As an atheist and student of history, it is hard to not smile knowing the Pope's opinion on this means absolutely nothing.

It means nothing to you, but it’s interesting to consider that religious followers have far more children.

One consequence if this is that their share in the future will grow: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-...

No Im a devout Catholic and it means nothing to me as well. Its not an official proclamation so its just his personal opinion. It has no religious significance

It means something to people who have zero trust in every government entity… no one is arguing it matters to everyone. -peace :)

Yet it's all over the news and a billion Catholics around the world pay attention to it.

Perhaps you failed your history?

Edge harder edge-lord. You are clearly not a very good student of history if you think that.

Aren't the overwhelming majority of Christian Russians followers of Orthodox traditions? I believe only a tiny minority are Catholic so I don't know Pope Francis' comment will have much influence where there might still be some confusion.

In Russia Catholicism isn’t really a thing.

In Ukraine, it has a stronger institutional presence than the number of followers suggests: the Ukrainian Catholic University is an important institution.

In Poland, Romania, and Germany, it’s very important- far beyond what the number of adherents would suggest.

In countries far removed from the conflict, Argentina, say, it has immense weight. Far beyond what the number of adherents would suggest.

Also many of the bishops (Francis included) have practical, hands on experience operating in countries at war and actual war zones. They are also extremely savvy with the press and civil society groups.

When your country is at war, the Pope is a very nice friend to have.

I recently talked to a priest who spent decades in Latin America during its many wars. He would be a very good friend for the Ukrainians to have.

I'd guess the #1 motive is trying to stay relevant as an authority on moral and moral-adjacent issues. Then #2 is to alert the faithful (and trying-hard posers) to the official Catholic position on the subject. Changing many minds in Russia is probably far, far down the Vatican's "If Only" list.

This is a huge political blunder by Putin.

I wonder what effect this will have in the orthodox community and the silence of Kirill: https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/the-scandalous-silenc...

Doesn't matter because Russia has gone full blown dictatorship.

Again.

Russian orthodox church has been a tool of evil for long time now by being tightly integrated by Russian (back then Soviet) intelligence.

you have old information, he is all for it https://www.europeantimes.news/2022/03/moscow-patriarch-kiri...

“For eight years there have been attempts to destroy what exists in the Donbass. And in the Donbass there is rejection, a fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power. Today there is such a test for the loyalty of this government, a kind of pass to that “happy” world, the world of excess consumption, the world of visible “freedom”. Do you know what this test is? The test is very simple and at the same time terrible – this is a gay parade. The demands on many to hold a gay parade are a test of loyalty to that very powerful world; and we know that if people or countries reject these demands, then they do not enter into that world, they become strangers to it.”

tldr: The gays did it.

Well, between a military drill and a parade full of music and parties, I surely pick the latter.

Putin bought his own Pope https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/how-putin-uses-ru...

https://twitter.com/mjluxmoore/status/1500473613828464641

"Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill unsurprisingly endorsing Putin’s narrative on Ukraine in a sermon today. According to him the West essentially organizes genocide campaigns against countries that refuse to stage gay parades"

Money well spend.

Did they also ask him to state if he was of Catholic faith?

There's also that whole matter about those rumors of going number two in forests....

When the military power between two countries has a significant gap, you can also consider it more of a police action.

A good example would be US war on Iraq. No one in US lost sleep worrying about getting bombed by Iraqi fighter planes flying over US cities. US military carried out whatever operations they felt like, and this all took place on Iraq soil, making it more of a "policing" than a "war".

The Iraq war was an act of wanton aggression, that's for sure. Bush has openly made a false flag pretext for the invasion, and he should have been held responsible and tried for that.

The fact that the USA were so much more powerful than Iraq does not make it less of a war, though. It was a war and an unforgivable act, but the fact the USA got away with it doesn't legitimise in any way anyone else to be able to invade other countries without punishment. It does not work like that.

It may not have felt like war for people in the US but for people in Iraq it certainly did.

It felt more like a war for the rural parts of America, because per capita their children were sacrificed at a higher rate.

And per capita they had a higher rate of voting for the representatives that voted for that war.

GP was talking about Iraq. That resolution is 3 days after 9/11 pointed "against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." So not Iraq.

Actually relevant is a year later the vote about Iraq, in which a majority, 157/267, of U.S. Democrat Representatives and Senators were opposed. Left up to the decision of Democrats, there would be no Iraq war. I don't know how people vote Republican just 20 years later. That is lost on most people. I would know, I grew up in a rah rah Bush household.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...

Good catch, sorry about that. Looks like it was only ~40% of democrats in the house that voted to go to Iraq.