Benedict XVI Attended Beethoven's Ninth Symphony

Frank wrote:

Superintendent Lissner's speech and the "gaffe" regarding the fate

The Pope at La Scala, concert dedicated

to families affected by the earthquake

Benedict XVI attended Beethoven's Ninth Symphony conducted by Maestro Daniel Barenboim

http://milano.corrie...438357834.shtml

...

A makes me want to vomit. An article where the only thing considered "important" is Lissner's gaffe... how disgusting.

The Pope should have stayed at home and that money should have been used for much more urgent things at this moment...

But it is well known: charity and helping those in need are now just big words.

I quote Carlos, there is no more religion ....

Part of the blame lies with those who still invade St. Peter's Square and company; it is fine to be believers, but there are people who would sell their own mother for the Vatican. I do not think the Pope was the only one to attend the symphony for free; surely many others must have had this privilege that is never granted to mere mortals.

Just as when a chamber concert is held, in these cases it should be the musicians themselves who boycott, even at the risk of their jobs; otherwise, the usual platitudes will come from those who continue to justify the Vatican's presence in the world.

Those who are believers should not need holy cards, let alone someone who represents God on earth, since in theory one should not (according to them) take His name in vain, nor could one even represent Him or act in His "stead" on earth.

As always, they are good at dispensing advice and incensing themselves with good intentions; well, then, as a first step, renounce the Lateran Pacts, but we know they will never do it. They always meddle in every issue, yet no one can ask them questions.

And of course, everyone is good at that; we are always just standing there, and as long as people sleep on their feet, these people will keep going like this, and who will stop them?

I wouldn't want this to seem like sterile criticism; I have always wondered, on a practical level, what is the use of all these people behind the Pope, and him in the first place?

The majority are as full of gold as a jewelry store; they do absolutely nothing, yet they are in "peak form" given their bulk. No one monitors their actual work in the field or real aid to the people, who are always the ones doing good. Good is done by those who have nothing; it is always like that, and if donations were to start running low, perhaps we would have made at least a minimal step forward, but there is no way out.

The damages perpetrated by the Church still have repercussions today, and they will continue to do so for centuries. I do not justify people; they want all of this immediately, they deserve it. The problem is that even those who use their heads a little and do not allow themselves to be brainwashed from a young age suffer from it as well.

We are going off-topic, but not too much, since the title seems more like a provocation to me, so I feel permitted to allow this to continue in this sense...

In my opinion, one must distinguish the true Church from 'the' church. The true church is that made by parish priests who empty their pockets to create places for young people to play and to give them values; the priests and nuns who dedicate their lives to others in need by going to the third world. This should be the church... In Italy, we do not have a church, we have a criminal association aimed at profit. The church owns 30% of Italian real estate (for those not practiced in mathematics, they own about a third of Italy !!!!) and they don't pay a lira in property taxes. The church is exempt from IMU [municipal property tax] because its properties are places of worship. The church does not pay VAT because the Vatican is its own entity. Earnings from the cultivation of church lands or from real estate rentals are tax-free. In other words, it is a single-income portfolio. The beautiful thing is that there are still people who donate 8 per 1000 to the church when universities don't even have money to equip their laboratories. I believe that this tendency is gradually fading. The church still manages to command the "lost little sheep" because Italy is a country of elderly people, many of whom lack culture or are even illiterate, who grew up in this ecclesiastical environment and have swallowed the 'flying donkey' [nonsense] for years, but sooner or later these elderly people will have to die, and what will they tell the young people who, more or less, all have a diploma? They will continue to say: "Behave well, otherwise you will go to hell"? It seems to me that the story of hell and paradise has already been very, very revolutionized. The interviews between Margherita Hack and a cardinal are very amusing, easily found on YouTube, where Hack skillfully exaggerates the idiotcies reported by the cardinal, demonstrating how absurd the fairy tales he feeds people are, to the point that the cardinal tries to downplay (as much as possible) Hack's statements by laughing along with it. There is little to laugh about! With fairy tales and the sale of indulgences, they have built an indestructible economic empire. The most amazing thing is that I simply don't understand with what nerve they can appear on television stations asking for more funds for children in the third world when half of their money would be enough to fix them all! Is it possible that people are sleeping? However, to demonstrate that I am not an insensitive atheist but that I can also see something good, I tell you this: welcome to the church that instills values in young people, welcome to the church that shows the right way to follow for those who get lost, and welcome to the church that helps those in need. The church should not be an economic empire! Look at the only one who wanted the church to be poor like that of Jesus—what happened to him? Pope Luciani (13 days of pontificate), died under circumstances that were anything but clear!! Do we want to solve the Italian crisis? Let's tell the whole parliament to fuck off and have the church transferred to another nation. Everyone comes to Italy to see this pope!!! Well then, why don't other nations also take turns having him for 5 years?

TheSimon wrote:

The church is exempt from IMU (municipal property tax) because its properties are places of worship.

... if that's the case, banks don't pay IMU either ... , do we want to talk about that?!

Regarding IMU, the simplest thing, truly the absurdly simplest thing would be (rightfully so, since pedestrians are often forced to walk in traffic lanes because of those who park on sidewalks, but aren't they called sidewalks for a reason?) to apply the IMU to all Italian cars parked on the street; it is still occupation of public land. According to an initial estimate, the gain for the state would be at least 9 billion euros, which is not little. I would propose (seriously) this tax, but only this one and not the house, which to me is a more important asset than the car, which can often be done without (but I am biased, let's never forget that); it is also a fairer tax because cars occupy everything, and it is impossible to go on like this. In historic centers, within a certain radius, they should not be allowed to pass, yet it is always full; anyway, 180 euros per year for each car would not be a drain, given that as much or more is spent per month—actually, I would say every week and a half or two for those who spend less—so it would not be a scandal as some would claim.

The church, obviously, I would make pay everything, retroactively; thousands of billions of euros would come in. The same goes for the banks.

Rotore wrote:

... if that also means banks don't pay IMU ... , do we want to talk about it?!

In fact, the world is going badly because of politics, banks, and the church. And the fact that the bank doesn't pay IMU is truly shameful... When people say that politicians are the bankers' waiters.

Now we are truly off-topic ahahah

but I should give you an account of a music criticism course I followed between Rovereto and Cremona... we also met Guido Barbieri and Angelo Foletto (critics for Repubblica), and I can tell you that the situation is desolate... Foletto, for example, is a character I didn't imagine; it seems he doesn't care much about music, he doesn't enjoy it and doesn't want to talk about it. And anyway, according to him, a large editorial office (see that of Corriere) "forbids" you from talking about music even in dedicated spaces. Because it is taken for granted that the average reader has no interest in reading about it (beyond having the skills to understand it)

Long live culture, long live criticism !!