immune, take a look at just about any charity ever. And again, as I posted before, the larger the organization the greater incidence of fallen people doing selfish, greedy things. But if you claim is that the Church creates these charitable arms just so it can enrich itself, that's laughable. Talk to any of the front-line folk working there. Talk to any who are helped. Only a cynic--of which WW is apparently overflowing--would think so. Or at least say so in the anonymous world of the interwebs.

As for "hoarding" this has been addressed. You just don't like the answers. And if it was just to be rich for the sake of being rich, what's the point of holding onto priceless works to do nothing with them. And to do so for generation after generation. As Pope Francis stated when asked about this "it’s not the property of the Church. It’s inside a church, but it belongs to humanity."


That's alright. I've been used to these accusations. I've heard them for decades now. But this sure is fun to talk about. And maybe some lurker will get something of value out of these exchanges.
I've been to the Vatican and that place should really be considered one of the "Wonders" of the world. With that much art and history, it's no wonder it attracts millions per year for tourism.
 
You continue with the ad homines not actually addressing the points made.
Actually you think, Pope Francis "is a communist at best," deigns a response? Surely, you aren't that wacko? Also I don't think you understand the term "ad hominem." If a person actively covered up sexual abuse, they are subject to personal criticism and rebuke for that. Personally attacking "the offices" they held would also be unfair. The have been excellent popes and archbishops, just not those two. An typical ad hominem attack goes like this: You claim there is a god, I respond by saying you are stupid, fat and ugly. This was an example only, I don't mean that.
 
Actually you think, Pope Francis "is a communist at best," deigns a response? Surely, you aren't that wacko? Also I don't think you understand the term "ad hominem." If a person actively covered up sexual abuse, they are subject to personal criticism and rebuke for that. Personally attacking "the offices" they held would also be unfair. The have been excellent popes and archbishops, just not those two. An typical ad hominem attack goes like this: You claim there is a god, I respond by saying you are stupid, fat and ugly. This was an example only, I don't mean that.
*I* didn't say that Pope Francis is a communist. Check your posters.

ad hominem - to the man (From Latin ad, prep + accusative "to, toward" and hominem, singular accusative from homo, hominis (m) "man"). You are dismissing +Sheen's point purely based on who he is. If +Sheen said "The sky is blue" would you argue back say "Quoting a criminal, that's rich, but indicative." Address the point of +Sheen's statement rather than just dismiss it as coming out of the mouth of a bad man.
 
Last edited:
*I* didn't say that Pope Francis is a communist. Check your posters.

ad hominem - to the man (From Latin ad, prep + accusative "to, toward" and hominem, singular accusative from homo, hominis (m) "man"). You are dismissing +Sheen's point purely based on who he is. If +Sheen said "The sky is blue" would you argue back say "Quoting a criminal, that's rich, but indicative." Address the point of +Sheen's statement rather than just dismiss it as coming out of the mouth of a bad man.
I responded to observer, who accused Pope Francis of being a commie, threw is your quoting a disgraced archbishop as the cherry on top, and then feigned speculated about the cause of decline of the Church. You then accused me of another AH attack, without more info. We both no the cause of the decline -- disillusionment.

So if you want me to address something, specifically, I waiting. You set them up, I'll shoot them down.
 
I responded to observer, who accused Pope Francis of being a commie, threw is your quoting a disgraced archbishop as the cherry on top, and then feigned speculated about the cause of decline of the Church. You then accused me of another AH attack, without more info. We both no the cause of the decline -- disillusionment.

So if you want me to address something, specifically, I waiting. You set them up, I'll shoot them down.
You quoted me, then asked if the Pope Francis comment "deigns a response." Then threw in your comments on ad hominem arguments. It was all a jumble and appeared to be a response to me, especially since you *quoted me*.

As to your first ad hominem in post 102 you didn't even respond to the point that there are more that hate what they *think* the Church is than what the church *actually* is. Instead you attacked +Sheen somehow thinking that "Sheen man bad" makes the point bad.

Then again you go on your +Sheen attack in post #116, and still not addressing the point.

You may not like the source of a statement, but you still have to address the statement itself.
 
*I* didn't say that Pope Francis is a communist. Check your posters.

ad hominem - to the man (From Latin ad, prep + accusative "to, toward" and hominem, singular accusative from homo, hominis (m) "man"). You are dismissing +Sheen's point purely based on who he is. If +Sheen said "The sky is blue" would you argue back say "Quoting a criminal, that's rich, but indicative." Address the point of +Sheen's statement rather than just dismiss it as coming out of the mouth of a bad man.


I’ll stand by what was posted.

Francis ain’t John Paul.
 
Well, there are Catholics and then there are Catholics.

And I’m not being sarcastic.
Sport of boxing amateur & pro was initially Catholics of different ethnicities beating the crap out of each other.

In Seattle, the 3 Catholic HS don't like each other.
 
His attorney has released a pretty pretty heated statement. They're pursuing legal action and claiming WSU discriminated against him for his Catholic faith.

A few important things to note from the release. First, Rolo's exemption was denied by the blind party review. He was not denied accommodations as it didn't even get that far. I know that was not known as of yesterday.

Second, the statement confirms he's Catholic, so kind of clarifies what his reason was for filing the exemption. Of course, a lot of people are linking the statements made by The Pope himself about vaccinations.

Third, the attorneys of Wazzuwatch can explain greater than I, but it's my understanding there is quite a legal precedent set for vaccine mandates, so I don't know if his suit will get far. Also, the exemption review was done blindly, so I don't know if he can claim discrimination. I wonder if he's just trying to air some dirty laundry for Chun and get some "shut up and go away" money.
He’s ****ed


On December 21, 2020, the Vatican’s doctrinal office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), issued a statement noting it is “morally acceptable” for Catholics to take vaccines against COVID-19. Among other things, the CDF stated:

"All vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive” … “the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good."

"In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed."

Thus, the California Catholic Conference strongly encourages Catholics to receive a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine for the sake of oneself, our loved ones, and the common good.

If some of the faithful choose not to take the vaccine for reasons of conscience, the Vatican says those persons "must do their utmost to avoid … becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent.”

I hope that WSU counter sues him for breach of duty of care. (Which is a real thing)
 
  • Like
Reactions: sellas
He’s ****ed


On December 21, 2020, the Vatican’s doctrinal office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), issued a statement noting it is “morally acceptable” for Catholics to take vaccines against COVID-19. Among other things, the CDF stated:

"All vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive” … “the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good."

"In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed."

Thus, the California Catholic Conference strongly encourages Catholics to receive a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine for the sake of oneself, our loved ones, and the common good.

If some of the faithful choose not to take the vaccine for reasons of conscience, the Vatican says those persons "must do their utmost to avoid … becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent.”

I hope that WSU counter sues him for breach of duty of care. (Which is a real thing)
I already posted on this earlier. And I'm not sure how an accommodation such as daily testing, wearing masks, and social distancing do not meet the requirement of helping "avoid ... becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infections agent."

Note that very same document from CDF also says:
5. At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary

If you think that Rolo is ****ed, the state is just as much ****ed.

 
As for charitable work, to keep its tax exemption status, the Church is structured such that the vast majority of its "giving" goes to acquisitions, paying settlements, covering losses, maintaining church property and salaries. How much of that is real charity, free giving to the poor and needy? Sadly like most charities, its pennies on the dollar.

Ask yourself, where is that 171 billion in outreach in the USA alone exactly?

Scientology also claims it gives billions and billions to charity too, that charity is called building "reading rooms." I.e. buying and holding real estate. Don't be so naïve.

The Catholic Church does an incredible amount of charitable work in our country and around the world. Where I live, the Church spends millions of dollars per year helping the homeless by supporting shelters and food services. Members of the church have to tithe and that can be expensive, but for people who have kids, they get all of that money back since that significantly reduces the cost for their kids to attend the Church's private schools.

All that said, the Church does hoard a tremendous amount of money and that private school is very expensive if you aren't part of the Church. In the suburb that I live in, the Catholic Church gets the benefit of all of our public services and roads that serve their church and assisted living facility but they pay nothing in taxes to support those benefits. As mentioned by socal, most of the church's spending is self-serving.

To be fair, my state engineering society is non-profit and tax exempt and we do almost no charitable work. Most of the money that we bring in every year goes to pay for the firm that helps run the society as our executive director and manager. We are non-profit in the fact that our society itself doesn't profit, but the guy who owned that management firm made enough profit to own some pretty exotic imports and send his kid to NYU. FWIW, it costs $80k per year to attend NYU,
 
It's possible to love Catholics and hate the Catholic Church. Even among Catholics. Same could be said about darned near every Protestant denomination too.

Grandmaster J says to love thy neighbor as thyself.

And, for Ed, Big Mo brought down tablets that said no coveting of neighbor's wife please.
 
except none of the assistants were escorted. It would appear to be targeted at Rolo.
Well, Rolo’s words and actions leading up to his dismissal may have had something to do with that. If he was becoming verbally aggressive, and who could blame him, they were justified escorting him out.
 
You quoted me, then asked if the Pope Francis comment "deigns a response." Then threw in your comments on ad hominem arguments. It was all a jumble and appeared to be a response to me, especially since you *quoted me*.

As to your first ad hominem in post 102 you didn't even respond to the point that there are more that hate what they *think* the Church is than what the church *actually* is. Instead you attacked +Sheen somehow thinking that "Sheen man bad" makes the point bad.

Then again you go on your +Sheen attack in post #116, and still not addressing the point.

You may not like the source of a statement, but you still have to address the statement itself.
I assume the archbishop said those things when I was young, when there was serious Catholic hate going on in this country, primarily due to its stands for social justice, like refusing to segregate churches and schools, interracial marriage, frankly considered unamerican. Now we have a Catholic president, and most non-Latino Catholics voted against him, and most people didn't even know he was or cared.

So the quote is out of current context, equates hate with criticism of change in current "establishment" Church culture. I ask you when did the last take a stand for social justice or seriously counter the bigotry of "build the wall" demagoguery, that isn't who the Church is (most of its adherents live in the third world). Hate abortion, but hate "they will not replace us" that Trumpism fosters too. The Church has a strong clear certain message on the first, not so much on the second. In my day priests were out their on the frontline, screw the we might lose tax exempted status, wrong is wrong.
 
The coaching staff at Gonzaga Prep does more to embody the message of the gospel in one practice than JB has in his entire career.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT