Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
My OP was assuming that the quote is true.
So... *Assuming* for the sake of your OP that the Pope did in fact state something along the lines of "Hell is not real..."
What exactly are you asking? Haven't you already assumed the conclusion?
Quote:
The fact that it might not be is irrelevant.
Which is why you initially insisted that "it wasn't a non quote" and why you felt it important to note that "[t]he pushback carefully avoided saying that the pope didn't actually deny there was hell." Because under the premise of your OP, it completely makes sense that you would have to defend that statement.
Once again, you've out-clevered yourself in trying to salvage a terrible OP. By attempting to rewrite it with an unstated premise, you've made your post even less interesting than it already was. Congratulations.
Quote:
If the Pope actually didn't say those things my OP becomes irrelevant, moreso obviously if he doesn't believe it. Buy if he does believe there is no hell and if he does publicly admit it, the articles I read are claiming it is a big problem in the eyes of most religious, practicing Catholics (example: http://www.oliverwrightesq.com/pat-b...lieve-in-hell/). Of course that is probably fewer than half of those who call themselves Catholics.
Because Pat Buchanan's perspective is completely representative of the average American Catholic. Yup. Just like Breitbart should be seen as a sane and level-headed source of factual information.
I'm sorry, but this just isn't the thing you seem to imagine it is. In a few more days, you'll discover that basically nobody cares about this contrived controversy. Some conservatives that already don't like the Pope will complain for a little while, and then life will go on more or less as if this never happened.