VATICAN CITY (CNS) – People who act shocked that a priest would bless a gay couple but have no problem with him blessing a crooked businessman are hypocrites, Pope Francis said.

“The most serious sins are those that are disguised with a more ‘angelic’ appearance. No one is scandalized if I give a blessing to an entrepreneur who perhaps exploits people, which is a very serious sin. Whereas they are scandalized if I give it to a homosexual – this is hypocrisy,” he told the Italian magazine Credere.

The interview was scheduled for publication Feb. 8, but Vatican News reported on some of its content the day before when the magazine issued a press release about the interview.

  • @Sprokes@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1311 months ago

    There’s no progressive religion (I am not including Buddhism). They all say that their religion promotes peace and tolerance but they still believe in what written in their sacred book and won’t change a thing.

      • @Fungah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -611 months ago

        Im pretty sure even fighting in a war at gunpoint is not a Buddhist to thing to do. Genocide definitely disqualified you. Though culturally and religious Buddhist are two different things. The Buddha basically told everyone not to worship him and make him a religious figure and every sect of Buddhism just kind of turned around and did it anyway. Their justification is “lol”. So like. I dunno. Buddhism kind of accepts that everything anyone can or will do is something they’ve done. And existence is suffering. Freeing yourself from attachment and embracing the moment with love and kindness is a person thing, and sure genociders may be cenociding other people but ultimately through a Buddhist lens they’re harming themselves and straying further from enlightenment in the here and now.

        Nothing really like MATTERS for a Buddhist in the big picture sense. We live, we do things, we die, ultimately none of it comes to anything. There’s no one watching over you to punish you or praise you, and nothing for you after you die but more of this through a different lens or to finally be done with the bullshit and leave it all behind…

        It’s a doctrine for being happy NOW. Follow it, don’t, ultimately you’re the only person it matters to.

        • @deranger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1011 months ago

          Buddhism is absolutely not “a doctrine for being happy now”. This statement makes it sound like you don’t even have a cursory understanding of Buddhism. Likewise with “nothing really matters for a Buddhist in the big picture sense”.

        • @r_se_random@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          511 months ago

          While the general idea of Buddhism is pretty nice, there are some highly questionable aspects like women being impure by birth, and not being able to achieve Nirvana (eternal peace/heaven) either through rough tribulations or doing enough good to be born as a man.

          Of course it’s impossible to check if it was Buddha who said it, or it was added later by his people, but the above is something that isn’t discussed much imo.

    • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -811 months ago

      Faith is actually a mechanism to ensure change keeps happening. It suspends the “sealing off” of the mind that replaces sensory input with projected theory.

      Buddhism uses presence for the same function abrahamic religions use faith. It’s a source of noise to keep the conceptual structure from gaslighting the adherent into being unable to see what’s in front of them.

      • @barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        611 months ago

        Faith is actually a mechanism to ensure change keeps happening. It suspends the “sealing off” of the mind that replaces sensory input with projected theory.

        Motherfucker. What do you think religious doctrine is and faith in it does.

        Buddhism uses presence for the same function abrahamic religions use faith.

        Buddhism, if you drill down into the monastic core, is introspective psychology. It has much more in common at that level with what’s considered philosophy in the western tradition, in particular Stoicism. It arrived at that knowledge during an initially productive scientific phase, meaning theorising and experimenting, later on alas it fell away from that and various groups fell back into that exact sealing off you mentioned, not investigating any more but accepting the map of the territory they read in monastery school as the territory. Religious innovation generally follows that kind of repeating pattern over quite long time-spans.

        It’s a source of noise to keep the conceptual structure from gaslighting the adherent into being unable to see what’s in front of them.

        You could also, you know, just be sceptical. Heck, even be a capital-S Sceptic them and the Stoics disagreed on like exactly one point which from a certain POV is semantics.

        …not to mention that that’s not how the mind works. It’s not how life works. If you want entropy then it’s going to come from the outside, everything about life itself is geared towards minimising entropy on the inside, at the expense of accelerating its progression on the outside. (Yes the purpose of life is to hasten the heat-death of the universe, different topic). What may seem like internal randomness to you is merely your degrees of freedom doing their thing, the capacity to react to the same external stimulus in different ways depending on your internal state. It’s a chaotic system (and overall you are) but it’s definitely not noise, not from the POV of the organism itself: It is not subject to it, but is employing it.

        If, OTOH, all you wanted to say is “hey I found a way to stop walking into lamp posts and I describe it like…” then first off congratulations, keep up the good work, but also I don’t care about your half-arsed theory. Maybe if you didn’t connect it up with the concept of noise it would’ve at least ended up being internally consistent. Keep not having theories if you want to see actual freedom from that conceptual stuff. Maybe investigate why you felt the need to to explain the experience instead of taking it at face value.