the angry God".
Some called it an awareness that there are consequences of your action and a responsible person is not just a rhetorical figure of speech.
That, in my view, sums up the difference between Polish Catholicism and Pope Francis in a very apt way.
In my not. The mains reasons is that he is from Latin America and have no clue about Europe. the Church problems in Europe - what problems?
Also he seems to think that empty gestures as not wearing a proper Pope's shoes or what not would work on Europeans in the same way as something like that would work on Bolivian peasants.
One recent example of the RCC clergy doubtful "practices" is a story told by the Rzeczpospolita daily.
Really? There is plenty of made up real stories in what supposed to pass for a newspapers nowadays. How sure you're that is a truth story?
taking into account the priest's monthy income of about 2,500 zloty (whether after or before taxation was not disclosed, however) the fine was too high and should be annuled.
Sure thing it was too high, Given a fact that it wasn't any harm done, that lesson wasn't in money but in the fact that he was finned.
I wonder if there is more to the story because its hard for me to believe that in todays Poland any priests which is not over 60 would do that. How old was that child. Nowadays is hard to say - sometimes 14 years old is a young adult or 17 years is a child/ Its all depends on circumstances and on a bias of those talking.
I'm not sure if the court would eventually consent to this 'poor priest' argument, had it been not brought to the court's attention that the priest recently bought a new car worth 120,000 zloty, so he could easily afford to pay the fine
How do you know that? What more his money is none of your business nor is court's. Should you be paying for a speeding ticked depending on your income? Maybe, but so far the law in Poland doesn't reflect such a philosophy.
Maybe he has been saving to buy that car for years, maybe he got those money from his parents or maybe he inherited it.
That has nothing to do with the case.
The conclusions that come out of this story may be the following:
1.Generalisation is a ***** and seldom reflect the truth of the matter.
2. Ziemko is one of those with anti-religion or RCC bias.
3. Question arises how much of what he says is just a pure lie.