By Eric Marrapodi and Miguel Marquez, CNN
Follow @EricCNNBelief Follow @miguelmarquez
Rio De Janiero (CNN)– The papal visit is now classified as the highest level of security after an incident involving his motorcade.
The Pope's visit has been raised to "high risk" from "medium risk" after his car got stuck in a crowd of enthusiastic followers on Monday, a Brazilian Federal official told CNN.
The source says the problem in part stemmed from the Pope himself instructing drivers not to avoid the crowds.
After the pope arrived in Brazil on Monday he got into a silver hatchback Fiat for the drive from the airport to downtown Rio. Transportation officials in Rio said there were a variety of routes the pontiff's motorcade could have taken. The route they chose ended up pinning the pope's vehicle between a bus and a crush of well wishers who were reaching into the car to touch the pope.
Security officials in Rio huddled for much of the day on Tuesday sorting out how to resolve the incident.
Federal authorities are now taking a larger role in the overall security of the pope during his time in Brazil. More reinforcements are coming for security from Rio.
Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from around the globe have come to Rio de Janiero for World Youth Day, a week long festival held every two years.
The Vatican told reporters Tuesday night that 500,000 people came to Copacabana beach for the opening ceremony and Mass. Crowds stretched down the beach more than a half a mile from the main stage.
On Tuesday, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia told National Catholic Reporter that the group of pilgrims from his archdiocese is small because of security concerns.
"I think there's been a sense across Pennsylvania," he told NRC while in Rio, "that this might be a dangerous place for young people to come."
"I know that a number of dioceses in Pennsylvania actively discouraged their young people from coming and didn't sponsor diocesan pilgrimages on purpose," he said.
It’s difficult to get knowledgeable men and women on this subject, but you could be seen as you know what you’re discussing! Thanks
What is this, the Roman Catholic Blog? Like who are they going to fool but themselves. IDOLATRY is not religion IDOLATRY is a SIN
Prayer changes things
Idolatry is not religion people get with it! Idolatry is a SIN a very grave and serious SIN.
As apposed to the light fun kind of sin?
Religion is not healthy people, get with it! It is a delusion, a very grave and serious delusion.
Though I'll give religion this much, at least - it makes for some killer hats.
Some people benefit greatly from religious belief.
I don't disagree. But on the whole I think its negatives outweigh any positives.
I won't disagree that there's certainly an abundance of negatives.
I dont think that having a worldview based on delusion is benificial in any way. There are drugs for that.
It can help people through troubling times in their lives. It can also help people to be more compassionate.
There is nothing done through religion that cant be done through purely secular means. This religious delusion is just a crutch for the weak minded.
And? It doesn't change the fact that people get comfort from it.
@Dave – You're my hero!!!
YES! You always say what I'm thinking but I can never seem to formulate it as well as you do.
Really? I see myself as an incoherent nincompoop most of the time with occasional smatterings of lucid brilliance.
Nah, you are pretty succinct in what you say. You are far from "an incoherent nincompoop".
Although you're not my hero, (sorry) I agree with M.A.P.
OK, I'm finding this adulation unnerving. Are you guys liberals? If so, let me tell you some of my far right economic ideals to bring in some hate.
Now, don't go overboard there, sparky.
I can't stand compliments so I find it best to alienate people in some way.
You suck, Dave. I hate you.
Why does the Pope need a human security team-won't God keep him safe?
You don't need to eat, God will feed you. /sarcasm off/
Aim the barrel of a loaded gun at your temple and pull the trigger, I'm sure God will stop the bullet if he wants you to live.
You don't think it wants its representative on earth to live?
Sue / Plato
Which really begs the question why individuals than god for an abundent harvest
or why they thank god for being spared in a theater shooting / school shooting.
Both of you are making the case that god does NOT intervene (sp?) in our daily lives.
But that begs the question "Why does god give this group a bountiful crop while he lets another group die of starvation"?
And the answer is "god doesn't because god does not exist"
I concur with that sentiment.
With the Christian logic we should all be sitting around stariving to death, covered in our own feces and urine becasue that was God's plan! Such a great plan!
God wants us to crap our pants?
I am not Christian but judging from the tone of atheists here, I would keep away from these negative toxic people.
You obviously haven't bumped into some of the resident theists we have here. Both sides are equally guilty of aggression. I try to avoid aggressive confrontation, but surely you can imagine how annoying it is for us, being told we're going to spend an eternity in agony for not believing in a fictional being. More annoying though is the frequent advocacy for turning scriptural rules into legislation.
Also, can you not see your hypocrisy? Calling us negative, toxic people, yet you use a negative blanket statement yourself to describe a large and varied group.
"I'm Sorry Dave ...": You say " I try to avoid aggressive confrontation" and yet in the second half of that same sentence you insult the original author by needlessly calling God a "fictional being". Do you see the irony? As for damnation, the Catholic belief is that it's entirely up to you. You can continue to push God away ... and being separated from the Divine Life for all eternity is what we call Hell. But it's really your decision and I'm not condemning you (in fact, I hope it doesn't happen to you). As for advocating for legislation based on my beliefs ... isn't that what everyone does? We all advocate based on what we genuinely believe is best for ourselves and for society. So suggesting that Catholics (or any other religious group) can't – or shouldn't – advocate is disingenuous. Moreover, we have a long tradition of Christian advocates in this country: William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, Abraham Lincoln, Fredrick Douglas, Martin Luther King, etc. And they did some pretty good things.
No, I absolutely fail to see any irony. If somebody truly believes in Skeletor, am I insulting him by pointing out his error?
There's a difference between advocating something and legally enforcing something. Also, I don't want my personal preferences legislated for. I don't like smoking, drugs, reality TV, religion, Michael Bay movies, fast food, etc and I think society would generally be better off without these things yet I would never seek to have these things legally banned.
As for damnation, god creates people knowing exactly what 'evils' his little creations will do. So, knowing his creations are going to do evil, does he alter them to behave more appropriately? No, he sends out damaged goods and then has the nerve to punish them with eternal torment for his mistakes. This god guy sounds like a real ass-hat.
So much for avoiding aggressive confrontations.
I'm not being aggressive and please respond to the points I made.
Dave since K approached you with a pretty good synopsis of the Catholic teaching on hell and you are pursuing the argument, would you mind posting the section from the catechism that you are referencing and to which you object? I mean, you wouldn't want to fall into a straw man argument would you?
k, It seems you believe that any issues you raise as polite academic issues and any issues raised by those who disagree with you are 'aggression'.
I've made my case perfectly clear.
"would you mind posting the section from the catechism that you are referencing and to which you object? I mean, you wouldn't want to fall into a straw man argument would you?"
Could you explain how this request is relevent to the discussion which appears to have been about behavior regarding activism for legislation, a premise accepted by both sides in the discussion?
I think he may have been referring to my final point highlighting that human life is completely based on determinism from Yahweh (if it were true, which it isn't).
I guess if you accept that you can just make up meaningless words like "free will" and claim they fill the gap in your doctrinal logic you can claim pretty much anything.
I understand that Dave and people like him would prefer if their political opposition would stop. I don't think that argument even deserves discussion.
He makes the claim that God punishes people for his mistakes. K has been kind enough to point out to him that that is not a correct interpretation of the catechism but he stands by his case. I'm simply asking for the reference to the actual teaching on which he basis his understanding. Otherwise, he is guilty of constructing a false argument. The fact that he refuses to post the reference indiicates to me he knows what he has done but won't allow the facts to dissuade his argument. If he did, and he was honest, he'd have to give up that canard in future discussions and frankly, I don't think he can afford to do that and hold onto his cherished atheism.
First; yes, your first point doesn't deseve discussion as it's completely retarded.
Second; K never refuted my point about Yahweh punishing people for his mistakes so please improve your reading comprehension.
Third; I'm not referring to the catechism, Catholic or otherwise, I was responding to K saying that me being sent to hell is my choice, which it isn't. Saraswati succinctly pointed out the 'free will' fallacy.
Fourth; I don't cherish my atheism, ust like I don't cherish my askeletorism.
@k – Calling God a fictional being is not agressive – it's factual. Maybe you should read a book other than the Bible and you might learn what words really mean.
I wouldn't expect anything truthful from Bill Deacon. On page one of this discussion, I pointed out that the RCC failed to protect children in its care and covered up crimes. Here is his response:
"You don't seem to recognize that what you value as justice may not be what others do and therein lies the conflict."
No, Bill Deacon, it is not my personal value judgement. It's the law of the land. Adults having sexual contact with minors is against the law. Your cherished RCC allowed child molesters to continue in their crimes and tried to cover it up. Instead of having them arrested and tried for their crimes, they were quietly relocated.
Of course, Bill Deacon ran away after his attempts to hijack the discussion failed.
Which he seems to have done here also.
Dave and Doobs win. Sorry Bill. Another loss for you.
The point you're missing Dave, probably from lack of education is that your premise is not canonical. it's something you made up. Both K and i have tried to point you toward the accurate theology of hell but you refuse to argue against that and insist we refute your straw man. Not only is it ignorant, it's typical.
Again you avoided everything I said and proceeded wth ad hominems. You are typical of religious ignorance.
God sending people to hell is akin to a robot programmer programming a robot to kill and then getting angry at it for killing.
And that punishing people for his mistakes is a pretty horrible thing to do.
That was meant as a follow on for my previous comment in the thread on the right.
You're confusing atheists with anti-theists.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.