General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStop Fawning Over Pope Francis at the Expense of Women and Gay Rights
Just as some atheists and agnostics long to believe in God, many are more than a little keen to see the best side of the pious, as the bizarre discussion over the Pope’s alleged 'Marxism' demonstrates. Even if they themselves don’t believe a word of scripture, many liberals wish to see something of their own politics reflected in the outlook of the Catholic Church—hence the repeated references in recent weeks to the "progressive" Pope and the overrated idea of "liberation theology."
It is predictable that the reactionary politics of the new Pope should be played down by liberal Catholics in favour of his musings on social justice and global capitalism. What’s so depressing has been the extent to which liberal non-believers have fallen so hook, line and sinker for what is in reality nothing more than a clever repackaging exercise.
I say this because, apart from a few centrist musings about inequality, the Catholic Church—which Pope Francis heads and therefore has the power to change—stands on roughly the same political terrain as it did under the leadership of Pope Benedict. Pope Francis’s position on most issues should make the hair of every liberal curl. Instead we get article after article of saccharine from people who really should know better.
"Francis could replace Obama as the pin-up on every liberal and leftist wall," gushed Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian last month, while Timemagazine has just bestowed Pope Francis with the honour of 'person of the year'. Writing about the magazine’s decision, editor Nancy Gibbs said the pontiff had "done something remarkable: he has not changed the words, but he’s changed the music". "This focus on compassion, along with a general aura of merriment not always associated with princes of the church, has made Francis something of a rock star," she added.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116056/progressives-who-love-pope-francis-are-abandoning-women-and-gay-rights
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)our rights in state legislatures and at the federal level.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)The Catholic Church also doesn't believe in divorce, but it doesn't try to challenge our right to it within our government.
The same position can be taken for women and LGBT issues so that it doesn't affect the laws of our land.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)are more progressive than women in general, even on the issue of same-sex marriage.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)But Catholic organizations are still hugely financing restrictions to reproductive rights and against same-sex marriage.
That should stop. They don't do the same over divorce. Or gluttony.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Maybe you've heard of Catholic Community Services and Catholic Relief. And they give help without regard to the religion or non-religion of the people they serve.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)of millions of others.
TBF
(32,067 posts)but we do have a problem with women's rights and pedophiles. I don't limit my critique to Catholicism. It's an issue for many of the denominations.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or deal in more than one thing at a time?
I don't see women getting anywhere with the Catholic Church by blasting the Pope or any underling for it. They're not going to respond to the stick. But maybe the carrot.
The problem with hating bigots is that you have to hate.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Ron Paul is anti-war and wants to legalize weed. Should we look at him with the glass half full? I mean, he agrees with us on a couple of issues, right?
No. We don't look at him that way because he's batshit insane. Why does Francis get looked that way?
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)You say that Ron Paul (whom I don't give two shits about either way) is batshit insane even though he agrees on being anti-war and legalizing pot.
What, specifically, is batshit insane about being anti-war and wanting to see legalized pot?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Ron Paul is batshit insane about everything else, except those two issues.
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)And if this is what he is capable of doing in a few months of his papal term, imagine what he might be able to do in the years to come.
Something like turning around archaic religious beliefs is not going to be easy to do. But he's off to a good start.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)No. I didn't.
I said why does Pope Francis get a free pass here because there's one issue we agree with him on while Ron Paul gets frowned upon when there's two issues most of us agree with him on? And then I said we frown upon Ron Paul because he's a batshit insane libertarian because of his other views. Why do we ignore Pope Francis's stances on the other issues?
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)My mind is on holiday. I read that last sentence completely wrong.
Thanks for setting me straight.
treestar
(82,383 posts)People in KY aren't going to vote him out because liberals hate him. KY is a much smaller venue, too. But the voters there have a Senator who reflects a lot of their views. They won't feel powerless and excluded.
Women can be priests in the Catholic Church and have it recognize them as more equal when the women in the church convince the rest of the church. And their allies. The Church won't change because outsiders hate the Pope due to the church's current anachronistic teachings.
Trying to get people to agree out of fear of exclusion only works if you've already crossed the line where society expects a behavior. And that's all we're doing. To hate a bigot means you have to be lowered to his/her level. The Pope especially would be able to look above that.
I don't see a point in zeroing in on the Pope, either. He's not alone responsible for Catholic doctrine. And it has changed over time when the people in the church wanted it to. We aren't still going to confession, being excommunicated, etc., so it has mellowed out over time. Francis' attitude promotes this.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)With Ron Paul and weed, we're looking at a glass that might be 5% full.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)But it was used as an example.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)... Er wait a second, that sounds too much like the GOP.
No thanks. War, economic disparity, and marginalization of the poor are a huge chunk of what's wrong with the world. If we can find an advocate in the Vatican for those things, great. I've got no problem giving credit where it's due, that doesn't mean we're excusing everything else.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)See, Francis says gay people are destructive, part of an attack on God. Fawning over that makes the fawner look bigoted, and hyperbole such as 'we must stamp out anything and anyone' is learned from the histrionic hate speech Francis demonstrates toward gay people. He says opposing our rights is 'God's war'. So why fawn over that? Why claim that asking others to stop fawning is asking to stamp out 'anything and everything'? Does that snarky response reflect respect for the issues you claim you are not excusing? I don't think so.
I also wonder why Benedict was not celebrated and his bigotry called a virtue, he spoke and wrote extensively on the subjects of globalization and the inequity that results from unhindered profit seeking. He has authored books on the subject. This Pope, the last, the one before that, all said the same things. JP 2 did many of the same 'man of the people' routines as well. He wore Bono's shades, all of that. Early on, he was also presented as some forward thinking being. Lather, rinse and repeat, remaining always steeped in contempt for women and LGBT people.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I can fawn over his statements on the things I agree with while disagreeing with the things he says that I don't. That doesn't mean I'm going to attend church on Sundays.
It isn't rocket science. Also I find it a bit presumptuous for someone to request something of me when I don't even know them. It's as annoying as the Mormons who show up at my door requesting I join their church. In this case, request denied.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)No request was made of you. Questions were posed to you. Sorry to upset your snark bucket.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)That supporting Francis on certain issues = blanket fawning
If someone is being serious, I'll answer seriously. If someone (like whoever wrote the OP) wants to descend into hyperbole, I'll answer in kind with a sprinkle of derision.
I would like to know if whoever wrote that voted for Obama when he opposed gay marriage. After all, merely supporting the pope on a few issues is a far cry from donating to and voting for a candidate with homophobic positions.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)"Aside from the fact that we still hold religious figures to a lower standard than secular ones, the fawning over Pope Francis demonstrates something profoundly depressing: in the struggle for a better world, women’s and LGBT rights are still not taken seriously."
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)When you boil it down, many progressives seem more than willing to toss aside those two issues so long as platitudes are paid to the issue of income inequality.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Much of this Francis nonsense is made up of false assumptions about the man, people refuse to learn the truth. In Argentina, he was an active opponent of the 'Liberation Theology' folks claim he actually teaches. He's on record about the many errors he sees in Liberation Theology, this is not a secret. People like to claim he is a Liberation Theologian. They like to claim he is 'more tolerant' toward gay people, when his record in Argentina is chilling, his language there filled with superstion and hateful accusations against gay people, our families, our community and even against those who support us. Far worse than Benedict, much more active in his anti gay work. Much more. But people want to say otherwise, so they simply say otherwise. That's because they have no respect for gay issues, women's issues, ethics or honesty.
They could, each and everyone of them, Google up the facts.
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)If we admire what he's been saying regarding economic inequality, does this mean we now are anti-gay or anti-woman? I'm not sure what it is you're afraid of. Are you afraid progressives are all going to suddenly become Catholics and start voting Republican or something? That's just ridiculous. I'm still just as pro-gay rights and women's rights as I've always been and that will never change. However, I see good in what Francis is saying because there are people STARVING TO DEATH in this world and what he says might make a difference. It's not like economic inequality is just some minor focus issue or something.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Never said that voicing agreement with his position on economic inequality or admiring it is the issue. It's the "I LOVE THE POPE! HE'S AND AWESOME, PROGRESSIVE GUY THAT IS A FRIEND TO EVERYBODY, EVEN WOMEN AND GAYS!!" bullshit that we are seeing right now that is dangerous and damaging. The issue isn't people who already figured out that gay rights are important suddenly changing their mind. It's in creating a mindset that it is OK to be a bigoted misogynist, so long as you offer platitudes on the issue of income inequality.
Never said people starving to death wasn't an important issue, but I'm glad you felt the need to imply that somehow I was. I'm sure that made you feel awesome when typing that up.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)But now we've got a post about how Pope Photo-Op is Esquire's 2013 Best Dressed Man.
There's not enough facepalm in the world for the Pope-a-palooza that's taken over DU.
Sid
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Even if the Catholic hierarchy can't bring themselves to treat women like people, they still need to change on women's rights if they're going to stop making things worse.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Sounds familiar.
K&R
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)So, that's something, no?
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)What more do you people want!?!?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)A RENAULT!!11!!
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)flying out of the Vatican's windows to help the poor at a moment's notice!
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)what would happen to GD if BeardMan bought a high-mileage Renault and talked about being nice to poor people.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)This Pope is saying some things about inequality and economic justice that appeal to me as a liberal. Yes, the RCC still has some hair-raising positions and if Pope can move the bus on issues of sexism and homosexuality, he deserves a freaking medal. But he's only been in office for less than a year so this is rather like those "first 100 days" pieces and smacks a little of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (or, at least, the better).
In short, the man is likely to be in office for many years yet and it's possible that he'll get around to doing something about sexism and homophobia in year two.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)In his first year, he passed: the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (two acts devoted to that), the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind. In his first year, Bush single-handedly ruined this country.
Obama's first 100 days were better. He called for the closing of Gitmo, pay freezes for senior White House staff making more than $100,000/year, banning torture in interrogations, ordering the DOT to set higher fuel standards before 2011 models, passage of ARRA and CHIP, and lifted federal restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research.
I'm sure Francis could have done something to change church doctrine for the better in his first year, but he didn't.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)The point of my post is that the preceding president and the current president passed much in their first years as President, for better or for worse for the country.
Francis could have done something, but he chose to do nothing, which means he's fine with current church doctrine.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)in your list of Obama's accomplishments?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Obama passed Executive Order 13492, ordering the closing of Gitmo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13492
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)But still, that wasn't the point of my posts.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They don't get that Congress has the hand on that tiller, and they never will.
Because ya know, Obama bad, simplistic, no nuance, etc.
I don't think the Pope is all sweetness and light, but if he's done anything, he's told the worst assholes to Back the Eff Off. He's gotten rid of some of the real jerks and chastised the Big Spenders. I do notice that way fewer people in dresses and funny hats are suggesting that old Frankie feels this way or that way about this topic or that, because if they start getting too snarky, they'll find themselves farting through burlap instead of through silk, like that jerk up in Germany.
Ya gotta start somewhere.
He's got Paul Ryan and Rush UPSET....that's worth something, IMO.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)being pope and being president is time.
If a president is lucky (or unlucky, as the case may be), he may have 8 years to effect change. He needs to be relatively quick about it.
The pope, OTOH, has what...15...20 years? He has time to make smaller changes in attitudes that have been around for a thousand years and more.
If he does it skillfully, he becomes a role model for future popes. So, yeah. It might not happen in our lifetime, but someday it probably will.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)A president, especially one governing a terrified nation as Bush was, has a lot more personal power than a Pope. Again, I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the better. Yes, Francis could have done a lot better and a lot more but what he has done is moving in the right direction.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)There is no moving in the right direction. He's following the footsteps of John Paul II, saying a lot but not actually doing anything. He's a different hood ornament on the same car.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)which is pretty much the only power he has. A reduction of the emphasis on abortion and homosexuality and more focus on issues of poverty and social justice.
gulliver
(13,186 posts)It looks to me like Pope Francis is putting his emphasis on the foundational human needs first. He didn't starve the other levels either.
The burden of proof is on you to explain how you would prioritize for Pareto efficiency. Would someone need to starve so that a woman could be ordained, for example, into a church you probably don't even believe in? Where is your ballpark? What's your plan?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)How many billions of dollars are in the church coffers, billions that could be spent feeding the poor?
gulliver
(13,186 posts)Then they could use the money they save on the ingredients to give to the poor. But then the restaurant would fail.
So what doesn't get paid for because of the billions you want to divert from "church coffers?" Maybe they don't air condition some churches? But then people stop going to the churches on hot days. So contributions drop and charitable giving drops. We decided to try starving the goose that lays the golden eggs to increase our net profit, but we killed the goose in the process.
I have to go with Pope Francis in terms of balancing the health of his organization and its ability to fulfill its mission. He seems to have a much better balance than his predecessor, and his heart seems to be with the poor.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)It's the church's job to help the poor, is it not? Why do they need to stockpile all that money, other than paying child abuse victims recompense?
No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)It could/should be spent feeding the poor.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)It's the church's job. That's their function, is it not?
No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)Look a little further for the function of the Church.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Their "job" is the "propagation of the faith," from what I gather...whatever that means.
They have a catechism that "explains it all."
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)There goes that whole Jesus thing about giving up all your possessions to follow him.
MADem
(135,425 posts)feeding the poor--though, as I said, they do a lot of it.
One well known example in my state is this organization. It's run by Conan O'Brien's college roommate-- also named O'Brien but no relation.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)That is NOT his job. He does not have the authority. When you post things like this, it shows how little you actually understand about the RCC.
I also find the whole "Pope Francis won't let gay people get married" argument perplexing. Hell, Pope Francis won't let divorced straight people get married again in the Church (and do not tell me about annulment because THAT is NOT divorce in the Church). He will not let people co-habitating get married (unless they lie to their priest of course).
The Church is the Church and the Catechism does not change. They do not let anyone have premarital sex, be it hetero or homo sexual. It is considered a mortal sin. Marriage is reserved for baptized Roman Catholics (or a RC and another with a dispensation from the Bishop) and they get to do it ONCE. In addition, sex is for pro-creation more or less.
You are correct, Francis has changed NOTHING in the form of Doctrine. He can't. However, what he can do, is decide where the Church will put its focus under his rule.
To that end, saying "The Church is obsessed about gays, abortion, and sex and needs to move on to other things" and "let's focus on poverty, social justice, and the poor."
That's an improvement in my opinion AND is a deviation from Benedict who spent much of his Papacy trying to preserve the "Old Church and the Old Ways" as much as possible. Even Latin masses had a resurgence under Benedict.
So, much like a President only has the power to set policy and NOT create or abolish laws, Francis in bound the same way. He is changing the focus of the Church under his Papacy.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)for women and reproductive choice. Don't like them? Cool, counsel your sheep not to do those things but STOP trying to take them from others. Stop lying about them, stop spreading disease and poverty with your bullshit.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)raging anti marriage equality preacher in Argentina. He called fighting our civil rights 'God's war' and asked his followers to fight. He claimed gay relationships come from Satan, 'the Father of Lies' and that our households are 'a destructive attack on God's plan'.
The President of Argentina, a mostly Catholic country, characterized Francis' language as 'Medieval and suggestive of the Inquistion'.
All that is far beyond 'not letting gays marry' it is an attempt to characterize us and our families as demonic. I note that Rudy Guilliani, a good Catholic, has had a few wives, dumped the mother of his kids and moved his mistress, now wife, into Gracie Mansion. Where was the talk of satan and the destruction of God's plan? Rudy remained in the Church, anti gay, married to the former mistress. So sure, they are 'against divorce and remarriage'. Sure they are. In a way. At times. For some people. It's just the same as when they say gay people are attacking God, when they let Rudy take another wife, it's exactly the same!!!!!
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Rudy married his cousin. That is not really allowed under the Church. I am not sure how they let that one get through in the first place. Annulment means the marriage never was valid, thus he was never married in the eyes of the Church.
However, I would agree with you. Seems like the Church bends a few rules for some important people -- Newt Gingrich comes to mind, but that is also "a technicality" if you will. I also think it sucks that they are so worked up about sex, marriage, etc. However, considering they are still by FAR the largest Christian denomination in the world, and the largest organized religion in the United States, a change in Church focus is welcome.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in the public eye while Mayor. He divorced her and married the mistress. This is just the fact. When he divorced his second wife, they had children who were or were near adulthood, long time marriage. Divorced, remarried. No Pope mention a holy war, destruction of the family or any such thing. So for folks to claim Francis campaign rhetoric against equality is just like the RCC attitude toward divorce is absurd.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)and cannot partake of the sacraments. When he dies, he will go to Hell.
Furthermore, I have indeed shown you already, where Canon Law that states EXACTLY how the Church views divorce and remarriage, i.e. it is
"a grave offense against NATURAL LAW' and that DESTROYS a canonical marriage", it goes on to talk about how egregious it is to children.
It also states "Divorce is immoral and introduces disorder into the family and into society" and " it truly a plague on society"
Furthermore, on the issue of co-habitation...
Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate "trial marriages." It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.184
We can do this all day if you want. It is obvious you do not know Canon Law. I do not fault you for that, but you really do not know what you are talking about.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Francis' ravings against gay people are the same as the RCC's reaction to remarriage and divorce. Which is of course not true. It is also true that while you and Frankie wail about 'Canon Law' a huge percentage of Catholics do as they please and use Birth Control, get divorced, whatever. We all know this. But it is only the same sex stuff that gets the full demonization, calls for 'holy war' and other hysterical nonsense out of the clerical crowd in Rome. Why are they not 'refusing the sacraments' to all those birth control users? Where is the screaming? Supporters of abortion rights are given 'Sacraments' why is that, exactly, if this 'Law' is so constant?
The law of common decency says not to run around attacking your neighbors who do you no harm. Francis and his Church need to stop attacking people who do them no harm, and who really don't give a shit if they exist or not. Just stop picking fights, leave us alone, stop trash talking our young people until they are depressed and destroyed. It needs to end this darkness, this tide of hatred for which there is no excuse. None.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Me included. I am/was a cafeteria Catholic for better or worse. I probably always will be.
Women who receive abortions are excommunicated, thus unable to receive the Sacraments. As are doctors who perform abortions. People who use birth control should not be receiving the sacraments either. However, if you are not honest with the priest, how are they know? Shall the RCC take a page from the NSA? Is that what you are after?
I am sorry but you are impossible to discuss anything with. I mean, you have one quote from one letter that was written four years ago that you manage to post snippets from it at least twice in every thread about the Church or the Pope. That is all you seem to be able to do. Just the same thing over and over and over again. I don't what to do with that.
Tell you what, if you want to have a real discussion about the Pope, the Church, the Catechism, and the Magisterial, you know where to look. Otherwise, just keep cutting and pasting but I am not going to reply anymore.
dsc
(52,162 posts)that isn't so true. Mario Cuomo was famously denied communion in Brooklyn during his governorship for example. It should be noted the same bishop had no problems giving communion to the governor of Florida who signed several death warrants (fancy that).
MADem
(135,425 posts)Of course, now he's just an old loser. His ship has long sailed....and he wasn't on it.
No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)What norms are you using?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)All I know is what people do, Rudy is a many times divorced self identified Catholic who is opposed to marriage equality because of his Church, according to him.
Francis is a sexless, lifelong bachelor who is opposed to marriage equality because of his Church, according to him.
The actions of both men indicate ambition, bigotry, a lack of understanding of other people, a need for attention and power, an aversion to intimacy and an inablity to carry on long term close relationships with others.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/02/25/conclave-pope-benedict-xvi/1945539/
Those are just two examples from the last pope.
Popes have also changed or amended existing doctrine, or defined new doctrine.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)They are not the same, although they are related. Think of it as Doctrine= Magisterium. He cannot change that.
pa28
(6,145 posts)He can be a progressive incrementalist however. Maybe you should make this an OP for the benefit of those who keep insisting otherwise.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I will do no such thing. People are flat out angry around here lately. I have been here on DU a long, long, time (under different names as email changed when address due to Army moves). I have never seen it so antagonistic before. The whole vibe here is just ANGER!
We need an election so we can take our frustrations out on Republicans. These self-inflicted wounds are getting tiresome.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)I think part of the problem is so many of us have been on the outside, looking in, for so many years the change of perspective is disorienting.
Part of what we are seeing could also be seasonal affective disorder with short days, combined with holiday stress. People come on here to blow of some steam. I assume things will settle down in the new year.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)indicates you either are unaware of his career history leading up to his Papacy or that you simply wish to present him as something he is not.
He was an ardent and vicious attacker of gay rights and equality in Argentina, he said it was 'God's war' and urged people to fight us. He slandered our families, our friends, our communities with atavistic hate speech steeped in demonic references and accusations of complicity with Satan. Yeah. And you think he wants to 'move the bus'? Based on what?
He's 70. He did not drop to the Earth the day before he was elected to his throne. Not everyone is unaware of his past actions.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Either I didn't hear that or I didn't remember it (the effects of my meds have made swiss cheese of my memory). I think he wants to "move the bus" based on his comments about gay priests, which IIRC, was something along the lines of "who am I to judge?". If he's said some negative things about gay people in the past, that doesn't necessarily mean he still holds those views. Obama was anti-gay marriage at one point but he came around. It's possible the Pope will do the same.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Francis didn't make any particular "war" against gay rights in Argentina until same sex marriage came under consideration, & even then, his "war" was not conducted in public, but through institutional (intra-church) communications laying out the official position of the Church.
Argentina was on the verge of approving gay marriage, and the Roman Catholic Church was desperate to stop that from happening. It would lead tens of thousands of its followers in protest on the streets of Buenos Aires and publicly condemn the proposed law, a direct threat to church teaching, as the work of the devil.
But behind the scenes, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who led the public charge against the measure, spoke out in a heated meeting of bishops in 2010 and advocated a highly unorthodox solution: that the church in Argentina support the idea of civil unions for gay couples.
The concession inflamed the gathering — and offers a telling insight into the leadership style he may now bring to the papacy.
Few would suggest that Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, is anything but a stalwart who fully embraces the church’s positions on core social issues. But as he faced one of the most acute tests of his tenure as head of Argentina’s church, he showed another side as well, supporters and critics say: that of a deal maker willing to compromise and court opposing sides in the debate, detractors included.
The approach stands in sharp contrast to his predecessor, Benedict XVI, who spent 25 years as the church’s chief doctrinal enforcer before becoming pope, known for an unbending adherence to doctrinal purity. Francis, by comparison, spent decades in the field, responsible for translating such ideals into practice in the real world, sometimes leading to a different approach.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/americas/pope-francis-old-colleagues-recall-pragmatic-streak.html?_r=0
I find the animosity toward this particular Pope on this issue strange, given that the Church has had this position for a long time & the previous Pope was much worse on the issue -- yet I don't remember such harsh condemnation of Ratzinger (who was Francis' superior during the gay marriage fight in Argentina).
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)are 'a destructive attack on God's plan'. He said our families are a product of 'the Father of Lies'. He said adoption by gay parents is child abuse and discriminates against the child.
He was famous for his invective. The President of Argentina called his language 'Medival and suggestive of the Inquistion'.
You claim Benedict was 'much worse on the issue'. Upon what are you basing this, I simply do not agree, Francis has a long and lurid history of hate speech against gay people, our families and even our allies. Can you specify how Benedict was so much worse? Their actual positions are the same, Francis spent much more language and energy fighting marriage equality and gay rights. I don't see how he's bettter at all. I can see that you want him to be. That's kind of you.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)VATICAN CITY — The pope pressed his opposition to gay marriage Friday, denouncing what he described as people eschewing their God-given gender identities to suit their sexual choices – and destroying the very "essence of the human creature" in the process.
Benedict XVI made the comments in his annual Christmas address to the Vatican bureaucracy, one of his most important speeches of the year. He dedicated it this year to promoting traditional family values in the face of gains by same-sex marriage proponents in the U.S. and Europe and efforts to legalize gay marriage in places like France and Britain.
In his remarks, Benedict quoted the chief rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, in saying the campaign for granting gays the right to marry and adopt children was an "attack" on the traditional family made up of a father, mother and children.
"People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being," he said. "They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves."
"The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man's fundamental choice where he himself is concerned," he said.
It was the second time in a week that Benedict has taken on the question of gay marriage, which is currently dividing France, and which scored big electoral wins in the United States last month. In his recently released annual peace message, Benedict said gay marriage, like abortion and euthanasia, was a threat to world peace. The Vatican went on a similar anti-gay marriage media blitz last month after three U.S. states approved gay marriage by popular vote.
Church teaching holds that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," though it stresses that gays should be treated with compassion and dignity. As pope and as head of the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog before that, Benedict has been a strong enforcer of that teaching: One of the first major documents released during his pontificate said men with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies shouldn't be ordained priests.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/pope-anti-gay-speech_n_2344870.html
Ratzinger spent his entire term as Pope doing the anti-gay schtick, both intra-Church and in public, and it was this official position of the Church that Francis was enforcing during the Argentinian gay marriage vote.
I've seen no evidence that Francis made a career out of being "ardently & viciously" anti-gay. What I've seen is the same quotes you quote, repeated over & over with no context.
If you know where they came from, I invite you to cite the documents & context.
I didn't appreciate the personal attack, btw. I did not attack you personally, I just invited you to expand on your comments.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)church document (a papal letter written to a group of nuns on the Argentinian gay marriage bill).
Letter of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, to the Carmelite Nuns of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (June 22, 2010)
Dear Sisters,
I write this letter to each one of you in the four Monasteries of Buenos Aires. The Argentine people must face, in the next few weeks, a situation whose result may gravely harm the family. It is the bill on matrimony of persons of the same sex.
The identity of the family, and its survival, are in jeopardy here: father, mother, and children. The life of so many children who will be discriminated beforehand due to the lack of human maturity that God willed them to have with a father and a mother is in jeopardy. A clear rejection of the law of God, engraved in our hearts, is in jeopardy.
I recall words of Saint Thérèse when she speaks of the infirmity of her childhood. She says that the envy of the Devil tried to extort her family after her older sister joined the Carmel. Here, the envy of the Devil, through which sin entered the world, is also present, and deceitfully intends to destroy the image of God: man and woman, who receive the mandate to grow, multiply, and conquer the earth. Let us not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle; it is an intention [which is] destructive of the plan of God. It is not a mere legislative project (this is a mere instrument), but rather a "move" of the father of lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God.
Jesus tells us that, in order to defend us from this lying accuser, he will send us the Spirit of Truth. Today, the Nation [patria], before this situation, needs the special assistance of the Holy Ghost that may place the light of Truth amid the shadows of error; it needs this Advocate who may defend us from the enchantment of so many sophisms with which this bill is being justified, and which confuse and deceive even people of good will.
That is why I turn to you and ask from you prayer and sacrifice, the two invincible weapons which Saint Thérèse confessed to have. Cry out to the Lord that he may send his Spirit to the Senators who are to place their votes. That they may not do it moved by error or by circumstantial matters, but rather according to what the natural law and the law of God tell them. Pray for them, for their families; that the Lord may visit, strengthen, and console them. Pray that they may do great good for the Nation.
This bill will be discussed in the Senate after July 13. Let us look towards Saint Joseph, to Mary, the Child, and let us ask with fervor that they will defend the Argentine family in this moment. Let us recall what God himself told his people in a time of great anguish: "this war is not yours, but God's". That they may succour, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.
Thank you for what you will do in this struggle for the Nation. And, please, I beg you, pray for me also. May Jesus bless you, and may the Blessed Virgin protect you.
Affectionately,
Card. Jorge Mario Bergoglio s.j., Archbishop of Buenos Aires
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/letter-of-cardinal-bergoglio-to.html
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/letter-of-cardinal-bergoglio-to.html
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Therefore if he wanted to do more, he could have.
He's not going to because he IS anti-gay, anti-choice, misogynist, and an all-around bigot. Those are his core beliefs. He's not going to change the Church's policies there because those are his own beliefs.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Drahthaardogs had the right of it upthread.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)New doctrines can also be introduced by the pope.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)People do not understand what Doctrine means and how the Church views infallible Doctrine vs. Canon Law. Much like the crowing about "How can you believe the Pope is infallible and speaks for God" statements that were flying around this place when the Conclave was selecting Francis.
I do not fault people for not agreeing. I do fault them for not taking the time to actually find out WHAT the Church actually teaches. If you are going to be against a position, you need to know EXACTLY what the position is, in my opinion. I can assure you, as a man married to a divorcee, I know 99% what Canon Law has to say about that.
And on Edit:
Many people here on DU do not even realize that Pope Franics is also a Head of State. They do not realize Vatican City is an autonomous city-state inside of Rome.
I was going to respond to a poster who stated "He is a religious leader, NOT a President", and then I just said, "Oh WTF is the point?"
No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)You are far too generous, Drahthaardogs.
You know, as well as I, that many here not only do not know what they are talking about, they have no idea what they do not know.
Your last line is most correct - what is the point of attempting discussion - I use the term discussion because I do not come on DU to argue- with those who only know what they have picked up along the way and only wish to support their position, rather than taking an objective look at a very deep and complicated subject.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)about marriage (gay AND STRAIGHT), family planning, women, married priests, and a whole myriad of things. However, when you take a complicated issue and break it down to a Fred Phelps "God Hates $@#!" 30 second soundbyte, I do not see how it helps.
Much of this is tradition too. Some Orthodox Catholic priests can marry, and they allow divorce too, and a "second possibility" marriage.
Sometimes I wish DU was a bit more intellectual and less reactionary.
840high
(17,196 posts)
shenmue
(38,506 posts)But in his insistence on helping the poor, his admonition that we shouldn't judge gay people, and his apparent desire to have a wider vision of the church than just harping on abortion, he is steps ahead of his predecessors.
Yes, it would be good if he fully supported gay rights and was pro-choice in the way that we want to do here. He may not be there yet. But he's taking steps. Pardon the pun but Rome wasn't built in a day.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)Well, not if we use him like the RW has used Christianity.
All we have to do is put a few words in his mouth.
Words about gay marriage and abortion and birth control.
Just make shit up and put it on the Web.
That has worked admirably for the Right.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But most of us still voted for him in 2008, knowing this position, because he was better than the alternative.
Francis is not perfect but he is a hell of a lot better than his predecessors.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and I knew he attended Trinity UCC, an inclusive Chruch I was and am fond of. Anti gay people do not attend Trinity by choice. And of course, Obama is pro choice and always said he supported civil unions, while the Pope says my family is a 'destructive attack on God's plan, coming from the Father of Lies'. Are you seriously saying you can not fathom the difference between these things? Really?
Also, I never let up on Obama, for the criticism was part of the process. He asked us to be unrelenting and we have been. Did you miss all of that? Really?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And eventually, through baby steps, he came around to favoring full marriage equality.
We should not let up on Francis either, but we can applaud his baby steps as we applauded Obama's.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This month, Uganda passed a law to put gay people in prison for life, the law also requires others to report gay people or face prison themselves. Uganda is 42% Catholic, the largest religious group. Francis said nothing against that law. Prison for life, he was silent. Feel free to applaud that if you like.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)I don't know about you, but if my country were Uganda and my country told me that because of who I am I have the choice between capital punishment or life in prison; that, or deny who I am and undergo conversion therapy and repentence, with the support and hope of the Pope's organization, there is no question, no hesitation that I will choose death or life in prison instead. Better eternal peace than a lifetime in that special corner of Hell the Pope's organization wants me to dwell.
So thanks, but no thanks. The Pope's concern is duly noted.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)positions against the legislation, beginning in 2008.
The Catholic church is not the party that promoted such views & legislation in Uganda. That would be American evangelical Protestants, including Rick Warren, who gave the homily at Obama's first inaugural.
And "The Fellowship/Family," a group whose prayer breakfasts Hilary Clinton & other prominent Democrats (& Republicans of course) have attended.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024238827#post1
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)support from both of these largest religious groups. This law requires straights to report gay people. Will Francis speak to that? What will he instruct his rapt followers to do about that? The world is watching.
Silence = Death
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)The connections between the people pushing this shit & the US religious right are pretty clear.
Connections between the Ugandan Catholic establishment a/o international Catholicism don't seem to be in evidence, and the public pronouncements of both bodies denounce this legislation.
Pony up some evidence for your repeated efforts to link this legislation to the Catholic Church.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Pretty laughable and pitiful claim.
The RCC IS the US religious right, they funded Prop 8, many other things.
The local Anglican Bishops have been the very worst about this law. The Catholics have simply, as I said, remained apathetic and silent and contributed only their generalized contempt for gay people to the stew there. Of course the Evangelical Churches are culpable as well. As well, not exclusively.
Francis the Pope has still not said a word against or about this law, a man who has spent thousands of words attacking gay people has not one to offer when his hate speech brings such nasty things to fruition.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)and the Vatican hierarchy have made official statements denouncing this bill in its various iterations, they are covertly sponsoring it -- a claim for which you offer no evidence whatsoever.
Rather than produce the evidence, you put up a straw man.
FYI, 87% of Uganda's population is rural, basically tribal. Uganda's literacy rate is 66% (and that's with "literacy" defined very loosely, as the ability to write a short paragraph about oneself). I doubt the majority of the population even know that such a bill exists. Do you know anything about Uganda at all????
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/uganda/rural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.html
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/uganda/rural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.html
There's also the little fact that Musaveni, a sometime supporter of the anti-gay push, is also a US ally...
If the U.S. does in fact want to improve the humanitarian situation in Uganda, there are other, more logical, ways to achieve this. The biggest obstacle to the strengthening of Ugandan democracy is not Joseph Kony or the dying LRA, but rather, Ugandan president and close U.S. ally Yoweri Museveni.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/2171/america-s-plan-in-uganda-is-hardly-humanitarian
At the time the bill was introduced, an independent MP stated he thought it had about a 99% chance of passing.[21] Uganda's president Yoweri Museveni openly expressed his support for the bill, stating "We used to say Mr and Mrs, but now it is Mr and Mr. What is that now?"[16] After facing intense international reaction and promises from Western nations to cut financial aid to Uganda, on 9 December 2009, Uganda's Minister of Ethics and Integrity James Nsaba Buturo said that Uganda will revise the bill to drop the death penalty (substituting life imprisonment) for gay people with multiple offences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill
Maybe Museveni is Catholic. Oh wait, he's not, he's a "born-again" fundie beloved of the US religious right and part of "The Fellowship/Family".
http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6187
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)rotten to the core, the fact of this law proves that the influence of religion is not worth much. Francis the Pope has not said a word about it, and the local as I posted, said they had no idea this vote was happening. If they were were mindful and caring about the issue, would they have looked the other way and been shocked at what the whole world knew was happening? Why were they so apathetic as to not keep track? Why has Francis been silent?
I put the blame on all the various religious clerics who come there and teach silly dogmas rather than skills and literacy. I don't give any of them a good report. You do. I say they all trade in venom and prejudice and they do so for the sake of their own power and wealth.
42% of that nation is RCC, Francis should not have been silent. Period. Neither should the Anglican leadership. Not sure what Welby had to say. Did he say anything? None of the Rick Warrens of the world said a thing either. It's an ecumenical silence that should shame them all.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)Silent night, Holy night ...
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)he has said they were 'surprised' by this bill.
Papal Nuncio to Uganda Archbishop Michael Blume was written to by Divine Word Missionaries Brother Brian McLauchlin on 21 December, asking him to speak to Catholic bishops in the country about the law’s potential to abuse people’s human rights
‘It was only this morning that I found out about the action of the Parliament,’ Blume wrote.
‘In fact the whole business caught many of us, including the bishops’ conference, by surprise as there had been no hints of it in the press nor on the site of the Parliament, which indicates legislation being discussed."
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/pope-francis%E2%80%99-representative-uganda-concerned-new-anti-gay-law291213
At least they have admitted what their followers have brought to the law, and admitted that they paid no attention and said nothing until after it was passed and now all they are saying they will do is pray the President does not sign it.
Francis himself, the actual Pope, still remains totally silent as a person about Uganda. He himself has not bothered to say a word, although he has spent many thousands of words demonizing gay people and baiting his followers into taking such heineous actions. The rot always comes from the top.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Am pressed for time today and though I'd like to engage this discussion, all I can offer right now are some links to pertinent articles on the subject. Hope they will be useful for the course of the discussion.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/petermontgomery/6065/ugandan_bishops_push_notorious_anti_gay_bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-becker/catholic-bishops-suddenly-silent-as-lgbt-ugandans-face-possible-death_b_2131576.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/dec/30/disgrace-papal-blessing-ugandan-homophobia
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/anti-gay-bill-uganda-challenges-catholics-take-stand
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)... who has been routinely and thoroughly raked over the coals here for his rabid homophobia. Likewise, Obama's catering to Rick Warren during the first election run was soundly scorched here on DU; I ought to know, I penned a lot of criticism of Obama for that and even saved some of those old threads to my DU journal. No one gets away with homophobic BS and they'll be called on it every time -- the religious affiliation doesn't matter. The difference is you won't find any threads here celebrating other religious leaders who spout homophobic and misogynic views.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)economic inequity is fawning. NOT>
Sorry, this article is pathetic shite. this Pope has a far different emphasis on issues than the ones preceding him.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)gay people, learn about his actual history in Argentina, see that those claiming he wants to 'move the bus' on gay rights and such basing this on nothing. That is fawning. And it is not appealing at all. It has nothing to do with income inequity, it has to do with claiming that one of the world's leading anti gay crusaders is somehow gay friendly. He's not. Claiming that he is is fawning and it is utterly dishonest.
He's anti choice, he's anti gay. He has libeled my family and community a thousand times. He pretends that reproductive issues and equal treatment for minorities are somehow, magically separate from economic issues. Equality and choice ARE issues of economic inequity. You think access to birth control is not an economic issue? Equality for women and gay people is not about precious straight male financial control? Are you also selling the Brooklyn Bridge from a boiler room?
mr blur
(7,753 posts)
Warpy
(111,277 posts)People have just acknowledged that he's a breath of fresh air on economic issues after too many stifling decades under arch conservatives.
Give credit where credit is due. He's possibly a good guy, just heading one of the worst organizations in the world.
While it would be nice for that organization to get their noses out of our crotches, I doubt it will happen. It's been too dandy a means of control.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I think the key nonsense here is "fawning." No, no one should be "fawning" over a Pope. Or any religious leader. Or any political one. I think everyone here could agree immediately that there is no basis for overwhelming, unadulterated praise and love for the leader of the Catholic Church.
So we could all be done right there. No fawning. No one's pro fawning. That's ridiculous.
But that's a bit of a straw man argument, and what's really being suggested is that it's wrong to acknowledge the leader of the Catholic Church saying or doing anything right, which is frankly kind of insane and smacks of the weird American religious bias against Catholics.
First off, OUR crazy homophobes and misogynists are Protestants. There are all kinds of polls lying around showing American Catholics are not only more progressive than other religious people, but on the actual issues for which the Catholic Church takes so much righteous blame. Abortion. Birth control. Gay rights. Your basic American abortion doctor killer or gay club bomber will be a Baptist or some other Protestant sect. So let's not get all fuzzy about where the core of insanely regressive social theory lies amongst ourselves. It ain't the Vatican, and it's always a bit off when people charge in and attempt to blame Catholicism for all of the stupid ideas contained in Christianity.
Secondly, we routinely acknowledge steps in the right direction from bad institutions and the leaders of the same. All kinds of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders are applauded for making worthy comments about tolerance or peace or taking care of the poor. All of them subscribe to holy books that say gay people and women are subject to savage mistreatment in the name of "God." It's nice that some talk around the Old Testament, and never mention the horrible stuff, but if we're going with institutional crimes, no Western religion gets a pass.
Obama, for example, is a Christian, and therefore subscribes to a Bible that has all the nutty Catholic crap in it too. And, he is the leader of a racist, sexist, homophobic country. Within recent memory, he expressly opposed gay marriage on religious grounds. He "evolved," whether out of conscience, public pressure, political expedience, or (most likely) a combination of the three. But we do not say he is therefore lying when he says something good or makes a change for the better because he is the leader of a country with a lot crimes to answer for and a lot of horrible ideas still on the books.
Thirdly, the Pope giving mere "lip service" to a better idea like economic justice over a worse one, like homophobia, is a real thing with real value. He may be the theoretical "king" of the Church, but he can no more erase every intolerant Catholic policy with a wave of whatever that stick is he has than Obama can open Guantanamo tomorrow, or tell the states to stop preventing gay people from adopting children.
Finally, if we propose that we need to tell the Catholic Church that it is not okay until it starts rejecting the horrible ideas embedded in Christianity and embracing the good ones, the way you do that is to DO THAT. Just like any leader of any screwed up organization with a mountain of sins and anti-progressive policies, we recognize an improvement, or a faint nod in the right direction, while continuing to condemn the abominable.
And yeah, the racist, creepy, horrible Paul family is right on drug laws and right on getting out of wars in the Middle East, for Jesus' sake. We don't have to lie and pretend they're wrong about everything because they're wrong about a lot of important things, because we are not robots or children. No one is buying that noise, and it doesn't look any smarter or sound more convincing when it is dragged out over and over again. People are not all one thing. No one thinks that. If Michele Bachmann says something smart someday, we should all say, "Hey, that was pretty smart." Because otherwise you end up lying to try to support or attack a person, and right and wrong become superfluous.
Economic justice is good, whether it's coming from the mouth of the Pope or a Senator or god-forbid-a-Republican. We can acknowledge good without "fawning" over someone, or forgetting that they are completely, unforgivably wrong about drone strikes or abortion or same sex marriage. If we want leaders to do better things and stop doing worse things, we acknowledge when they get it right, even a little bit.
The rest is a lot of hot air.
Thank you.
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts) 
Flatpicker
(894 posts)That is we criticize people when they are partway to sharing your views, you run the risk of discouraging them and having them retrench in their older beliefs.
I'd rather praise the new pope for his progress than condemn him for his lack of momentum.
Positive reinforcement and all that.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)we should... what? The article says stop fawning over him. I don't see anyone fawning I see people surprised and happy that in some instances the church is moving into the 21st century.
I am on of the Catholic Churches most bitter rivals, but why am I not allowed to see a glint of hope here? I see a Pope who is way better than his predecessors, now that's not saying much in the Catholic Church but it is PROGRESS.
Yes he's 100% wrong on many things but he is making progress on others. Why does it have to be all or nothing? I still can't stand the church or any church, but that's not going to make me say the Pope is wrong on Austerity.
BuddhaGirl
(3,608 posts)There's a bigger picture here, too bad it's hard for some to see 
And I am a *very* fallen-away Catholic 
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)All kinds of folks with from less than optimal all the way to near Scrooge positions are swallowed if said person isn't a guy basher or anti abortion.
Folks can be fucking horrible economically and be fine. Folks can be warmongering assholes and be fine.
When you call the positions "Centrist", in context it seems absurd. These aren't the positions of "No Labels", nor the DLC, not coming from "Third Way", I'm not hearing even tones from what remains of the "blue dogs", this is not the economics of "leadership" in the Democratic party so what "Centrists" are in any way aggressively even campaigning for economic justice?
No, what goes on in some minds it would seem is economics is a single item on a checklist that can be disregarded in favor of other focuses when in actuality economics is all pervasive and dominates the orientation of all politics. Who controls the resources and who will benefit is 90% of better of the whole story, yes even of bigoted oppression.
Economics is about who eats, who's children will have opportunities, who will have clean water, who will live without hope, what people will have self determination, who will not have to live a life in fear from death from above and who will, who will have shelter, it says if whole species are pushed to extinction including our own.
Guess what? In practical reality you can't be for women's or gay rights and back burner economics because what happens is you become is purely the diversity of the elite few. The "right" of wealth and the despair of the masses.
Now, I'm never going to pretend anybody is going to have much opportunity when they are a forced baby factory so I think it is more than fair to ask some folks to stop acting like folks can live on choice and take shelter under a marriage certificate for all it matters as a focus politically.
I call bullshit on the premise that there is more patience for figures who are regressive in social issues but are more progressive fiscally and economically in no small measure due to rarity of any such birds and a landscape chock full of horrendously stupid and clearly toxic policy rolling the day for decades.
I don't get what there is not to see of the ass whipping in progress. Disparity is at feudal levels, motherfuckers wholesale buy the political process, speech and money deemed one, corporations capturing our democratic institutions, opportunity for education diminishes along with opportunities from education, mobility increasingly downward for most, poisoning our water and privatization for what is clean, taking control of the food supply all the way to the seeds.
I am absolutely talking about the big picture for all of us but you better bet your bottom dollar that the folks discussing economics will be the first ones called purists after environmentalists are roasted and the peace advocates are mocked and it will continue long after the others have been ignored so long as to be forgotten save some vestigial mockery carried on like a holiday tradition.
Meanwhile, one is probably not even going to be allowed to hang around should they deem an equality advocate to be a purist, which I'm fine with but not the open hypocrisy that comes out in the wash nor the near blindness that must come in a vision so narrow and yes, I'm forced to call your vision narrow when you are calling these positions in direct opposition to the dominant school of "thought" vocalized form this level of visibility.
Wanna argue for a comprehensive worldview? Please do but openly gay friendly plutocracy operating a dystopia where abortion is available (at least for those who can pay...we'll discuss that later) isn't in my acceptable range and I don't apologize for it. Most battles, I'll take help from where it comes to be honest, most are to desperate and critical to be too picky. If Paul can wake up some against the drug war then he is good for something. If Darth Cheney moves some on marriage equality then we are better off than with more opposition. If one can get LBJ on voting rights is he no use until he moves on Vietnam?
I swear it sometimes feels like it really is actually opposition to the message because the tolerance of being substandard and worse in other areas.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)not mean I;m fawning over him.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)And one that should be encouraged.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)If someone wants to praise this ghoul they should do it elsewhere, perhaps the Duck Dynasty forums or something.
rug
(82,333 posts)Oh, it's republished from The New Statesman which failed to recognize its writers' union.
I wonder who benefits from dividing the left.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)seems like a pretty nifty person to me.
I like the man.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Please.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Yes, it is nice to see the Church actually attack the excesses of wealth.
However, there are things he can do that would make a dent, things not easily undone. He does nto have a congress nor a constitution, he can speak "ex cathedra" and even the right wing will have to either obey or deny the basis of the authority they have abused.
He needs to clean out the pedophiles, especially since we all know that was the reason Benedict had to be the first pope in 300 years to leave the papacy.
And he needs to give women the priesthood. The Anglicans proved it works.
as far as LGBT, at the very least, he needs to get the Church out of poltics. Let them render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, to quote the person that established the separation of church and state long before Jefferson did.
In short, he needs to start actually undoing things, to bring the church to a point where it CANNOT BACKTRACK as soon as he dies and the folks in OPUS DEI get top appoint someone that makes Torquemada look like a Boston Liberal.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)does not equal "fawning over." You guys lose credibility with those characterizations.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)dishonest fawning. 'You guys' present him as liberal, pro gay, about to fire Dolan, trembling on the edge of ordaining women, moving the bus on gay rights...all of that is a load of bullshit. Doing that as part of a process to craft a positive image of him is in fact 'fawning'.
I ask you, how much would Phil the Duck or Pat Robertson of 700 Club need to give to the poor for you to accept him and not mind the racism and homophobia? There has to be a metric. You claim the words of Francis about the poor absolve him from all account on other issues and make his own intolerance vanish in your eyes. What about Pat Robertson? If he speaks about poverty a bit, does the rest of his right wing nonsense no longer count?
It is also interesting to me that Benedict who said all the same things about poverty and globalization was held to account for his other actions, while Francis is given a pass for some platitudes. Benedict wrote actual books about it, that did not get him off the hook.....odd.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I think most people are perfectly capable of recognizing the positive as well as the negative.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)But that's not a shock. That's par for the course when it comes to talking about the PR Pope.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Recognizing that someone does something right is not "fawning" over them.
This pope has said and done some good things relating to the economy. I'm not a Catholic, and have no investment in propping up the church, but I can recognize when a powerful person says or does something right without "fawning," and that recognition is not at anyone's expense. I don't support the rights of any group, women or LGBT or any other, less because I recognize work for the greater economic good for all.
I also don't have heroes, or "pin-ups," and, if I did, Obama wouldn't be one of them.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't perceive approval for one or more policy fixes or changes as 'fawning'; but then again, I don't perceive criticism of one or more preservation of pre-existing policies as 'attacking' either.
Rex
(65,616 posts) 
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)The only difference from previous pope is his PR team.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)designed to steal from and control the masses he is no better than any other pope. when the church dismantles itself and returns all that it has stolen over the centuries we can talk about what a great guy the pope is.....
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)instrument of class oppression - intrinsically rooted In violence and by design sustains the privilege of the few over the needs of the many - and until they set out to dismantle all the instruments of class oppression and state power including the theft commonly called private property and the most transparent mechanism of exploitation, the wage system and the filthy lucre we commonly call money - until then and only then can we talk about what great guys any of them are.
DuaneBidoux
(4,198 posts)What went before Obama was so bad that the idiots on the committee (and I think even most liberals would admit this) gave a man totally undeserving of the Peace Prize to someone simply because he wasn't Bush. Hope I'm not offending any fellow liberals but seriously Obama never deserved, and deserves now even less, a Peace Prize.
Francis? Well, compared to the rest of the horrific 2000 years of church history he is a downright visionary.
I think a proper acknowledgement of the relatively liberal stance of Francis does not mean one is abandoning women and gay people. Having said that it is also proper to acknowledge that the messenger has re-branded but the message (and policies) are still the same.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I don't give a darn who disagrees.
