No. As tomndebb says, members of religious orders do, but not your ordinary parish priest.
Should be noted, though, that Francis is a Jesuit, and Jesuits do take a vow of poverty.
That was a first for the Pope, but it’s been done at other levels for decades. Relatively few decades if you discount locations where any men other than the priest would have had to be brought in specially for the occasion; centuries if you count them.
Seems to me that for decades the church has been saying, “SEX IS BAD! and so is greed.” Now Francis is saying, “GREED IS BAD! and so is sex.” Technically it is the same message, but I very much welcome the shift in emphasis.
Yes, I realize my paraphrase is not technically accurate.
You mean that doesn’t come with the check?
Huh. Now I kinda don’t want one.
Perhaps they do, but:
‘I have somewhere heard or read the frank confession of a Benedictine abbot: “My vow of poverty has given me a hundred thousands crowns a year; my vow of obedience has raised me to the rank of a sovereign prince.” I forget the consequence of his vow of chastity.’
(Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter XXXVIII, note 57).
Jesuits are not the same as Benedictines.
Certainly, Jesuits are the ones who are so bad at obedience they’re required to promise it twice.
It is my understanding that he’s on record as stating that the Church (as well as Christians in general, IMO) shouldn’t be focusing so much on the going ons in the bedroom, be it gays or abortions or contraception, because paying any attention to that detracts and takes the focus away from Christ’s essential message of universal peace and brotherly love, which according to him is pretty far out, dude.
My point is, if he’s saying “sex is bad”, he’s doing it quite sotto vocce.
Abortions happen in the bedroom?
No, indeed not, Jesuit has a higher alcohol content than Benedictine. (And I say that as a Georgetown alumnus.)
Sometimes you’re in a rush, OK ? 
I think it has been pretty much established that mother Teresa was anything but a force for good.
Teresa, Kissenger and the leader of the Catholic church sums up the validity of the Nobel Peace prize quite nicely.
I’d take the Groucho Marx defence on this one, if they lumped me with that lot as equally worthy I’d have serious concerns about my life choices.
Strip the church of it’s finery and give it to the poor…you know, like that guy said…you know the one…jewish lad…good with his hands…told a good story…Jethro? Jessie? something like that.
Well quite, but then what circular reasoning. They are a huge contributory factor in the spread of aids, the work they do is cleaning up their own mess and no more. Let me know when they base their charitable work on medical fact rather than ideology and then we can discuss a trip to Sweden.
Hardly. It’s been established that she had some flaws and some bad ideas, like everyone else. Most of the criticism of the facilities she ran fails to account for the fact that the alternatives were generally far worse.
I think that the central purpose of healthcare is to alleviate suffering, She purposefully didn’t do that and even though the other options open to her “patients” were limited that doesn’t mean she gets a free pass for being "not as bad"in comparison.
I don’t see her as a benevolent figure at all. The poor and the sick were pawns in her own little theological and ideological game.
What would be the reaction? Depends on whom you ask.
As a conservative American Catholic, my reaction would be the same as it was when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize:" Um… for WHAT? The guy hasn’t really DONE anything yet, has he?"
If Francis received the award THIS year, I would interpret that as a gratuitous slap at his predecsessor(s).
Now, what if he received the award somewhere down the road for a sepcific, tangible action? Then most people, regardless of religion or ideology would probably be FINE with that.
Really? Established when, and by who?
Really? So if we did a side-by-side comparison of Catholics and non-Catholics, would we find that Catholics were more likely to spread AIDS?
It’s premature, but if the message he’s been preaching catches on, there will be a case. For instance:
I had no expectations of the man when he got chosen, but I’m rapidly starting to think the Cardinals got it right.
When was the last time the Nobel Peace Prize was taken seriously? Since 2000, there may be 5 times the award has gone to (a) receipient(s) that truly earned the award for contributing to Peace/Human Rights.
If Pope Francis won it would be “OK” then move on with life. I suspect that people think he would deserve it more than Al Gore or Barack Obama but I just think people don’t care about who wins the NPP and instead want to discuss who didn’t win.
She wanted poor people to suffer, because she thought it glorified her god. Running a hospital as some kind of pain farm is just fucked up.
Christopher Hitchens made the most celebrated expose, never rebutted, never refuted. As far as I can tell it is a fairly watertight case. Had he of all people resorted to outright lies then we’d sharp know about it.
Or consider a more recent publication by the university of Montreal is very through and comes to much the same conclusions.
Was that my claim? No.
Their ideology means they refuse to promote one of the most certain means of preventing aids.
If they think they hold enough power to turn the faithful to abstinence (which flies in the face of human nature) then surely their endorsement of condom use would be even more successful (seeing as it still allows sexual activity).
They shun a simple act that could save millions what is that if not reckless and dangerous?
A question for you, if you divided up a country of high HIV incidence into two areas and promoted abstinence and other forms of safe sex and the other did the same but heavily promoted condom use as well…which would be more successful?