Is Pope Francis Really a Progressive Example?

[MineralMan]

What would DU be saying about Pope Francis if he were running for the Presidency? How would we react to his full range of positions on things? Let's look at those positions and the positions of the Roman Catholic Church in several areas relating to social justice, and rank the Pope and the RCC on those positions Are they progressive or Tea Party-like?:

1. Economic Justice - Recently Pope Francis has been very public on economic issues and has condemned greed, whether corporate or otherwise. He has championed the needs of those who have been left out on economic issues. His positions on these issues are progressive, to be sure. It's unclear whether the RCC has any way of effecting such positions.
2. Women's Issues -Women are still excluded from all real positions of power in the Roman Catholic Church, and this pope seems to have no plans to change that. In fact, the RCC, under his leadership, is continuing to battle against women's leadership in the Church. The patriarchy of the RCC continues. In this area, the RCC, and this Pope, are in Tea Party territory or even worse.
3. Reproductive Rights - The dismal record of the Roman Catholic Church in terms of reproductive rights across the board continues apace. There's no sign of the Church letting up on their war against freedom of choice when it comes to reproduction. The Church and this Pope, continue to fight against contraception, abortion, and are as anti-choice as they have always been. Here, too, the Roman Catholic Church and this Pope align with the Tea Party.
4. LGBT Rights - Here, too, the Roman Catholic Church takes a position that is close to that of the Tea Party. Opposition to same-sex marriage, equality and adoption continues apace from this Pope and his Church. I see no turn to progressivism in this area whatsoever. There is no hint that the Church will bend on these issues at all.

So, there are four social justice issues. It's not a complete list, but all four issues are important to progressives. What's the score? It's plainly 3-1 on the negative, Tea Party conservative side. On economic issues, the new Pope is saying things that sound progressive. On the other three social justice issues I list, the Pope and his Church remain ultra-conservative, and hold the same positions held by the Tea Party, or even worse.

If a Presidential candidate in this country held the positions this Pope and his Church hold, Democratic Underground would be screaming at the top of its collective lungs against such a candidate. On balance, Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church he heads scores very badly when it comes to social justice issues, except for progressives statement, if not actions, on economic justice issues.

Overall, I'll put the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Francis in the Tea Party camp, 3-1. Your opinion might differ, so let's hear what you think.

For those who do not read signature lines on DU: This post is my opinion as are all of my posts where I am not quoting another source. Your opinion might differ from mine. We can discuss that in this thread.

[Le Taz Hot]

1. I can recongize and join in on his

condemnation of the 1% and his focus on the global poor WHILE recognizing and opposing the bigotry towards women and gays entrenched in the RCC and, it seems, this Pope.

Not everything has to be an either/or POV and I see this issue as one of them.

I think he can be of great help in what I think will be the upcoming upheavals inherent when the Predator Classes get too greedy and the prols are left with nothing.

[MineralMan]

2. And yet, would you support someone who held the same positions

as this Pope who was running for office in the USA? That's the question I'm asking.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. I used the word "recognize,"

the "support" word is yours.

[KittyWampus]

8. Sorry, it's a meaningless question. He is head of a religious organization not a head of state.

And he isn't elected by the populous.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

[el_bryanto]

17. If Pope Francis were running for office in the US I wouldn't vote for him.

But he's not; he's already the Pope. He's already the leader of the Catholic Church which has, at best, a spotty history. And he seems to be trying to improve it. I don't know whether he will succeed, but I wish him well in that effort.

Bryant

[PeaceNikki]

3. Exactly. He excommunicated a priest who advocated for gay marriage and female clergy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/pope-francis-excommunicates-priest-greg-reynolds_n_3983059.html

Also:

"Pushing the Catholic Church to embrace the full legal equality of LGBTQ people or the bodily autonomy of women is not petty or nitpicking or asking for too much too soon, it is essential to achieving the pope’s stated platform. Because, beyond being issues of deep cultural and political importance, they are economic issues, too.

In the same document in which he so eloquently tears down the gross excesses of free market capitalism, he remains utterly silent on the rights of LGBTQ people, who are often, it should be noted, more likely to experience poverty and homelessness than straight people in similar circumstances.

Francis has remarked in the past that the church has become fixated on its opposition to marriage equality and other issues of LGBTQ equality at the expense of its broader mission toward inclusion, but hasn’t budged on the supposed sinfulness of being gay.

In the same interview for which he was widely heralded as a beacon of progressivism, he also said, “The teaching of the church, for that matter [of abortion, contraception and gay marriage], is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

But as the pope’s explicit and specific critique of capitalism’s excesses shows, it is incredibly necessary to talk about these things. Because widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people — which people like Rick Santorum and others defend as a matter of “faith” — results in widespread violence, disproportionate income inequality, job discrimination and other injustices that the pope nominally opposes."

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/27/sorry_pope_francis_reproductive_justice_and_lgbtq_rights_are_economic_issues_too/

[MineralMan]

5. Thanks!

[rug]

48. Don't forget the dog eating Communion.

[PeaceNikki]

50. No. He allowed an attendee to give a host to his dog.

[rug]

51. Uh, that would be a Yes.

Don't forget the dog eating Communion. He allowed an attendee to give a host to his dog.

[PeaceNikki]

52. Yes, what?? You think the attendee feeding his dog the sacrament is what got the priest

booted? Nope.

As long as we're playing "don't forget", don't forget how, "in April, Francis reaffirmed his predecessor’s censure of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, an umbrella organization that represents 80 percent of Catholic nuns in the United States. These nuns were penalized by the Vatican, and continue to be penalized, for focusing on poverty instead of stoking moral panic about the existence of gay people or sexually active teenagers — exactly the kind of community-centered work that Francis just declared sorely missing from the church.

In the report admonishing the sisters, and stripping them of the independent authority to develop their own charter and conduct their own business, the Vatican said they were undermining “issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality” and promoting “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

Francis’ censure places these women under the full authority of the Vatican and its “program of reform,” which includes the appointment of three male bishops to manage the rewriting of the nuns’ conference statutes, review its community-based programs and otherwise ensure the group “properly” follows Catholic teaching.

[rug]

60. That is far more likely than criticizing church policies.

I haven't seen any nuns excommunicated for their opinions.

[PeaceNikki]

64. Don't you see the HYPOCRISY of the pontiff via the censure of “radical feminist” nuns?

It's laughable.

"Like Pope Emeritus Benedict, Francis believes that the nuns focus too much on serving their communities around issues of health care and economic justice and too little on gay people and abortion. In a report issued by the Vatican under Benedict’s leadership, the Holy See accused the group of undermining “issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality” and promoting a “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”"

[MineralMan]

66. Good illustration of some of these issues.

The Church has a patriarchy to protect, and this Pope, like others before him, will squash any attempt to alter that patriarchy. I can't see a defense that can be brought forward that says any different.

[rug]

67. Oh, I see lots of hypocrisy (sic) in this thread.

But we were discussing the Australian priest, not the next item on your agenda.

[PeaceNikki]

71. We were actually discussing the censured nuns in our continuing "don't forget" saga.

I know it's hard to keep up with all of the ways this pope is not some fucking liberal hero, but I think you can manage.

[rug]

74. You were posting about a priest who was excommunicated for his views.

You were corrected.

Be patient. It's unhealthy to vent your spleen all at once.

[PeaceNikki]

78. Oh please... corrected? You think it was about the fucking DOG? You are wrong.

http://ncronline.org/news/global/australian-priest-advocate-womens-ordination-excommunicated

An Australian priest vocal in his support of women's ordination has become the first person excommunicated for such beliefs under the papacy of Pope Francis.

Fr. Greg Reynolds of Melbourne, Australia, told NCR by email late Monday night his initial reaction was "shock" upon learning of his separation from the church. Australian media have reported he is the first member of the Melbourne archdiocese excommunicated and the first priest from the area laicized for reasons other than pedophilia.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/27/pope-francis-excommunicates-australian-priest/

In the first such excommunication since the new pontiff took office Fr Greg Reynolds was dismissed in a letter from the Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart, which stated that “the decision by Pope Francis to dismiss Fr Reynolds from the clerical state and to declare his automatic excommunication has been made because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the teaching of the Church and his public celebration of the Eucharist when he did not hold faculties to act publicly as a priest.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/australian-priest-first-to-be-excommunicated-by-pope-francis-1.1541165

An Australian Catholic priest Fr Greg Reynolds (60) has been excommunicated by Pope Francis because of his views on women priests. It is understood to be the first excommunication of any kind to take place under this Pope since he assumed office last March.

[rug]

79. " . . . and his public celebration of the Eucharist when he did not hold faculties to act publicly"

Yes, corrected.

You had left that part out in your haste to unfold your agenda.

[PeaceNikki]

82. uh... keep reading... not. about. the. dog.

http://ncronline.org/news/excommunicated-australian-priest-i-did-not-give-communion-dog

In an emailed response to NCR, Archbishop Denis Hart appeared to verify that he sided with Reynolds' account of what transpired.

"From media reports, the archdiocese is aware of the presence of Reynolds where the sacred species were given by another person to an animal. That anyone would feed the Eucharist to an animal is an abomination," Hart said.

According to Hart -- in a letter to his priests and also a statement to NCR -- the decisions to remove Reynolds from the clerical state and excommunicate him came "because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the teaching of the church and his public celebration of the Eucharist when he did not hold faculties to act publicly as a priest."

The part you quoted is in reference to the fact that he resigned as a priest in 2011 and held communion afterwards. The dog controversy was laid to rest when the priest denied it and the church verified his version of events.

My 'agenda' is equal rights which is in stark contrast to the RCC and its leader.

[SidDithers]

88. Well done...

It's amazing the lengths that some posters will go to deny the truth about this Pope.



Sid

[rug]

89. " . . . and his public celebration of the Eucharist when he did not hold faculties to act publicly"

I'm sure the dog eating Communion at one of these Masses had nothing to do with it.

[PeaceNikki]

90. read. the. whole. article.

The part you keep quoting is in reference to the fact that he resigned as a priest in 2011 and held communion afterwards. The dog controversy was laid to rest when the priest denied it and the church verified his version of events.

Several accounts, letters, articles, and sources indicate he was ousted because of his views on women priests.

But you just stay in your little bubble thinking it was about the dog if that's what helps you sleep at night. I'm done debating this with you.

In summary: meet the new pope, same as the new pope - but sweeter!!

[rug]

94. I've followed this story for the past two years.

You seem to have fashioned a bubble yourself regarding all things Catholic.

People who live in bubbles really shouldn't be so prickly.

[EOTE]

4. I wouldn't want him as president, but I think he's great as a pope.

Mostly because he's moving the RCC in the right direction. Dennis Kucinich is never going to be pope. Frankly, I'm amazed that Francis has been as good of a pope as he has been. I can hardly think of someone who would do better and actually be considered for the position.

[MineralMan]

9. I'm not a Catholic, or even a Christian.

Should I be holding this Pope up as an example of someone who is championing social justice? I do not think so. Instead, I am calling him and his organization to account for their dismal record and current positions on social justice.

My point is that if someone who held his positions were running for President, we would not be praising him here on DU. We would be condemning his positions and encouraging people to look elsewhere. The Pope is a world leader, of sorts. Should we not hold him to account on all social justice issues?

[EOTE]

18. I'm not either as well. I think he should be held up as someone who is taking a very backward

organization and moving it in the right direction. And not only that, but he's walking the walk in addition to talking the talk. So many previous people in his position were content to blather on and on while providing no solid example of their own. Considering the positions the RCC currently has and how he's gone against many of them in his short time as pope, I really can't find much fault with what he's doing.

[mmonk]

6. My opinion is positive.

Who else has thrown economic justice out there besides Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren? I must admit. when he took Francis's name (Francesco), I was nervous since my family attends a Franciscan Church and Francis was far removed from Church governance as an administer to the poor, rejected, and downtrodden. I welcome him as one who might could help change the balance and I belong to a Franciscan Church that does not reject the LBGBT community. My question is why complain about someone who may help in changing the equation?

[MineralMan]

11. Does your Franciscan church celebrate same-sex marriages?

Does it encourage reproductive choice? Does it have women in leadership positions?

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

[Shivering Jemmy]

19. where does your "buying it" or not enter the equation?

The user stated hir reasons for not rejecting this pope, and what he/she values in hir church but did not argue that you needed to respond in any particular way.
What were you asked to "buy"?

[MineralMan]

23. DU is a place where people post their opinions of things.

That's a basic part of what the site is about. My not "buying it" is my opinion. In a thread I started, I will reply to those who reply to my opening thread regarding my opinion. Everyone holds opinions. That's what we discuss here. What is your opinion about what I posted in the original post for this thread?

[Shivering Jemmy]

35. my opinion is that you would make a terrible survey designer

In that you choose questions with a pronounced confirmation bias.

[MineralMan]

63. OK. I'm not a survey designer.

I'm a DUer. What do you think about the Church's positions on the items I listed? You're more than welcome to bring up other issues. That's your prerogative. But, you have not addressed the issues I did raise. You don't have to do that, either. This is DU. You can do as you please here, as can I.

[mmonk]

20. In submission to your all knowing and perfect judgement,

you'll find my church listed here. Peace to you (it's St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in Raleigh).

http://www.gaychurch.org/list-churches-by-state/?loc=NC

[MineralMan]

21. That does not answer either of my questions, you know.

The questions remain.

[mmonk]

32. To answer the best I can since we have been members

only for a year is that divorced Catholics, women who have had abortions, and the gay community attend and are active members in church activities. The Franciscans have the Franciscan order for men and the Poor Clares for women. The Church marches in the annual gay pride festival in Durham NC. That's all I currently know as we were without a Church for years due to the conservative tilt of the Catholic Church the last 20 years away from social justice as far as direction goes. Therefore, I just mentioned that I welcomed the current pope's movement away from the curia a bit. Take it as you wish.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Your church's website about marriage says 'one man, one woman, God' plan'

Your chruch takes gay money but does not treat it's gay members as equals. Says so right there on the page. When asked, you danced around, so I went and looked. Your club discriminates against it's own members, just like Jesus said to do!

[mmonk]

56. I don't dance, I just know about the LGBT Ministry and retreats

and the list was compiled by the LGBT community. I'm not a particularly religious person so don't get all crazy. So be careful with your buckshot in your war. Watch out for collateral damage.

[mmonk]

65. Trying to make you realize I'm on your side.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. You can not serve God and Mammon.

You excuse bigotry practiced toward me, you are not on my side. Sorry.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Here is Francis on marriage equality and gay families. Tell me why you see this as

positive, if you can manage.

“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/pope-francis-i-same-sex-marriage-is-a-machination-of-the-father-of-lies-20130313/#ixzz2oaVhcEHA

This is what your Pope says about my family. You see him as a positive? I see those words as vicious, heretical hate speech of the worst sort. Which parts of this quote do you see as positive? Which is your favorite part?

[mmonk]

37. Obviously not the same as yours and your projections on me.

I am for marriage equality. I just notice changes no matter how subtle.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. And yet when asked to point out these changes you claim to see, you snap at me.

You said you see Francis as a positive, big improvement. I asked you to tell me what is postive in that quote. You got snippy. Good for you. You are 'for equality' and also 'for those who oppose it'. Understood.

[mmonk]

69. I believe it was you that took exception that I thought he was a positive change.

Depends on your measuring stick but I am in no way conducive to inequality.

[Bluenorthwest]

110. I asked you to clarify you confusing position, which you failed to do.

You may not be conductive to inequality, but you are promoting a man who teaches deep inequality as a positive. So I asked you about Francis actual words. This seems to have upset you greatly. I brought reality into it. I asked you to address Francis words, show me where the 'positive' lies in those words. And rather than provide an answer, you lashed out at me for asking. Clearly you were at a loss for an answer regarding Francis actual words.

[Schema Thing]

10. As Pope's go, he's extremely progressive.

And since he's the Pope, and there is only one at a time, and Popes influence billions of people and world and local politics, his Pope-centric progressiveness should be warmly welcomed. No one will be confused that you have suddenly become anti-choice.

The Tea party, being nominally secular, and centered around American politics, and horrible and regressive, should not be warmly welcomed.


If you are busy using tortured logic to compare the current Pope to the tea party, you might miss being able to welcome someone influenced by the Pope into the progressive voting column.

[MineralMan]

13. I welcome all voters who vote for candidates who are progressive,

or even just Democrats. We need more of them.

GOTV 2014!

[ananda]

12. I too have concern about the social rights attitudes of the Vatican.

However, I do tend to like Pope Frank for his humility and concern
for the poor, the homeless, and the hoarding by the rich.

[MineralMan]

15. Can we legitimately call the Catholic Church

and this Pope to account for their dismal record in other areas? That is what I am doing. I agree with the economic positions, enthusiastically, but do not stop there when it comes to social justice.

[MindPilot]

14. Obama doesn't pass the PPT either.

That's "Progressive Purity Test".

But he is exponentially better than the last guy. Pope Frankie is a big improvement; I'll take that as a win.

ETA: The Pope may not be able to undo generations of RCC policy, but he has what may very well be the most heard voice on the planet. When he talks, the world listens.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. He talks, the world listens, this is what they hear him say about equal rights for gays:

“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

What part of that are you endorsing as a 'big improvement'? Is it alright with you if I say those things about your family, in public, on TV, etc? Or is it just ok to attack others in that manner, not yourself?

[MindPilot]

124. Oh I'm very sorry, I was wrong. Fuck the pope.

He isn't perfect, therefore worthless.

I've been on DU a long time, but this place is of late beginning to make me seriously question my politics. If this is liberalism, I want no part of it.

[hobbit709]

16. A lot more progressive than his recent predecessors.

He's still has a long way to go but a river digs a deep valley one little rock at a time.

[Vashta Nerada]

22. K&R

If Francis was running for President here in the US, he'd be a Republican.

But hey, people here love him.

[MineralMan]

25. Thanks. You understood my point in the opening post.

I'm very glad that this Pope is calling for more equitable economic policies. That's great. However, there are still all of those right-wing positions he and his church hold. What about them?

I cannot mention one without the other. I call Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church to account for their policies. They remain silent on most of them.

[Vashta Nerada]

28. Ratz spoke out against capitalism as well.

This is nothing new with Popes. That's their job.

Francis is no different from every other Pope. Great, well thought out OP. Hopefully it'll resonate with some folks here.

[PeaceNikki]

58. Exactly. I don't know why suddenly this guy is a hero here.

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2009/07/07/pope-benedict-on-economic-justice/6220

[mmonk]

97. There are differences in popes.

Such as with all human beings (including presidents).

[Vashta Nerada]

98. What difference?

One wore stylish shoes and the other doesn't. Besides that, there is absolutely no difference.

[mmonk]

102. If you are interested, you should look for yourself.

Some were for wars, some not for example. Some for science, some not. etc. etc.

[Vashta Nerada]

108. You made the claim. The burden of proof is your's, not mine.

[mmonk]

109. I believe you made the claim they are all the same.

I gave you examples.

[Bluenorthwest]

116. They are all anti gay, anti choice preacher men gathering up the cash.

Same. I see no difference. Benedict wrote many pieces about economic inequality, just like Francis. But both hate gays and oppose women's freedom. Same, same, same.

[Cleita]

26. He's about as progressive as you can get in an institution that is a medieval,

feudal monarchy. If he goes any further left today, he could be ousted by the Curia (the Church's Supreme Court) and/or College of Cardinals (his liege lords) as an apostate or heretic. It's really up to the rank and file Catholic to start movements to change doctrines about women priests and LBGT issues, etc. much as we must pull our elected officials in the direction we wish them to act by sheer force of numbers.

I think his actions right now are messages to the six million Catholics of the world that he is willing to do real progressive changes, but that he needs them to have his back since he is going to have to go up against the aforementioned two powerful contingents in the Church. If the Curia and Cardinals see that this is what six million Catholics want and realize they are vastly outnumbered, the less inclined they will be to stand in the way if Francis starts making real reforms. It's all very political.

[Jamaal510]

29. This is a somewhat unique political combination;

fiscal progressivism combined with social conservatism. Usually when people are fiscally-progressive, they tend to be almost always socially-progressive, and when people are socially-conservative, they are fiscally-conservative. In fact, even fiscal conservatives who are socially-progressives are more common than those who hold stances similar to the Pope.

As far as if I would vote for someone with those beliefs in an election, I would if he or she ends up being the Dem nominee. As someone who is male and straight, I would have a somewhat guilty conscious about voting for someone with those type of backwards social beliefs, but simultaneously, their economic beliefs would be in the best interest for people like me who happen to be poor. When you get right down to it, the Pope seems to probably be even more progressive on fiscal/economic policy than many elected Democrats.

[Vashta Nerada]

33. Read post #3

[Bluenorthwest]

36. It would be if the 'fiscal progressivism' was anything more than rhetoric

Francis flies on his own jet plane, RCC holds more Manhattan real estate than anyone else, they are very old, very large money and not one thing about their business conduct has changed under Francis. His actions are identical to the actions of other Popes, he blathers in one direction while taking no action to bring that blather to fruition.
How unusual is it, really, to see a political figure speak rhetoric that is not carried out in action? To see a man like Francis claim to be 'for the people' while in reality being anti gay, bigoted and filthy rich with power and money is not at all unusual.

[Shivering Jemmy]

30. You got the results you wanted by cherrypicking your categories.

What about the church's position on global warming? The death penalty? Biodiversity?

Change the categories get different results.

[Lucinda]

39. Yup.

[MineralMan]

42. I picked four categories that affect individuals on an

immediate basis, and that are widely discussed here on DU. For three of those important issues having to do with social justice, the Pope and his church are far to the right. For one, the economic issue, the Pope is heading in a good direction and is calling for change. All four issues are major ones that affect individuals who are seeking equality and justice.

How do you feel about the Pope's position on those? My thread. My choice of issues to address.

[Vashta Nerada]

87. Yeah. Who cares about gays, women, and children.

[madinmaryland]

140. I missed where they said they don't care about gays, women, and children.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. If Phil from Duck Dynasty gave away a million to feed the poor, would his hate speech

be celbrated by folks on DU? Phil and Francis say the same things, quote the same selective scriptures, and hold the same bigoted conclusions. But folks here rail against the one while excusing and promoting the other. To me, those who promote Francis are exactly the same as Duck Dynasty fans, conservatives who dislike those who are different and use public figures as symbols of their anti gay, and anti woman sentiments.

[think]

34. The Tea Party Pope. Oh my....

And all along I thought it was Phil:

[Orsino]

125. Just as Obama is the Tea Party president.

Or something.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. I don't dispute your category rankings

This pope in some cases has softened the tone a little in regressive areas but the policy remains the same. Policy and action matter most. In some cases a softening of tone can be beneficial in some ways even though ultimately nothing of substance changes. I believe that is probably why The Advocate named Francis man of the year, for comments such as "Who am I to Judge?". It maintains discrimination but lessens overt hate. Hate fuels hate crimes etc.

The thing about economics is that it is an issue that cuts across the board and effects all human beings, and for the portion of the world that lives in poverty, which is most of it, it literally is a life or death issue So a progressive position on economics is of critical importance to billions. Social issues involve sociological changes of belief systems. Government has a role in promoting social changes in some cases, such as banning public racial discrimination, and legalizing gay marriage, but the most profound changes must evolve in the social realm. Though economic issues have a social dimension also, such as the public attitude toward greed, government has a much more direct role it can play in addressing economic inequities in society. And governments can change relatively rapidly through a dynamic political process or even through revolution. So an intense focus on economic issues can potentially bring about both profound and rapid wide spread positive changes.

I think it foolish to argue about whether Pope Francis is a progressive leader. On a societal level clearly he isn't. The Roman Catholic Church is a profoundly conservative institution in the most literal meaning of that word. Perhaps he is a relative progressive within the leadership ranks of that institution (though not among lay Catholics). Any claim beyond that is silly. He however has articulated a very progressive economic message, rooted in the preachings from the New Testament. Some argue that he is saying nothing new for a Catholic Church in the realm of economic justice, prior popes have said the same. That may be true, but that can be compared to the platform of the Democratic Party which remains fairly consistent regarding liberal goals over the decade, such as support of organized Labor for one example. The fact that a pro-Union plank happens to be in every Democratic Party platform that all of our candidates for President run on doesn't guarantee that all of our Democratic Presidents assign equal importance toward advocating for that position.

What this Pope is now doing, in terms of what one man can potentially accomplish, is potentially revolutionary. Why do I say that? Because he is fundamentally shifting the public understanding of what it entails to be a good Christian, and that has ramifications for all Christians, not just Catholics. And there are an awful lot of professed Christians in this world. For decades now the public face of Christianity has evolved towards the condemnation of sinners, however that be defined and increasingly it has been defined in an incredibly intolerant - even hateful fashion. The literal message of Jesus Christ as contained in his purported gospels was seldom invoked. Jesus preached little about fire and brimstone, he preached a lot about forgiveness and compassion and all "men" being "brothers" who one should love as one loves oneself. If Pope Francis succeeds in returning the meaning of Christianity to the message contained in the gospels, it is a shift that the ruling elites should well be anxious over.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Francis said this about marriage equality. It is hate speech, like Phil the Duck guy.

“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Vicious and horrific, this is the sort of hate that leads to laws like those in Uganda, where RCC is the largest religion. Gay = Life in prison. That's what you are attempting to mitigate here. Francis has not said a thing against this law, although Uganda is 43% RCC, followers of Francis. He remained silent.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. We are discussing him as pope

He said those things before as a Cardinal in Argentina, and yes statements like those are used by the sort of people who advance homicidal laws of the sort in Uganda that you refer to, in order to justify their position. Most likely nothing has changed in his personal belief system since he made those statements. I completely agree with you that he should speak out as pope against the Uganda laws - I do not think such an action would go against his professed belief in the current teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

In regards to his short reign as pope there clearly are some differing view points within the GLBT community regarding him, as evidenced by the decision of The Guardian, but I do not dispute the facts you present or the potential adverse impact of them.

For those who are believers in the Catholic faith, and I have to assume that Francis is one of them, there is a spiritual transformation of sorts that takes place when one becomes Pope. That is recognized by the taking on of a new name. Either through divine intervention (for those who believe in such) or through deep spiritual reflection brought on by the awesome new responsibilities of being the pope, one can either hope or pray that Francis moves ever closer to the light.

All that being said I agreed above that Francis is not a progressive leader and that he has not been progressive on GLBT issues among others.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. So if I change my name to Goddy McGodster today all I said yesterday is now

unsaid, voided? What a silly cop out for Francis to claim. He's the same greedy, power desiring corporate climber he always was. What's in a name? A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.
What he has said about my people does not disappear because he got a new wardrobe.

[PeaceNikki]

68. I am with you, BNW.

He is a threat to equal rights. He and the church and will always be. They will never view women or homosexuals as equal. And, as such, I will never laud their leadership as allies.

[Bluenorthwest]

72. I wish folks would just admit they don't mind the sexism and homophobia and that

they don't care if his words about 'economic justice' are just rhetorical hot air. They should say 'it's ok if he never actually DOES anyting about poverty as long as he keeps metioning it'.
I'm sick of seeing a bigot praised for rhetoric that does not actually help anyone. Dolan, Francis's bigot in command in the US, is the single largest holder of real estate in NYC, the dicocean holdings are in his name, this raging hate monger who serves at Francis pleasure. Sell all you have an follow me, or just libel gay people and keep your cash, it's all good in 'believer world'.

[PeaceNikki]

76. Oh yes, I am from Milwaukee and VERY familiar with Dolan and his ilk.

And, like I said elsewhere, to “not talk about these issues all the time,” for the pope, means silence from the single most powerful Catholic voice in the face of American lawmakers who, in their thirst to criminalize abortion and deny women access to birth control, shutter clinics that provide cancer screenings, pap smears and other basic healthcare for low-income women. It means saying nothing while Timothy Dolan, the top church official in the United States, calls for mass action from American Catholics to oppose basic legal equality for gays and lesbians.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. He didn't claim that. I just pointed out an aspect of Church dogma that predates him

by a millennium or two. Of course what he said before has not disappeared, and he has not renounced it. The larger discussion started by this OP concerns what role Francis plays or does not play on various issues since he became pope. His papal words get much more attention and potentially have much more influence on people world wide then anything he said when he was a cardinal in Argentina. That simply is true. And I repeat for the third or fourth time, IMO he in no way is progressive on GLBT issues.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. Have you even read the whole diatribe from his jet which folks distill to 'who am I

to judge?' I doubt it. In that same rant he attacked 'the gay lobby' saying simply and clearly 'it is bad'. He said gay people should not organize or identify, have community or goals as a people.
And for the third or fouth time 'He's a bigot but that's ok' is creepy shit to hear daily on a political website ostensibly for liberals . Excuses offered for those who slander me and mine do not impress me and mine. There are no excuses for ignorant hate. None.

[Tom Rinaldo]

92. No, it is not OK to be a bigot.

I think the Church holds discriminatory positions and that is not OK with me. That was true before Francis and it remains true. But DU is a discussion board where we do more than state adherence to core political and moral values. We also analysis political and social developments. This popes higher profile emphasis of economic injustice has real world political repercussions regarding economic issues and political agendas, and that includes potential implications for the 2014 mid term elections.

[MineralMan]

115. I have to wonder about the relativity of the term "Progressive."

I'm seeing things like "more progressive," and qualified statements about being progressive in this thread. Yet, in many other threads, we often see statements that one is either progressive or not progressive.

Is progressivism a relative thing? Are there shades of being progressive? That's really the subject of this thread. Can we call a world leader a Progressive when only statements about a single social justice issue appear to be progressive, while the other issues are either not spoken of or are spoken of in regressive terms.

Someone brought up the death penalty in this thread. The RCC has been opposed to capital punishment for quite a long time. That is a progressive stance, to be sure. But, still, ignoring the rights of half of the population and deliberately thwarting the rights of a minority group (LGBT) are decidedly NOT progressive.

So far, the economic statements of Pope Francis sound good. Will they result in changes? I have no idea. We shall see. I hope so. But the other issues remain.

Is the Pope a Progressive? That was my original question. I think not, and gave my reasons for that thinking. And there it is: my opinion.

Thanks for your thoughtful participation in this thread. I really appreciate it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

119. By no standard (other than a highly restrictive internal to high Church leadership one)...

can this pope be reasonably be called a progressive. Words have meaning even when those words are a bit fuzzy and hard to sharply define. But this pope clearly opposes many core issues associated with progressive politics even though he may seem progressive, and provide some leadership on, others

If any two self identified progressives could agree on a check list of 20 important social/political issues to take stands on, I think it would be highly unusual for both to agree on their stands on all twenty of them. We see that all the time in Democratic politics. I am hard pressed to think of any high ranking Democrat who most of us would consider progressive who hasn't disappointed me more than once on a matter of importance to me that I would expect "a progressive" to agree with me on. Maybe Barny Sanders hasn't - but I'm afraid to look too closely at the totality of his views because I prefer to think we agree on everything, lol.

[MineralMan]

123. What's kind of funny to me is that I've always claimed to be

a pragmatist. For that, I have been chastened mightily on DU. I am a pragmatist, and am interested in moving toward my goals, even if slowly, rather than moving away from them. Philosophically, I am a Socialist. Practically, I am a Democrat. So, I frequently argue for candidates and elected officials who are moving in a progressive direction, even if they are not moving fast enough, or are not moving hardly at all on particular issues.

Now, when I bring up some failings of this new Pope, who is receiving much praise for some things he has said regarding economic justice, I am suddenly told that I'm seeing things in black and white, even though I was very clearly not doing that in my opening post. I find it interesting to now be in the "purity" group, since nobody has ever said such a thing to me on DU.

I see progressivism as a goal, not an end state. It's just that, when I look at the Roman Catholic Church and its Popes, of whom I have seen several, I cannot see any real progressive movement coming from that sector. While I can say that Pope Francis is saying some things regarding economic justice, they are things that have been said by the RCC before, many times. I can also see that the Church is not moving at all on progressive issues that are very important to me. Words are good, but without action, they are without meaning as far as I am concerned.

I cannot see Pope Francis as a progressive. I see no movement in crucial issues, nor do I see him calling for such movement. I don't see the Roman Catholic Church divesting itself of its wealth, either, and distributing it in aid of social justice. I recently brought my mother-in-law home from a convalescent hospital after her most recent hospitalization. That place is owned by and operated by the local Archdiocese. They pay their aides and other staff the same crappy wages paid by most of such businesses here. It is not a living wage. That makes the Pope's words ring hollow in my ear.

I would welcome a progressive Pope. I'm not seeing one in Pope Francis, and for the reasons I stated in my OP.

[PeaceNikki]

43. But to “not talk about these issues all the time,” for the pope, means silence from the single

most powerful Catholic voice in the face of American lawmakers who, in their thirst to criminalize abortion and deny women access to birth control, shutter clinics that provide cancer screenings, pap smears and other basic healthcare for low-income women. It means saying nothing while Timothy Dolan, the top church official in the United States, calls for mass action from American Catholics to oppose basic legal equality for gays and lesbians.

There is also the matter of Francis’ deeply conservative record during his time as a cardinal in Argentina, a period during which he called gay marriage a threat to the “survival of the family” and called gay parenting “discrimination against children.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/20/best_pope_ever_still_pretty_awful/

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. That's not a quote from my post - it's a little bit misleading

Again, I do not consider Francis to be a progressive leader, I agreed with the break down of him on the issues presented in the OP.

Look, I'm not exactly a Vatican insider but from the little bit I know about the history of the Roman Catholic Church shows that Popes don't always get to say and do anything they want and expect that the Church will fall in behind them just because the Pope spoke and that is that. Popes have been exiled and killed. There have been dueling popes each claiming to head the Church, and schisms have happened that result in huge sections of the Catholic Church breaking away from the pope to go it on their own over disagreements on policy and theology. Like any organizational leaders, popes are wary about the effects of coming down too hard too fast on powerful factions inside their organizations.

This pope never suggested for an instant that the current Church doctrine on what is considered sinful in general and on a male priesthood were under review by him, to the extent that a pope has a say in it. Nor did he even suggest that he disagrees with all that long standing dogma. What he said (I think this is true) is that the Church had become imbalanced in its constant emphasis on sexual morality issues rather than on the core teachings of Christ. If he can succeed in getting the church to be less obsessed with sexual morality issues, to getting the number of sermons on those sharply reduced while expanding the number of sermons opposing economic oppression in general, it will be a useful shift in emphasis far as I can tell. Nothing more, nothing less.

I expect conservative, even reactionary, positions from the Roman Catholic Church on sexual and gender issues. Nothing really has changed there. What is changing is the promotion of a central message regarding compassion and fair treatment for the poor.

[PeaceNikki]

73. No, it's a Francis quote.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. Exiled Popes? Dude, I quote Francis from 2010 and you say 'that was then' but

next thing you are citing ancient history as reason for Francis to be a bigot today? Change those rules daily, or are they consistently struck in your favor?
Equality is not just about law, it is about how we treat each other. Excluding what I cite because it is from 2010 while you yourself cite hundreds of years old bullshit. Exiled Popes count, but not what Francis said in 2010. Cause we are equals.

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. I did nothing of the sort

Can't we still have nuanced discussions about how things play out in the real world here on DU? I already agreed with you on the issue regarding the pope having a regressive/reactionary stance on LGBT issues. What I was getting at was what can any of us REALISTICALLY EXPECT, not desire or want, from this or any other pope, especially after less than one year "in office"? I wouldn't expect Francis to launch a rapid whole scale purge of influential Cardinals around the world even if he wanted to, and I am not claiming that he wants to.

If, and this is a big if, Francis would rather that Cardinal Dolan for example, have a lower profile in the Catholic Church in the future, TACTICALLY I would not expect him to oust him in his first year as pope even though he has the so called spiritual power to do so. I expect this or any other pope to operate as a political leader to a very large extent. Shrewd political leaders work to marginalize their opponents over time, in a myriad number of ways, until they have consolidated power enough to make a direct move against them.

The irony of this discussion is that I bet you don't think of the papacy as being a seat of spiritual power and yet you expect popes to act with a degree of power that political leaders can only muster after sufficient groundwork is done.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. A 'seat of spiritual power'? No, I don't share

that belief with you. I have no reason to 'realistically expect' anything from the 'we hate gays' crowd. Hate is not reasonable.
I also, by the way, have no obligation to treat bigoted ideas as if they were 'spiritual' nor to treat bigots like Francis as if they were not simple atavistic, superstitious hate mongers.
Francis is Uganda's 'spiritual leader'. How's that working out?
Francis and Dolan are the same, not different. Same. Rich, power lusting men at the top of a huge money oriented organization, they preach hate to gain more power and more money.
I expect those who rant about being superior Christian beings to at least practice the Golden Rule instead of being loud mouthed minority attacking hate mongers.
Whenever minorities are subjected to attack, many majority members have worked out reasons why the attacks are understandable or needed or unavoidable. This does not make those majority members correct, it makes them cowards.

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. Your assumptions are showing

I didn't call the papacy a seat of spiritual power, I just safely deduced that you did not view it that way - not much risk in that assumption I admit. Nor do I, so you are wrong there. I do however note that there are hundreds of millions who do believe that, which is one reason why it is of political interest to note the various ways, good and bad, that pronouncements from this pope effect social change.

And in regards to the political dimension of the papacy and the risks involved in moving too fast with a contrary agenda within the church against powerful entrenched forces, there is no need to flash back multi centuries to contemplate all of those potential risks John-Paul the First dies within my lifetime, and there are many who say he was murdered. Personally I'm an agnostic on the question of who dunnit.

[Bluenorthwest]

118. Here's the thing Tom, you guys need to back off pushing Francis as a voice in our

politics because he is a bigot. Yesterday I read a thread saying Francis shows the Democrats how to be, and Francis is anti choice, anti gay. Go do as you please, but I will not stand aside and see this Party crafted into an anti gay religious off shoot of Francis Fan Clubs. Making this religious test 'accept this hateful man as holy or we attack you' is unacceptable.
I feel sorry for those of you stuck in this ancient mindset of ignorance based contempt for others. How many Inquistions, Tom, will it take? How many bodies, how many Ugandas, utill the 'good Christians' say no more, just no more?

[Tom Rinaldo]

122. I don't call him a holy man

I understand your point and respect it. In large part we agree. In turn I suggest you be careful about presuming that anyone who sees any potential value in having a high profile world figure directly attacking the implicit immorality of the affluent elite in the face of wide spread life threatening poverty, by seeing that accepts Francis as a progressive leader with worthy opinions on other core issues.

[Warpy]

44. He's heading one of the most arch conservative organizations on the planet

so there will be strict limits on his progressivism. He's also burdened by the "infallibility" of his predecessors, extreme conservatives who declared war against women and gays.

However, I'm delighted with his economic pronouncements. I do love to see conservatives who have been able to point to the pope as their guy squirming and dissembling.

[PeaceNikki]

47. Reproductive justice and LGBTQ rights are economic issues, too

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/27/sorry_pope_francis_reproductive_justice_and_lgbtq_rights_are_economic_issues_too/

[Warpy]

49. Agreed. However, he's still making Scalia squirm

since he's come out against everything Scalia has ever stood for and for that I'm happy.

I have no illusions whatsoever about his ability to change his church. There have been too many decades of packing the Vatican with extreme conservatives for that to happen.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. "he's come out against everything Scalia has ever stood for"? That's not true.

Francis and Tony agree strongly about reproductive choice, the status of women and of course they are twins in their opposition to any form of rights for gay people, particularly marriage equality. It is far, far from honest to say Francis has come out against everything Scalia stands for. They agree on most everything.

[MineralMan]

54. I like his economic pronouncements, too.

I just can't ignore the rest of the Church's patriarchal, limited understanding of social justice. I can't, and I won't. Here on DU, where we hold our politicians liable for everything we can think of, I'm just surprised to see this Pope getting a pass on some stuff that we wouldn't tolerate for a moment with any Democratic office holder.

All praise for this Pope needs to be tempered with a look at his and his church's regressive, medieval beliefs on other issues. If the Pope is truly infallible in his official pronouncements about doctrine, then let him repudiate the past and step boldly into the 21st Century. I realize that he will not do that and, despite calls for economic justice, the same old regressive crap will continue to the the social face of the Roman Catholic Church.

Back in the early 1960s, when I was a high school kid, I discovered that the Roman Catholic Church had been a prime mover in preventing contraception from being available in my home state of California. Condoms, for example, could only be purchased by people over 21, and only at the pharmacy counter in drug stores. On each packet was printed, "For Prevention of Disease Only." Doctors could not legally prescribe the birth control pill to unmarried women under the age of 21. Both of those things were RCC-sponsored laws. I was shocked to find that in Arizona and other states, condoms were available everywhere, even in service stations.

Today, the RCC is still fighting against the availability of contraceptive devices and medications, even when purchasing health insurance for employees of the many church-run organizations. They are still trying to keep women from even preventing pregnancies, much less terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Even for rape and incest, the Catholic Church refuses to even consider abortion, even for women who are not members of that forlorn, patriarchal religion.

That's just one example. There are many, many others.

Economic justice? Well, the Pope appears to be for that. Now, ask the Church when they will pay a living wage to all of the employees of church-owned businesses and organizations. What will the Pope say about that? When will the Church divest itself of its riches so it can redistribute that wealth to the poverty-stricken? So far, we have words from the Pope. When those words are followed by actions that set an example for those the Pope is chiding, I will pay closer attention to his words.

We are quick to judge our own leaders when they do not go far enough in areas of social justice, but are praising this Pope for his words, while ignoring the Church's actual deeds. Let this Pope begin redistributing the wealth of the Church. Let this Pope call for an end to inequality based on sex, gender, orientation, and other characteristics. Let this Pope actually DO something to change things toward a just world. Then I will contribute my praise. Until then, I will continue to call him and his church to account.

[Warpy]

59. I find the organization irredeemable. It's been that way for over a thousand years

"Corrupt" and "patriarchal" don't begin to describe the sheer awfulness of that organization.

I stomped off in disgust at the age of 10. Nothing could persuade me to go back.

I hold no illusions about one pope's ability to change things, not with a bureaucracy stuffed to bursting with appointees from arch conservative predecessors.

He is making right wing Catholics squirm nicely, though, and for that I appreciate him.

[MineralMan]

61. I wish I could just ignore the Roman Catholic Church

and its leadership. I truly do. I feel much as you do. However, there is no getting around the fact that the RCC has great influence around the world, including here in the United States. My objections have to do with how it uses that influence to affect the lives of people who don't even believe the teachings of that Church. That, I will always protest against.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. Francis himself has built his career on attacking gay people and to claim otherwise

is pitiful and obnoxious. Right above your post is a post about the horrific things he said about us in Argentina. Those of you claiming Francis is somehow gay friendly need to learn the facts prior to making these claims. Francis himself has said that stopping gay rights is 'God's war'. He uses the word 'war'. So when you claim it was his predecessors not him, you are uninformed and incorrect. That sort of bullshit needs to stop. It is aggressive and harmful to people seeking rights to frame a great enemy of those rights as an allie. Please, please stop it.

[rug]

46. What would Free Republic be saying about Pope Francis if he were running for the Presidency?

Silly analogy.

[MineralMan]

83. Thank you for your thoughtful, well-reasoned reply.

I'll think about that.

[rug]

91. There's much more of it there than in your Op.

A lame analogy leads to lame conclusions. It reminds me of Limbaugh comparing him to a Marxist.

[MineralMan]

107. Cool. Again, thanks for your reply.

I can't find much in it to discuss, though, so I'll just leave it at that.

[rug]

144. Maybe you can just describe the Free Republic reaction to your analogy.

[MineralMan]

145. I have no idea. I have not

Been there since 2006. You are welcome to go see for yourself.

[LWolf]

55. Popes don't run for president.

A progressive example? Economically, certainly. The rest? No. Has anyone pretended otherwise? He represents an organization founded in male power. Your #3 is a subset of your #2.

The sad thing is that while the Pope is not a progressive example, he is more progressive, at least economically, than the Democratic POTUS.

[Kermitt Gribble]

80. Thanks for the Fox News headline..

I haven't seen anyone here portraying this pope as a "progressive example". Just because someone agrees with a person on one issue does not mean they agree with their every position.

[MineralMan]

85. You haven't seen that?

OK. I haven't seen Fox News question the Pope's progressivism, either. Did you have any comment on the issues I raised in the opening post?

[Kermitt Gribble]

130. I see DUers praising his comments against republican/third way trickle-down economics, nothing more.

I have no comment on the other issues you raised, other than the church's stance on those issues is not progressive - and no one here is portraying them as such.

[mmonk]

86. Ah, a realist.

Someone who understands a part isn't a whole. Any part that is positive should at least be recognized as such.

[Wounded Bear]

93. That's pretty much how I see it...

I certainly appreciate that he does say all the right things on economic issues, but he and the church have far to go on the other important social issues before I'd label them progressive in general.

However, in many ways, I'm all right with that. If the economic issues were improved, the other issues would improve, too. One big barrier to social justice issues is that women have been prevented from earning enough to take care of the 'social' issues. The economic issues are more universal. If we fix those, then he'll only be able to influence his own flock on the others. Probably why the church has been silent on economic issues. They know they'll lose acolytes by the millions if those people are able to earn a real living and fend for themselves better.

[jeff47]

96. We are supposed to be the people who don't see everything in black-and-white.

We're supposed to be able to handle nuance. Such as understanding "The Pope is saying good things about economics" does not mean "I love every single thing this Pope has ever said and done. I really wish I could give him blowjobs 24-7".

Yet there's a rather vocal contingent on DU that can't seem to handle such simple nuance. Such is this OP.

Praising the Pope's efforts on economic justice is not declaring the Pope a progressive hero. It means he's doing something good in one area. Praise and use the Pope to benefit that area, and fight him in others.

[MineralMan]

99. Ah, but you see, DU isn't really all that.

Some of the same folks who are heaping praise on this Pope spend a lot of time heaping disdain and scorn on President Obama. It's an interesting thing to juxtapose those two things, I think, and to examine posts in a broader light. I won't list President Obama's successful promotion of social justice issues. They're too well-known for that to be necessary.

As I said in my OP, I'm in favor of the Pope making economic justice statements. If those statements are followed up with action, then I'll consider those actions to be very positive. However, I'll continue looking at the entire picture. Where the Church and this Pope don't speak of or act in ways that promote social justice across the board, I'll call them out for that, as well.

It's funny that so many people didn't see my praise for the economic statements, and are only discussing the areas where I feel that this Pope and the church he leads are far, far from being progressive. I give Pope Francis credit for his economic statements, but also call him to account for the rest.

Is that seeing things in black and white? I don't think so. Its seeing things as a whole and commenting on individual positions. Try rereading my original post. See what it was that I actually wrote in it.

3-1. That's the count for the issues I mentioned. On one, the Pope is saying the right things. On the others, decidedly not.

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. I think you OP is indeed nuanced and a useful starting point for meaningful discussion

Thanks for posting it.

[MineralMan]

104. Thanks very much. I appreciate your comment.

I think it's all something worth discussing.

[jeff47]

113. The fact that you're concerned about keeping score is what I'm talking about.

Keeping score inherently throws away nuance. You can't do nuance with "3-1".

Is that seeing things in black and white?

Yes.

You gave Francis 1 "positive" point. That is a black-and-white choice - he "got one right". At the same time, you are also saying he needs to take action to back up his statements. Meaning he shouldn't get that point. Or it should be taken away in the future. Or maybe we should start decimal scoring. Or or or or.....

You're still oversimplifying to black-and-white, even when you go on at length about how you got to that oversimplification.

Try rereading my original post. See what it was that I actually wrote in it.

Try believing other people may have a different angle on the subject you are discussing.

Using less snark, those two sentences also demonstrate the black-and-white thinking. You are writing as if someone didn't bother to read your post, as that is the only way they could have disagreed with you. Because it's all binary - must agree or must disagree.

[Vashta Nerada]

100. Other people here say they love him.

Seriously. Look for pro - Pope threads and you'll see it.

Here's one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4229721

Last I checked, loving someone means loving all aspects of the person, good and bad.

[jeff47]

105. Only when you read the title of their post

Or search for the word "love" and ignore the rest of the post.

If you actually read the post, you'll find they're talking about the economic statements. But that would require understanding nuance.

[Vashta Nerada]

106. See link in my edit.

[jeff47]

117. Want me to find a link where someone posts

"I hate this pope" with no text? It's about as complete a discussion.

I understand you dislike the Pope's stance on LGBT issues. That's fine. Doesn't mean you should throw away your ability to use him in areas where you do agree. "Even this gay-bashing asshole thinks Wal-Mart should pay more".

[Vashta Nerada]

121. I've provided links for people.

They get ignored because "Francis is a good guy" in their eyes.

Great link source:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4193732

Now what?

[chungking34]

111. Or course not

It's the case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Pope Francis has done little to change my negative views of the RCC.

[intaglio]

120. "Progressive" is a relative term

Within Christianity Francis falls on the progressive end of the spectrum.

But politically? not so much.

[MineralMan]

126. Is it a relative term? I'm not sure that's true.

Typically, when someone refers to a leader as progressive, they mean that that person support a wide range of progressive approaches, particularly in the social justice category. Which is why I asked the question. Is someone an example of progressivism if that person is only progressive in one area of social justice? I maintain that cannot be true. Someone may have progressive ideas regarding distribution of wealth, but completely regressive ideas regarding equality issues for women and minorities. I would not call such a person progressive, though. So, I asked that question about Pope Francis. The answers have been interesting. At least those answers which actually addressed my question have been interesting.

As for Christianity, there are many progressive Christian denominations. The Roman Catholic Church is not Christianity. It is just one denomination or sect of that religion. And the Roman Catholic Church is not one of the progressive denominations. Not at all.

I give you the ELCA, the Quakers, and a number of other Protestant churches as examples of progressivism in Christianity. There is no single Christian church. There actually never has been.

[intaglio]

128. There is one Church and many Churches

Yes there are progressive Churches such as those you describe but I believe they are in a minority.

[MineralMan]

132. I disagree that there is one church.

That's a dogmatic statement, and I don't share that belief. Christianity is a complex religion, and has splintered so many times over doctrinal issues that there is little comity among denominations any longer, except in very, very general terms.

Are progressive churches a minority? Of course they are. Every denomination is a minority among churches, including the RCC. And Christianity is a minority religion among world religions, with all denominations adding up to only a third or so of world beliefs.

Anyhow, this thread is not about Christianity. It is about the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. It's not even a thread about religion. As an atheist, I believe all religions are false. It is a thread about progressivism as it relates to Pope Francis and today's Roman Catholic Church. That narrows things down, I think.

[intaglio]

135. You are confusing the term Church

when the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury or any other leader refers to "The Church" they are talking about all of the organised religions in Christianity because the Church is the Body of Christ. This is based, amongst other texts on Romans 12:3-5 3

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

If these leaders want to talk about specific Churches they will say "The Catholic Church" or "The Anglican Church"

[AceWheeler]

127. Straw Man argument

Who ever said he was an "EXAMPLE" of progressive thinking? You offer a critique of Catholicism which has merit, but has not value in critiquing this particular pope.

[MineralMan]

129. No. It is not a straw man argument.

Sorry. I am addressing the beliefs, statements, and policies of this particular Pope. Would you care to discuss my points, or is your brief dismissal of my original post all I will hear from you? It doesn't really matter, of course, but I was asking for a discussion, and have received a number of interested replies. I'm afraid I don't see yours as one of those.

[gulliver]

131. This is too simplistic.

Every single step toward a more human-centric, progressive world needs to be applauded. It seems to me that by speaking up for progressive economic ideas, the Pope did more for them than anyone else currently alive today. Try to think of someone else.

[PeaceNikki]

133. I argue that your point is too simplistic.

Should we applaud Dick Cheney, Rob Portman, and Mark Kirk as a liberal hero for supporting same sex marriage?

[gulliver]

136. Is the only choice really to applaud them as heros?

This is what I mean by simplistic. Everything is not a Manichean all-good, all-evil showdown. I take a back seat to no one for despising Dick Cheney. To this day, I use the word Cheney to mean the doggie stuff we occasionally have to scrape off of the soles of our shoes. You don't even have to applaud his position on gay marriage if you don't want to be seen as applauding the rest of his disgusting self. But you can accept that his position on gay marriage was a positive development for gay marriage.

[madinmaryland]

141. Well, I do commend Dick Cheney and Rob Portman for supporting same-sex marriage. I no way would I

consider them as liberal heroes. But I do see it as a positive change that those folks could embrace same-sex marriage. Sometimes it does take a family experience to open people's eyes.

[PeaceNikki]

142. “This to me is one of the big problems with Republicans, is that they only seem to have empathy

when it happens to them. What they all need, the Republicans, is a poor person in their family.”

~Bill Maher

[madinmaryland]

143. What is really ironic, is that 53 years ago we elected the first (and only) Catholic to the

Presidency of the United States. At the time, the fear from the Republicans and many Democrats, is the Pope would be calling the shots in the White House. We all know that scenario never happened.

Interestingly, now we have had candidates who are of the Catholic faith running on the exact platform as the Catholic church and the Popes of the last 20 years have espoused. One name: Rick Santorum.

[MineralMan]

134. No, it is not simplistic. It looks at several issues. It does not look

at every issue. I didn't have time today to write a book about Roman Catholicism and its politics. I chose a particular set of issues to discuss.

Whether the Pope's words regarding economic justice actually improve people's lives remains to be seen. The same call for economic parity has been made by several recent popes. So far, the results have not been remarkably apparent. This Pope is repeating points that have been made previously.

Now, if his words are given meaning through exemplary action by the Roman Catholic Church and results are obtained, that will be another thing, but that has not yet occurred. I will be watching, as always, to see if the Church takes any action to make the words a reality. We shall see.

I'm comparing Pope Francis' words regarding economic justice with other positions held by the RCC, and asking the question whether this Pope can been seen as a progressive. My opinion is that he cannot be seen as a progressive, due to the regressive nature of so many aspects of RCC doctrine that he has not addressed.

[gulliver]

139. The question itself is simplistic.

You are asking if he should be a progressive example. What if he could be a presidential candidate? You conclude he is basically in the Tea Party camp. But Pope Francis is self-evidently not a friend of the Tea Party, much less a campmate. Therefore, your conclusion alone should have sent you back to the drawing board to check your premise and work.

My opinion? It's the premise. It forced you to take some reasonably good analysis and squeeze it into a simplistic conclusion to bookend the work. You had to break the furniture in about eight places to get it through that narrow door though. Change the premise to something like "Is Pope Francis a Positive Development for Progressives?" and your analysis and conclusion would change. And it would be structurally a lot more sound.

[scheming daemons]

137. An organization that is 2000 years old and has 1 billion members will change VERY slowly

It took them nearly 500 years to apologize for putting Galileo under house arrest for daring to say the earth revolves around the sun instead of vice versa.

In the few short months that Francis has been pope, he has begun to move the church to the left on some issues.

That's no small feat.

Given the place the church is on most issues, incremental change is the best that we can hope for. And the election of Francis as Pope represents the most progressive possible Pope we could have hoped for at this point in the church's march through history.

Your question of whether or not we would elect him as President is nonsensical. He is less-bad than his predecessors, and by quite a large margin.

A person that agrees with progressives on all the issues you outlined would never ever be considered for the college of cardinals, let alone Pope.

There is nothing wrong with celebrating the fact that the religious leader of 15% of the world's population is less right wing than anyone else who has held his position for the past few centuries.

I guarantee you that the population on Free Republic wouldn't be electing him President of the United States either... that's a silly analogy.


The consideration is this.... is this pope better than previous popes from a progressive point of view? Undoubtedly the answer is yes. Does he seem to be willing to consider alternate points of view? The answer seems to be yes. Does he still have a long way to go to be aligned with progressive values on the whole? Absolutely yes.


But this is the most progressive Pope that anyone currently alive has ever witnessed. And that is no small thing.


The base word for progressive is "progress". This pope represents progress. He is bending the church in the right direction after decades of it bending the wrong direction.


You need to recognize positive gains. I don't mean you have to be satisfied with modest gains... but for pete's sake, recognize them at least.

[rustbeltvoice]

138. We have different perspectives.

Your piece already has more responses than i can read quickly, and i have not yet.

Your dance card is selective. Are there only four social justice issues? What of racism? What of the blind, crippled, and any physically or mentally not whole? What of the immigrant? What of the refugee? What of Peace? What of the environment? What of the availability of weaponry? It looks like there is a particular setting the stage. Three to one, no.

The self styled "tea partiers" are reformed John Birchers, they also have a lineage from the Know Nothings. To put them in the same camp as Pope Francis is a stretch, i can not make. Many of the John Birchers worked against John Kennedy in 1960, because he was a Catholic. To-day, ask those teabaggers what they think of Edward Kennedy and other Catholics.



There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.—Hamlet I.v.166-7.

[Yo_Mama]

146. Seems like a fair summation to me

But he's a religious figure, not a political figure, so I wonder how apt the political comparison is? Religion is more about aspirational goals, and politics is more about how to run a society.

The RC has a long-standing social gospel which is considered extremely "left" by many, and Francis is changing nothing about that.

I don't see why people think he is a transformative figure, to be honest. He's more gospelish and evangelistic than the last pope, but that is really more the traditional Catholic (used in the broader sense) doctrine.