 |
|
|
|
|
July 23rd, 2013
12:47 PM ET
A nightmare day for the pope's security detailBy Eric Marrapodi and Miguel Marquez, CNN Copacabana Beach, Brazil (CNN) - Don't blame the pope's Swiss Guards if they had nightmares Monday night. There was plenty to disturb their sleep: a mobbed motorcade, a bomb scare and protesters clashing with police. When Pope Francis arrived here Monday for World Youth Day, a weeklong Catholic event held every few years, the massive security effort was temporarily undermined by a traffic jam. As the papal motorcade was driving from the airport to the presidential palace, federal officials steered the motorcade into the busiest of several potential routes. As the motorcade slowed, papal admirers swarmed the silver Fiat hatchback carrying Pope Francis, reaching into his open window to touch the pontiff. A Vatican spokesman said the pope wasn't afraid - but his secretary was. “The Pope’s secretary told me that when the car was stopped, he was scared at times, but the pope was very happy and waving,” said the Rev. Federico Lombardi. Brazilian officials blamed the mob scene on miscommunication between the city of Rio de Janiero and federal police. Lombardi simply said the motorcade had taken a wrong turn. Still, the pope’s security team was confident enough during the stoppage that Domenico Giani, the Vatican's chief of papal security, opened the pope’s door and handed him a child to bless. Once Francis transitioned into the open-topped Popemobile, he moved easily through the tens of thousands who filled the streets of Rio to catch a glimpse of the new pontiff - the first pope to hail from Latin America. The pope’s regular contingent of Vatican security, including the Vatican police and the Swiss Guard, moved with the pope in the streets, occasionally bringing infants over the barricades to meet the pontiff. There was a different scene shortly after Francis met with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff at the Guanabara Palace. Protesters - who had promised to be out in force during the papal visit - clashed with police in riot gear. Police said the protesters hurled rocks at them and they responded with water cannons and tear gas. Six arrests were made and two photographers were injured. The Brazilian police also said in a statement that on Sunday they had discovered a small homemade explosive device at a shrine to the Virgin Mary in the city of Aparecida the pope is scheduled to visit later this week. The small plastic, duct-taped device was destroyed. READ MORE: Explosive found near site pope plans to visit State of Rio de Janieo security officials met on Tuesday to find out what went wrong and how to fix it. The Brazilian Ministry of Defense said they have deployed more than 20,000 military and police forces to deal with security for the weeklong event. For the final Mass, in a large field west of Rio, the defense ministry said 400 soldiers will be stationed at the altar and 94 observation towers in the crowds, which officials say could top a million people. "Logistically, (it is) the most complex event that the city ever faced," Rio Mayor Eduardo Paes said. "We know that the pope likes to bend ceremonial rules, but that is more than welcome in Rio." READ MORE: Pope Francis embarks on historic trip to Brazil On Tuesday, bomb-sniffing dogs and police swept the main stage at Copacabana checking the altar and the VIP seating area. Three small Brazilian navy ships were sweeping along the shore, staggered out for several miles, maneuvering up and down the coast. The pope was scheduled to rest on Tuesday. The formal program for World Youth Day begins Tuesday evening. CNN's Hada Messia contributed to this report.
Next entry »Security raised to`high risk' for pope in Brazil
« Previous entryExplosive found near site pope plans to visit
|
  About this blog
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.  |
|
|
|
It’s hard to find knowledgeable individuals on this subject matter, but you appear to be you know what you’re discussing! Thanks
daniel https://groups.diigo.com/group/imot-kdce
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.
I've had worse days than that. The Pope's just complaining as usual haha!
What did the Pope do in Brazil? Why are all these articles on Pope's security and not on his mission in Brazil?
Why does the Pope need to travel? Can't his bishops in that part of the world convey his message to the local populace?
From an astute blogger as noted a few years ago:
o “Now Rome which developed the Church of Dogma (rather than metanoia) dared to add things which have scant basis in scripture like the Trinity, Individual priesthood, Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. None of these are present in scripture nor can they be deduced. Matthew 16:18 was discovered to apply to the papacy by Damasus I who had over a hundred of his rival's supporter's killed to gain the bishopric of Rome. It is after this time that the phrase from Matthew is more and more centered on Rome. The bishops of Rome committed many crimes. The biggest one was to ascribe their malfeasance to the Holy Spirit. Still is.”
Why does the Pope even need security? Can't he just pray and have god and the angels protect him?
what a crock!
Why do you need air? Isn't there enough in your head already?
Gee, Bill. That was really cute!
And you were just bragging about how no one could point out where you used a fallacy.
DIG IT
Does anyone know if an evangelical or fundamentalist Christian has ever been awarded a Nobel Prize in science?
I know of a fundamentalist muslim who won the Nobel prize in physics named Abdus Salam.
There are a handful (like 6) nobel laureates who are creationists (though certainly not young earth creationists)
Abdus Salam was certainly devout, but a fundamentalist? Is that too strong a term?
I'm curious: what is the difference between being devout and being a fundamentalist, Dave? Is it getting back to the basics of their particular religion?
One must question the severe intellectual deficit of any individual that would actually ask what the difference is.
I suppose we're arguing semantics here, but I view fundamentalism as being base on strict, literal interpretation of scripture, in the Islamic case the Quran and the Hadith (although which Hadith you follow depend on which branch of Islam you follow). I also see fundamentalism as being about the legal enforcement of scripture.
Devotion on the other hand may not be about strict interpretation of scripture or evangelizing, it can be a personal piety. Devotion to one's religious beliefs without trying to force these beliefs on others can be a good thing. There's a certain nobility about un-hypocrical piety.
Based.
Hypocritical
Depends (Christ there's a lot of typos today).
I agree, fundamentalist is probably a proper subset of devout. In fact, Salam left Pakistan because his brand of Islam was deemed non-Islamic.
Fruit said: "One must question the severe intellectual deficit of any individual that would actually ask what the difference is."
I was trying to further the conversation by asking what he thought the difference is, since he brought it up.
It is unnecessary to be a dick to me for doing so. Grow up.
Thank, Dave, that's pretty much how I view it, also; just wanted your perspective.
Askng someone that is quite obviously not a scholar for information is similar to asking your poodle to describe quantum mechanics. As can be seen from his own misguided internal interpretation of these words, it would appear, and correctly I might add, that he is way off in left field. The game is baseball and he's trying to find a good place to go fishing. You my dear Helen Keller, have agreed with his fishing advice about baseball to be an excellent method of hanging drywall.
I would provide definitions to the two words in query, however it is clear that the sentences to follow would only be used for making cupcakes from scratch instead of their obvious, intended use.
@ Fruit Salad
You must be really fun at parties.
Oh, please give us uneducated peons your learned pearls of wisdom and tell us the difference yourself, Professor Pompous. In the most condescending tone possible, please. We await with bated breath.
What a douche.
@fresh fruit
Enlighten us Fresh...don't just make a snarky comment.... prove your superiority.
btw, Doc is pretty solid on what he says....get to know these posters before you trash them.
Fruit, why does asking someone for their POV offend you so? I was asking for an opinion, not a dissertation.
Once again, you are being a patronizing dick. All right; you're startling wit and intellectual superiority is apparent.
🙄
Feel better about yourself?
Good. I'm glad.
*your. Before Dippy gets me.
Fundamentalist is a subset of mental disorder.
Also see "an'al retention".
I like your name Sir.
Here's a quick grab from google. You'd have to determine for yourself the level of devotion or fundamentalism each adhered to.
PART I. Nobel Scientists (20-21 Century)
Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant
Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic
Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran
Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist
Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)
Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican
Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian
Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim
Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker
Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)
Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Thanks Bill. I looked it up, about 60% are Christian. The big surprise is almost 25% are Jewish (even though they are a much smaller percent of the population). I was wondering if any were evangelical/fundamentalist. I was wondering if their beliefs allowed them to pursue advanced science.
Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and although he hasn't won it, I don't think anybody would begrudge him the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the Human Genome Project.
Thanks Dave, I was not aware of that. I agree those contributions are top shelf. He appears to be a rare bird in his flock. Do you know if he is an evolution denier?
Interesting, he doesn't deny evolution, from an interview (other evangelicals please take note):
In your book, you say religion and science can coexist in one person's mind. This has been a struggle for some people, especially in terms of evolution. How do you reconcile evolution and the Bible?
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.
But I have no difficulty putting that together with what I believe as a Christian because I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire [the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.
I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God.
It appears you essentially have the Catholic view on the compatibility of creationist theology with the mechanism of scientific evolution. Are you Catholic? I see that you are a scientist. One of the things we hear is that the political pressure in the scientific community is biased away from religious scientists and towards secular humanist types. Can you speak to that?
Bill, which version of the many, shifting catholic "views" would that be? At least they haven't killed any scientists for a few centuries, anyway. I'll give catholics that much credit, even if it was reacting to the times and adjusting their written-in-stone-by-god rules...
William Henry Bragg
I thought he was appointed by God.......why does he need security?
For the same reason churches have lightning rods I guess.
There have been some great Catholic scientific thinkers. It's interesting that the father of the Big Bang was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre. A common thread with these folks is that they had no problem keeping science and theology separate. They didn't try to come up with rationalizations to justify the bible.
"had no problem" LOL
You sure are a stupid troll.
Yeah like keeping Galileo under house arrest, and condemning his discoveries.
Actually is wasn't just the church, but scientists of the day who condemned him as well.
Two wrongs don't make you bright.
"Scientists of the day" who knew they might have been killed if they said what they really believed. . .
And after Georges Lemaitre announced his theory, Rome started going off about it, and he wrote Rome and told them they were making fools of themselves, and to shut up. Tell the whole story.
In 1934, Lemaître made a presentation to Cardinal O'Connell of the Archdiocese of Boston at the Roundtable of Catholic Scientists and was also awarded the Mendel Medal from Villanova College for outstanding service to science. The culmination of these and other honors landed Lemaître with the Francqui Prize, which gave him about $390,000 in 2007 U.S. dollars. Lemaître's dedication to his vocation continued to earn him accolades. On July 27, 1935, he was named an honorary canon of the Malines cathedral by Cardinal Josef Van Roey. Later, on October 28, 1936 Pope Pius XI appointed Canon Lemaître to the newly reorganized Pontifical Academy of Sciences. By his motu proprio In Multis Solaciis, the Pope announced that the Church intended to be well informed on the current scientific revolution. Clearly, this was an implementation of the first Vatican Council's decree that faith and reason are complementary.7
@Bill
I eagerly await your take on the real and true Catholic arguments against contraception back on page 1.
In 1934, Lemaître made a presentation to Cardinal O'Connell of the Archdiocese of Boston at the Roundtable of Catholic Scientists and was also awarded the Mendel Medal from Villanova College (remember Fr Mendel?) for outstanding service to science. On July 27, 1935, he was named an honorary canon of the Malines cathedral by Cardinal Josef Van Roey. Later, on October 28, 1936 Pope Pius XI appointed Canon Lemaître to the newly reorganized Pontifical Academy of Sciences. By his motu proprio In Multis Solaciis, the Pope announced that the Church intended to be well informed on the current scientific revolution. Clearly, this was an implementation of the first Vatican Council's decree that faith and reason are complementary.7
In 1934, Lemaître made a presentation to Cardinal O'Connell of the Archdiocese of Boston at the Roundtable of Catholic Scientists and was also awarded the Mendel Medal from Villanova College (remember Fr Mendel?) for outstanding service to science. On July 27, 1935, he was named an honorary canon of the Malines cathedral by Cardinal Josef Van Roey. Later, on October 28, 1936 Pope Pius XI appointed Canon Lemaître to the newly reorganized Pontifical Academy of Sciences. By his motu proprio In Multis Solaciis, the Pope announced that the Church intended to be well informed on the current scientific revolution. Clearly, this supported the first Vatican Council's decree that faith and reason are complementary.7
Could you repeat that please.
I'm afraid you folks have a reading comprehension problem. I made no mention of the church. I said there have been some great catholic thinkers. Do you dispute that?
There have been some great curly haired thinkers too. So what's the point ? Correlation is not causation.
This is a story about Catholics. The point is in the OP if you bothered to read it. Religious people that can separate theology from science can make important advancements. People who are slaves to bible dogma are not likely to make such advancements.
The real problem is alot of humans believe that if it is unknown it does not exist. That everything that can be known is known. I firmly believe that in 200 years humans will look back and laugh about how the greatest minds of our time could be so ignorant.
Abdus Salam was a Muslim counterpart of that sort of thinker. I think such people don't separate their thinking about their God and their world, though, at least not in their private thoughts. For a Catholic, sharing unorthodox ideas can lead to charges that one is not a True Catholic.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the great French palaeontologist had no end of trouble with the suckwads in Rome.
Early Islamic scientists were some of the best in the world. We knew much less then and it was not in conflict with their dogma.
Abdus Salam won the Nobel prize in 1979 for his part in the work on electro-weak unification.
Yes he is. Again, my point is its easier to make scientific contributions if the science doesn't conflict with belief. Why would quantum theory conflict with Islam?