If you don't mind my asking: a metaphor for what?  If the resurrection is a metaphor, what truth does it signify, what does it stand for?  What does it mean?

Jesus after His resurrection invited doubting Thomas to touch him, and ate fish with His disciples.  The Apostles Creed affirms "I believe in... the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting."

We don't expect to be disembodied spirits floating in the ether for all eternity.  We expect God to raise us from the dead and give us new and improved physical bodies.

This is not a belief based on ignorance of death or how the brain works.  We realize that dead people tend to stay dead, in the natural order of things.  It's a belief based on a promise of eternal life from Jesus, and the hope that God will work a spectacular miracle, because God created the natural order and can re-create it if He so wills.  

Actually most of those folks won't bat an eye if you did commit formal apostasy, they'd find that much less shocking.

Past Popes have given the Urbi et Orbi greeting in many languages including Esperanto, and Vatican Radio broadcasts Esperanto programs three times a week.  They even have an Esperanto web page: http://eo.radiovaticana.va

Jimmy Akin explained this too:

Pope Francis is in the habit of saying daily Mass for the people at St. Martha's House and invited guests, and when he does so he gives an off-the-cuff homily (rather than reading from a prepared text).

This is actually something new.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI did not do this. They did not celebrate daily Mass as publicly as Pope Francis, and they did not have daily homilies published in this way. Instead, they occasionally delivered prepared homilies at public Masses on special occasions, and only these were published. 

As a result, the Vatican web people aren't scaled up for this volume of homilies, and--MADDENINGLY--you can't find complete texts of Pope Francis's daily ones on the site.

They, apparently, aren't running these homilies through "the usual process," which involves transcribing what the pope says in off-the-cuff remarks, showing him the transcript so that he can revise it if needed, and then translating and publishing them.

Great point, I think we'd all do well to remember the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son.

But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, `Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.  But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!'  And he said to him, `Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.  It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.'"

It's very human to think if we've spent our lives serving God and obeying His commandments that we deserve some exclusive reward, and to feel threatened if God rewards to others we think have done less to "earn" it.

I suspect for several reasons.

Many non-Christians assume if we say that only Christians go to heaven, this means we think Christians are all sweet, nice, good people while non-Christians are all mean, vicious, bad people.  That's not what we believe, and it's manifestly not true, but I think it's a common misinterpretation.

Further,  I gather that many (particularly liberals) believe this lies at the root of our supposed "intolerance," that if we think everyone else is damned anyway we're more likely to oppress and persecute them.

Finally, the press in particular wants to spin this as further evidence for multiculturalism, for the idea that all religions are basically the same and interchangeable.  "See, even the Pope says it doesn't matter what religion you are since everyone goes to heaven."

Jimmy Akin posted some background and context for the homily.  He makes a pretty strong argument that the Pope wasn't talking about heaven or salvation at all.

Pope Francis is talking about a path "toward peace" and wants us to "meet there" by doing our part and doing good so that we build "that culture of encounter" and "meet one another doing good."

He's not talking about heaven at all.

He's talking about earth.

What he's saying is that even atheists need to do good on earth to build their part of the culture of encounter that promotes peace and allows people to "meet together" in harmony.

I can't deny that Silly Love Songs is a treacly pop song, or that Let Em In is just inane.

But most of the Wings albums tracks are actually much better than the singles.  Band on the Run is solid classic rock all the way through, and London Town is a real gem.

But if you strip away all the context, what is there in the quote that implies judgement?  The quote is of a messenger telling a man that wind destroyed his house and killed his children.  The quote doesn't even mention God, let alone say that God caused the wind, let alone suggest that God did it in order to punish him.

Out of context, all the quote really tells you is that there's a story about a tornado in the Bible.

If that were the case I'd find it easier to understand, but she said Paul "responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness."

If the slave girl actually had a "gift of spiritual awareness" doesn't that imply the existence of spirits?  Can one have "spiritual awareness" if there are no spirits to be aware of?

Further she seems to believe Paul did something to deprive her of this gift.  How would a "public display of bigotry" rob her of spiritual awareness?

But isn't that the same game the Fed has been playing for decades?

I thought the suggestion was that with the various QE and QE2 policies the Fed was entering uncharted waters that could lead lead to true hyperinflation, i.e. the kind where people start using dollar bills for kindling and carry $1000 bills to the store to buy groceries.

If inflation kicks up to, say, 8% for a few years, that would be unpleasant but hardly into "hyperinflation" territory as I understand it.

Sigh... I should have left with Foxfier and Western Chauvinist.

I'm beginning to suspect Pope Francis hit a nerve, that many of you have in fact made the almighty and all-knowing Market your idol.  Market is never wrong, Market feeds and clothes us, all bow down before mighty Market!

Certainly the mechanisms of the market offer secure advantages: they help to utilize resources better; they promote the exchange of products; above all they give central place to the person's desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another person. Nevertheless, these mechanisms carry the risk of an "idolatry" of the market, an idolatry which ignores the existence of goods which by their nature are not and cannot be mere commodities.

43. The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.⁸⁴ For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.

Is that really so different than what Pope Francis said?

40. It is the task of the State to provide for the defence and preservation of common goods such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces. Just as in the time of primitive capitalism the State had the duty of defending the basic rights of workers, so now, with the new capitalism, the State and all of society have the duty of defending those collective goods which, among others, constitute the essential framework for the legitimate pursuit of personal goals on the part of each individual.

Here we find a new limit on the market: there are collective and qualitative needs which cannot be satisfied by market mechanisms. There are important human needs which escape its logic. There are goods which by their very nature cannot and must not be bought or sold.

What do you suggest we do about it?

If you were on the next GOP platform committee, what would you suggest we include to rectify the situation?