Is the Pope necessary? Does anyone really care what he thinks?

[Grumpybutfun]

He is a respected leader of a religious faith. To disrespect him is unkind.

G

[LivingWaterPlease]

Yes, Catholics believe Jesus gave the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" to the Pope. It was first given to Peter and passed down to each Pope throughout the ages.

 

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." 20

 

 

Matthew 16:19

 

You did understand that he is believed to hold the keys to heaven and hell, right? What more doctrine could you want? I even provided the passage on which the doctrine is based.

 

 

 

Robert Z, I see where you’re coming from if you don’t read the rest of the chapter (Matthew 16:13-20) and other references to the term “rock” throughout the Bible.

 

Further study shows the rock Jesus is speaking of that the church will be built on refers instead to Himself, not Peter. Let’s take a look:

 

In Matthew 16:13 Jesus had just asked His disciples, “Whom do people say that the Son of man is?” After they answered He then asked, “Whom do you say I am?”

 

Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

 

Then Jesus says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona...I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...” and continues on through vs. 19.

 

Peter, meaning a small stone, is a nickname Jesus gave to Simon Bar Jonah. (John 1:42 Cephas-Peter) Bar means Son, so his name was Simon, Son of Jonah.

 

In Greek, the name Peter is Petros; is of the masculine gender and means “a small movable stone,” such as a stone you would throw.

 

The term petra switches gender to the feminine and refers to bedrock or immovable foundation. That is the term used for the word "rock" in the sentence. The switch in gender indicates a switch in subject being referred to.

 

So, Jesus says, “I also say to you that you are Petros (small movable stone) and on this petra (immovable rock, or foundation) I will build my church. He is telling Peter he’s a small stone but that the church will be built upon an immovable Rock that is foundation-quality stone, in contrast to the small stone that Peter is.

 

What rock is Jesus referring to which He said He would build His church on? It can’t be Peter because in this same chapter look to vs. 23 where Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan, you are a stumbling block...you are not setting your mind on God’s interests.” Also, in Mark 14:66-72 Peter betrays Jesus by denying him three times. These and other accounts in scripture make it clear that Peter is just like all other humans, a sinner in need of a Savior, Jesus Christ, not an infallible being who is the foundation of the church.

 

The rock which the church is built on is Jesus, the Word of God (John 1:1).

 

Matt 16:13-20 is about Christ and He’s the rock referred to in Matt 16:18 not Peter.

 

This truth is stated in Peter’s own declaration in 1 Peter 2:3-8 where he explains to the Christians he’s addressing that they are stones in the church but that Christ is the choice cornerstone, the foundation, of the church.

 

Paul also explains in 1 Cor 3:11 that Jesus Christ is the foundation stone. And in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 he explains again, “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers...for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them and the rock was Christ.”

 

Christ said in Matthew 21:42,”Have you never read...’The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord’s doing and is marvelous in our eyes.’?” He’s quoting here from Psalm 118:22, 23 which is a prophecy about the Messiah.

 

Two other prophetic verses about the Messiah are Isaiah 28:16, “Thus says the Lord God, 'Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.'” And Isaiah 8:13,14, “The Lord of hosts...a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel.”

 

So, Peter, then, was not assigned to be the first pope, or any pope at all, since all the references to the Rock or foundation of the church refer to Jesus Christ and none of them to Peter or any other man.

 

Salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone. Acts 4:12.

 

For a man to claim to be able to forgive sins is blasphemy as explained by Jesus in Matthew 9:3-6.

 

All told, there are over fifty verses in the Bible that refer to Jesus Christ as the Rock, many of these including the term foundation or cornerstone.

Edited September 26, 2015 by LivingWaterPlease

[Radu]

Has anyone mentioned that the original position of Pope was not what it is today ?

[Tayla]

Has anyone mentioned that the original position of Pope was not what it is today ?

 

nope, because we are speaking in present tense on the current seated Pope. Thats like talking about the emperor of china back in the ming dynasty. With time comes change. With change comes different times.

 

Since the original question is does anyone really care, my answer: yes.

[autumnnight]

There is a certain....um...sect of Evangelical Christianity that is obsessed with Revelation, the lesser gifts (like speaking in tongues), and the antichrist-theory of the Catholic Church. They watch John Hagee and often have.....fits after being smacked on the head during the peak of frenzy in a church service. These people also tend to be the ones who have weird, unbiblical views about politics being the hope for eternity and very shallow understandings of doctrine - their doctrine is based on experience and very loud preachers rather than an in context study of all of God's Word.

 

I am not Catholic and I do disagree with much of the orthodox doctrine (like worshiping Mary). However, just like the Great Commission does not say "Go therefore and protest and run for office," it also doesn;t say "Go therefore and interpret the symbolism of Revelation and dismantle the Catholic church."

 

So I have bigger fish to fry than being paranoid that The Davinci Code (a work of fiction) is fact and such.

[BC1980]

Has anyone mentioned that the original position of Pope was not what it is today ?

 

I'm gonna bite. Where can I read up on what the papacy was like in the beginning?

[BC1980]

He is a respected leader of a religious faith. To disrespect him is unkind.

G

 

I hope I'm not coming off as disrespecting him. He seems like a nice guy. I'm just very intetested with how much coverage his trip to the US has received. And how much adoration he seems to have. But also the fact that his word doesn't mean quite that much to many Catholics in everyday practice. And I might be misinformed, but I was under the impression that his teachings were binding to Catholics. So it seems to me that he is a respected figure but not necessarily taken seriously by the average Catholhc when it comes to church doctrine.

[BC1980]

There is a certain....um...sect of Evangelical Christianity that is obsessed with Revelation, the lesser gifts (like speaking in tongues), and the antichrist-theory of the Catholic Church. They watch John Hagee and often have.....fits after being smacked on the head during the peak of frenzy in a church service. These people also tend to be the ones who have weird, unbiblical views about politics being the hope for eternity and very shallow understandings of doctrine - their doctrine is based on experience and very loud preachers rather than an in context study of all of God's Word.

 

I am not Catholic and I do disagree with much of the orthodox doctrine (like worshiping Mary). However, just like the Great Commission does not say "Go therefore and protest and run for office," it also doesn;t say "Go therefore and interpret the symbolism of Revelation and dismantle the Catholic church."

 

So I have bigger fish to fry than being paranoid that The Davinci Code (a work of fiction) is fact and such.

 

I definitely don't think the Pope is the antichrist, but I also don't think Revelations is literal. It's interesting because the idea of the Pope as the antichrist goes way back. I think it was Martin Luther who stated that the papacy was the seat of the antichrist. I wonder how he would have been viewed today.

[NGC1300]

I've been watching the coverage of Pope Francis' visit to the US and his address to Congress. I've started to wonder if the Pope is nothing more than a sentimental figurehead. Do Catholics actually use the Pope as a guide to decision making? For instance, the Pope is against birth control, but the majority of US Catholics use birth control. So do Catholics only follow him when they personally agree? To some extent, I think we all practice a form of moral relativism when it comes to our personal decisions.

 

When I ask if anyone cares what he thinks, I'm wondering if Catholics will actually change their beliefs or practices based on him.

 

Of course the Pope isn't necessary.

 

You have to love when the Catholic church tries to look 'progressive', or caves to secular pressure in society.

 

They will do anything to look relevant, and retain support for their cult of myths and fables.

[joystickd]

Robert Z, I see where you’re coming from if you don’t read the rest of the chapter (Matthew 16:13-20) and other references to the term “rock” throughout the Bible.

 

Further study shows the rock Jesus is speaking of that the church will be built on refers instead to Himself, not Peter. Let’s take a look:

 

In Matthew 16:13 Jesus had just asked His disciples, “Whom do people say that the Son of man is?” After they answered He then asked, “Whom do you say I am?”

 

Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

 

Then Jesus says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona...I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...” and continues on through vs. 19.

 

Peter, meaning a small stone, is a nickname Jesus gave to Simon Bar Jonah. (John 1:42 Cephas-Peter) Bar means Son, so his name was Simon, Son of Jonah.

 

In Greek, the name Peter is Petros; is of the masculine gender and means “a small movable stone,” such as a stone you would throw.

 

The term petra switches gender to the feminine and refers to bedrock or immovable foundation. That is the term used for the word "rock" in the sentence. The switch in gender indicates a switch in subject being referred to.

 

So, Jesus says, “I also say to you that you are Petros (small movable stone) and on this petra (immovable rock, or foundation) I will build my church. He is telling Peter he’s a small stone but that the church will be built upon an immovable Rock that is foundation-quality stone, in contrast to the small stone that Peter is.

 

What rock is Jesus referring to which He said He would build His church on? It can’t be Peter because in this same chapter look to vs. 23 where Jesus says to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan, you are a stumbling block...you are not setting your mind on God’s interests.” Also, in Mark 14:66-72 Peter betrays Jesus by denying him three times. These and other accounts in scripture make it clear that Peter is just like all other humans, a sinner in need of a Savior, Jesus Christ, not an infallible being who is the foundation of the church.

 

The rock which the church is built on is Jesus, the Word of God (John 1:1).

 

Matt 16:13-20 is about Christ and He’s the rock referred to in Matt 16:18 not Peter.

 

This truth is stated in Peter’s own declaration in 1 Peter 2:3-8 where he explains to the Christians he’s addressing that they are stones in the church but that Christ is the choice cornerstone, the foundation, of the church.

 

Paul also explains in 1 Cor 3:11 that Jesus Christ is the foundation stone. And in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 he explains again, “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers...for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them and the rock was Christ.”

 

Christ said in Matthew 21:42,”Have you never read...’The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord’s doing and is marvelous in our eyes.’?” He’s quoting here from Psalm 118:22, 23 which is a prophecy about the Messiah.

 

Two other prophetic verses about the Messiah are Isaiah 28:16, “Thus says the Lord God, 'Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.'” And Isaiah 8:13,14, “The Lord of hosts...a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel.”

 

So, Peter, then, was not assigned to be the first pope, or any pope at all, since all the references to the Rock or foundation of the church refer to Jesus Christ and none of them to Peter or any other man.

 

Salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone. Acts 4:12.

 

For a man to claim to be able to forgive sins is blasphemy as explained by Jesus in Matthew 9:3-6.

 

All told, there are over fifty verses in the Bible that refer to Jesus Christ as the Rock, many of these including the term foundation or cornerstone.

The rock damn sure wasn't in Rome

[joystickd]

ROMAN CATHOLICISM EXPOSED

 

Pope is a false prophet

[Taramere]

I watched about 20 minutes of the video, but I don't have time to watch the entire thing today. Can you give me the gist of it? Is it basically arguing that the Pope is the Antichrist?

 

I've never been very interested in the Pope. Any of them. I mean obviously I've paid attention to some of the scandals in the Catholic Church, and there are times I've politely taken an interest in the latest pope - if that's what other people want to discuss. But left to my own devices I will generally skip news items about him. Life was easier when they were always called John Paul. What's his name now? Martin? Oh, okay. Francis. That's how much I know. His name is Francis and for whatever reason people like this Pope more than they usually like Popes. And I have little doubt that he wants Catholics to go forth and multiply...since arguing for that seems to me the main purpose of the Pope.

 

I do remember, though, the first time I went to Rome. I was at a hotel on a hill - overlooking the Vatican - sitting out on the balcony enjoying a glass of Prosecco. As I looked at the Vatican, I idly wondered to myself "is the Pope the AntiChrist?" Just as I was thinking it (and I swear to you this is true) there was a crack of lightning over the Vatican. I almost choked on my Prosecco. That crack of lightning seemed like a pretty definitive answer. I just don't know whether it was a definitive yes or a definitive no.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Taramere

[ASG]

I hope I'm not coming off as disrespecting him. He seems like a nice guy. I'm just very intetested with how much coverage his trip to the US has received. And how much adoration he seems to have. But also the fact that his word doesn't mean quite that much to many Catholics in everyday practice. And I might be misinformed, but I was under the impression that his teachings were binding to Catholics. So it seems to me that he is a respected figure but not necessarily taken seriously by the average Catholhc when it comes to church doctrine.

 

The average Catholic doesn't really practice. I come from a Catholic country. About 90% (maybe more) of the population are/were raised Catholic.

 

I know very few actually practising Catholics. They exist, of course! But most people only go to church when someone gets married or dies, especially in the cities.

 

So while the Pope is still a big deal (much like the queen in the UK), most people don't necessarily follow what he says, just like they don't follow what the whole religion says.

 

That being said, I do know quite a few devout families. And they had more than a handful of children!

[joystickd]

I've never been very interested in the Pope. Any of them. I mean obviously I've paid attention to some of the scandals in the Catholic Church, and there are times I've politely taken an interest in the latest pope - if that's what other people want to discuss. But left to my own devices I will generally skip news items about him. Life was easier when they were always called John Paul. What's his name now? Martin? Oh, okay. Francis. That's how much I know. His name is Francis and for whatever reason people like this Pope more than they usually like Popes. And I have little doubt that he wants Catholics to go forth and multiply...since arguing for that seems to me the main purpose of the Pope.

 

I do remember, though, the first time I went to Rome. I was at a hotel on a hill - overlooking the Vatican - sitting out on the balcony enjoying a glass of Prosecco. As I looked at the Vatican, I idly wondered to myself "is the Pope the AntiChrist?" Just as I was thinking it (and I swear to you this is true) there was a crack of lightning over the Vatican. I almost choked on my Prosecco. That crack of lightning seemed like a pretty definitive answer. I just don't know whether it was a definitive yes or a definitive no.

Bible actually describes the Pope as the false prophet. I know when I mention it on here it tends to ruffle some feathers. Think about it why have a religion that has origins in the Middle East in Rome after Constantine converted. Sounds funny to me. It's like Esau. Roman empire all over again. Then make Jesus look Caucasian. Ideas are powerful because you control more people with ideas and beliefs than wars or government

[impatiently_patient]

Does he matter? To the people who believe in that particular fantasy fairy tale nonsense? Yup.

 

To those of us who think it's all a bunch of made up bull___. Yeah... not in the least. God. Jesus. Bridge trolls. Dragons. Kanye West. Yeah. All made up. Move on.

[BC1980]

The average Catholic doesn't really practice. I come from a Catholic country. About 90% (maybe more) of the population are/were raised Catholic.

 

I know very few actually practising Catholics. They exist, of course! But most people only go to church when someone gets married or dies, especially in the cities.

 

So while the Pope is still a big deal (much like the queen in the UK), most people don't necessarily follow what he says, just like they don't follow what the whole religion says.

 

That being said, I do know quite a few devout families. And they had more than a handful of children!

 

My experience has been similar. I know one devout couple, but they converted. So that's a bit different. But even with them, they didn't follow the religion completely. They will used moral relativity when it came down to personal decisions.

[BrokenManAgain]

Pope John Paul II, the one man (and I do mean man in small letters) who collapsed the USSR.

 

On his feet standing to tyrants, on his knees before God.

[autumnnight]

Does he matter? To the people who believe in that particular fantasy fairy tale nonsense? Yup.

 

To those of us who think it's all a bunch of made up bull___. Yeah... not in the least. God. Jesus. Bridge trolls. Dragons. Kanye West. Yeah. All made up. Move on.

 

How I wish the bolded really was made up....like fish sticks.....

[BrokenManAgain]

Does he matter? To the people who believe in that particular fantasy fairy tale nonsense? Yup.

 

To those of us who think it's all a bunch of made up bull___. Yeah... not in the least. God. Jesus. Bridge trolls. Dragons. Kanye West. Yeah. All made up. Move on.

There is no such thing as an Athiest in a foxhole.

 

And I ain't talking about God. I can tell you this, I really don't know if believing in Jesus, Mohomed, Buddha, or Mickey Mouse will ever get you out of a firefight but I will most certainly tell you that if you don't have faith you're going to live, you won't.

[Taramere]

Bible actually describes the Pope as the false prophet. I know when I mention it on here it tends to ruffle some feathers. Think about it why have a religion that has origins in the Middle East in Rome after Constantine converted. Sounds funny to me. It's like Esau. Roman empire all over again. Then make Jesus look Caucasian. Ideas are powerful because you control more people with ideas and beliefs than wars or government

 

As far as the antichrist theories go...I think the Bible captured a timeless element of human society. That popular, charismatic leaders emerge, enjoy a honeymoon period - but power corrupts as it always does. Often the popular, charismatic leaders commit far worse sins against humanity because the people's love for them and desire to see good in them - to hang on to all those warm and fuzzy feelings a popular leader brings out in people for as long as possible - allows them to get away with more.

 

Tony Blair, for instance, was loved in the UK (for a while at least) in a way that Margaret Thatcher never was. He committed far worse atrocities in the end, though. That frequently occurring pattern (in human society) of popular leaders emerging, and losing their reputation in the end, is tapped into very well by the Book of Revelations. For the last two thousand years, every time a leader like that has emerged people have probably believed they were living in End Times.

 

I think the Bible also provides an extreme, authoritarian version of what you can find in classic novels that were written before psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalytic theory encouraged our understanding of human nature to take a more clinical, scientific form. The Biblical view of human nature is still a popular one, because it can tap into our desire to both judge and forgive eachother from a place of strong emotion. More modern theories about human nature and society don't really offer us that. They implore us to leave our emotions to one side in forming judgements. To abandon notions of good and evil, and view humanity instead from a less emotional and more clinical perspective.

 

I think it's partly because of that that religion continues to exert the influence it does. All that human emotion has to find some outlet and validation. Religion provides it, but at a price. It validates our emotional side (and indulges our tendency to use superstition to explain the mysteries of the universe) but the price is that it retains the right to tell us how we should feel - then, based on those prescribed feelings, what we should believe in. It can also comfort the poor, and assure them that they're virtuous in their poverty. That better things await them in Heaven, so they needn't aim too high in this life because this life doesn't really matter. Which is a very potent message for people who are never going to escape poverty, or illness, or oppression.

 

The Pope is an enduring symbol that we're not ready to let go of that in the West. Perhaps because a viable alternative (ie means of comforting the terminally ill and/or poor and valuing the emotional side of human beings in an age where rationality prevails) hasn't really emerged.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Taramere

[Tayla]

 

The Pope is an enduring symbol that we're not ready to let go of that in the West. Perhaps because a viable alternative (ie means of comforting the terminally ill and/or poor and valuing the emotional side of human beings in an age where rationality prevails) hasn't really emerged.

 

thank you Taramere for this open perspective, The part that I wish to inquire is the sentence of "the Pope is an enduring symbol", Can you expand upon that?

Since I thought we were speaking specifically about Pope Francis in the current tense, I am not sure how to interpret the above statement since it was eluded to that we have yet to see one emerge ? I remain open to understanding this view a bit more.

 

My Bias ( which has its place in some ways)...Is that This particular Pope has shown a consistent change in behavior then has been seen in past Popes. He is not Pious or pompous , he is what most folks in faith can identify with, He practices what he foretells. Humans and cultures seek leaders, its how civilizations/tribes continue.

 

I recall in another thread which Spoke of Mother Theresa, her hypocrisy. Which while she came off as a Missionary leader, she was not really attending to the teachings in there simplest forms. I use her as an example of faith gone awry. I think Pope Francis is the more genuine of man and a leader for the people of faith...

[Taramere]

thank you Taramere for this open perspective, The part that I wish to inquire is the sentence of "the Pope is an enduring symbol", Can you expand upon that?

 

I was thinking of the institution rather than the individual in the position, Tayla. He may sound somewhat more modern in his thinking, but it doesn't sound as though the substance of what he's preaching is so very different. The Church seems to continue to be opposed to artificial contraception....which, to my mind, is an untenable position. How many Catholics really abide by that rule?

[BC1980]

I was thinking of the institution rather than the individual in the position, Tayla. He may sound somewhat more modern in his thinking, but it doesn't sound as though the substance of what he's preaching is so very different. The Church seems to continue to be opposed to artificial contraception....which, to my mind, is an untenable position. How many Catholics really abide by that rule?

 

I'd like to know that as well. None of my Catholic friends follow that teaching. So it makes me wonder what exactly the purpose of these teachings are. If you can't get the majority to follow the teaching, what is the purpose?

 

Which leads to a different line of questioning. Do people cherry pick which tenets they follow, and, if so, how do they decide which tenets to follow? What goes into that decision making process and how is it justified? My answer would be that, yes, the vast majority of us cherry pick which beliefs we actually follow in practice (and that goes for any religion, not just Catholicism). And I would argue that doing so bolsters the idea that the majority of us practice moral relativism to some extent.

 

So does our own conscience trump Biblical teachings/certain interpretations of teachings? Are we the ultimate moral authority for our lives and to what extent? Is our own interpretation of Biblical teachings authoritative in our lives?

[autumnnight]

I'd like to know that as well. None of my Catholic friends follow that teaching. So it makes me wonder what exactly the purpose of these teachings are. If you can't get the majority to follow the teaching, what is the purpose?

 

Which leads to a different line of questioning. Do people cherry pick which tenets they follow, and, if so, how do they decide which tenets to follow? What goes into that decision making process and how is it justified? My answer would be that, yes, the vast majority of us cherry pick which beliefs we actually follow in practice (and that goes for any religion, not just Catholicism). And I would argue that doing so bolsters the idea that the majority of us practice moral relativism to some extent.

 

So does our own conscience trump Biblical teachings/certain interpretations of teachings? Are we the ultimate moral authority for our lives and to what extent? Is our own interpretation of Biblical teachings authoritative in our lives?

 

Sadly, I have never met a Christian who DOESN'T cherry-pick what they obey. Think about it, the same Bible that talks about adultery talks about any other sex outside marriage. So a Christian who eschews cheaters but has sex out of wedlock doesn't really have a leg to stand on. The same Bible that calls homosexual behavior an "abomination" says that haughty eyes and a proud heart are two things God HATES. Even in James, the Bible says, "whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking ALL of it."

 

I know Christians who are practically gleeful about exposing sin, but they ignore Ephesians 4:32 altogether.

 

Maybe that is why that whole mote/speck thing is in the Bible

[BC1980]

Sadly, I have never met a Christian who DOESN'T cherry-pick what they obey. Think about it, the same Bible that talks about adultery talks about any other sex outside marriage. So a Christian who eschews cheaters but has sex out of wedlock doesn't really have a leg to stand on. The same Bible that calls homosexual behavior an "abomination" says that haughty eyes and a proud heart are two things God HATES. Even in James, the Bible says, "whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking ALL of it."

 

I know Christians who are practically gleeful about exposing sin, but they ignore Ephesians 4:32 altogether.

 

Maybe that is why that whole mote/speck thing is in the Bible

 

It's very interesting to me. I like the idea of moral absolutes, but I feel that at the end of the day, I would probably follow my conscience. For example, I know it says, somewhere in the Bible, that lying is wrong. But the the reality is that we lie all the time, and we justify it. I do think it's okay to lie in certain circumstances, but aren't those circumstance ultimately up to my discretion? Who would have oversight over me?

 

Lately, I've been feeling that I like the idea of moral absolutes because they would give some sort of order to a crazy, chaotic world. In practice, I feel that most people don't follow moral absolutes. I think that when it comes down to it, people are going to go with their conscience. I feel that we should weigh our conscience, but I also feel religion does benefit from order/rules. I don't think you can have complete anarchy, so it's puzzling to say the least.

 

Relating all that to the Pope, I think that one of his functions is to bring order to the Catholic Church. I think that he makes people feel secure, but it's apparent that many Catholics are willing to act based on their own conscience when it comes to certain beliefs. Using birth control might be the best example. I'm not trying to attack and point the finger at Catholics alone, but the Pope's visit made me start thinking on this topic.