Religion
Related: About this forumSorry--but Pope Francis is no liberal
Trendy commentators have fallen in love with a pope of their own invention
Luke Coppen 11 January 2014
On the last day of 2013, one of the weirdest religious stories for ages appeared on the news wires. The Vatican had officially denied that Pope Francis intended to abolish sin. It sounded like a spoof, but wasnt. Who had goaded the Vatican into commenting on something so improbable? It turned out to be one of Italys most distinguished journalists: Eugenio Scalfari, co-founder of the left-wing newspaper La Repubblica, who had published an article entitled Franciss Revolution: he has abolished sin.
Why would anyone, let alone a very highly regarded thinker and writer like Scalfari, believe the Pope had done away with such a basic tenet of Christian theology? Well, since he took charge last year, Francis has been made into a superstar of the liberal left. His humble background (he is a former bouncer), his dislike for the trappings of office (he cooks his own spaghetti) and his emphasis on the churchs concern for the poor has made liberals, even atheists like Scalfari, suppose that he is as hostile to church dogma as they are. They assume, in other words, that the Pope isnt Catholic. Last year few left-leaning commentators could resist falling for the foot-washing Jesuit from Buenos Aires. In column after column they projected their deepest hopes on to Francis he is, they think, the man who will finally bring enlightened liberal values to the Catholic church.
In November Guardian writer Jonathan Freedland argued that Francis was the obvious new hero of the left and that portraits of the Supreme Pontiff should replace fading Obama posters on the walls of the worlds student bedrooms. Just days later Francis preached a homily denouncing what he called adolescent progressivism, but people see and hear what they want to, so no one took any notice of that.
That is how the Pope has come to be spun as a left-liberal idol. Whenever he proves himself loyal to Catholic teaching denouncing abortion, for instance, or saying that same-sex marriage is an anthropological regression his liberal fan base turns a deaf ear. Last month Americas oldest gay magazine, the Advocate, hailed Francis as its person of the year because of the compassion he had expressed towards homosexuals. It was hardly a revolution: Article 2358 of the Catholic churchs catechism calls for gay people to be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity. In simply restating Catholic teaching, however, Francis was hailed as a hero. When a Maltese bishop said the Pope had told him he was shocked by the idea of gay adoption, that barely made a splash. Time magazine, too, made Francis person of the year, hailing him for his rejection of Church dogma as if he had declared that from now on there would be two rather than three Persons of the Holy Trinity. But for cockeyed lionisation of Francis it would be hard to beat the editors of Esquire, who somehow managed to convince themselves that a figure who wears the same outfit every day was the best dressed man of 2013.
More at link
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Every one here is so cautiously optimistic about him! So incredibly cautiously optimistic that it beggars belief! He MUST be a hero..he simply must.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I believe that is why he is so popular. He is 100 times better than all his former Popes and that is why he is admired. Of course, it will take time for real change to occur. I think he is doing well considering he is not even in the position a year yet.
goldent
(1,582 posts)but words matter, especially coming from a pope.
We will wait and see - in the Vatican things take longer than a semester. Sometimes even US Presidents take a while to change things.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The article explores Francis' proclamations in detail. None of them are contradictory to established Catholic doctrine. None. They do not represent new directions, they do not represent new thinking, they are not paving the way towards a more moderate, modern, liberal Catholic church. Change isn't coming quickly or slowly, because, despite rumors to the contrary, change isn't on the menu.
goldent
(1,582 posts)If a new American political leader started to make references to rights under one of the amendments (2nd, 4th, 10th, you pick it) it would give some indication of his/her thinking, and people would suspect a new agenda is in the works. This is in spite of the fact that those amendments have existed for 200 years and are no secret. And like with Pope Francis, any media attention to this "new thinking" would annoy the opposing party. Ultimately, as I said in the title of my post, it is actions that count.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"Compassionate" conservatism. Remember?
We had 8 years to then observe him. So tell me, was anything really different about GeeDubYa's conservatism? Or was it just phony PR?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Then too, the new pope is a Jesuit; possibly the most intellectual, almost secular order. Jesuits founded many serious universities.
Something might be up, after all.
It would be particularly interesting to finally hear about the causes of Ratzinger's resignation; not just his health, but various controversies in the Vatican. Beyond "the butler did it."
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Tell us, please what parts of the Catholic religion do the Jesuits explicitly reject? What parts of Catholic doctrine do they profess NOT to adhere to?
Would love to hear your opinion too on which is the least intellectual order.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2014, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)
By the way, there's a consistent reading of the Bible, where Jesus himself does not say that he is the Christ.
There's a secular message in the Bible, for those who can pick it up, under the polysemy.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You can't even name one thing, can't even provide one example? After two days of thinking? You just assert that it's true because it's obvious that it's true? Because people NOT saying something proves it? Seriously? I know that's a popular argument around here these days, but that doesn't make it any less silly.
And btw, Jesus told Peter that he was right in thinking that he was the Christ, and confirmed that that knowledge came from God himself.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Then Jesus retracted his apparent earlier endorsement; Jesus called Peter "Satan" in Mat. 16.23.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Jesus confirming that he was the Christ, now does it?
Really? Seriously?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Thus casting doubt on say, 1) the goodness of Peter, and the "Church of St. Peter."
And say, on 2) Peter's earlier embrace of Jesus as "Christ."
Could Jesus reverse himself this way? Bible scholars have found examples where God seems to change his mind. From Old Testament Judaism, say, to the NT.
Our present example confirms that: in Mat. 16, Jesus seems to change his mind on many things. At first he seems to 1) endorse Peter himself, as a "rock"; and 2) Peter calling Jesus Christ. But suddenly Jesus changes his mind. And begins to call Peter "Satan" in Mat. 16.23. While on the cross, Jesus again began to doubt his own status with God; asking why God had abandoned him.
Looking closely at the Bible like this, some scholars suggest that there is a self-doubting message in the Bible. Where even Jesus himself doubts he is the Christ, for example.
The final moral being this for some: ironically, those who believe in Jesus as the Christ, are not really following the Bible. And say, what Jesus himself finally said.
Strange to say, this is a reading known to and respected by some intellectual scholars, who are seeking relief from religious dogmatism
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Did you get to the part about Obama?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It may surprise you, but that is not an unusual opinion, especially among progressives.
Oh, I see. Because the opinion piece was published by the Spectator, it must be wrong. No rebuttal necessary.
That makes sense...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Yeah, pretty much think that if a piece is published by the Spectator, it most likely does not reflect the view of liberal/progressive democrats.
What do you think?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)... you would have presented them already.
That you are instead busying yourself tossing out ad hominems and subtly accusing me of conservative sympathies, is, as you would say "telling".
It "tells" me you didn't do a very good job reading the article (if at all), because if you had you would have noticed a stark difference between Coppen's position (Francis is not a liberal reformer) and that of mainstream right-wing commentators (Francis is a maniacal Marxist who is going to gay marry everyone before he hands the keys to St. Peter's over to Satan himself); it "tells" me you didn't do a very good job looking into Luke Coppen; and it "tells" me you have absolutely nothing of substance to say.
Since you seem to have some spare time on your hands, perhaps you could ring John Cleese. Someone really ought to tell him he does not reflect the views of liberal/progressives. I hear he contributed to The Spectator once.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This article is primarily focused on the Pope's take on economic issues. They are terrified of his liberal leanings and have a great stake in painting him as some kind of media clown.
I'm not accusing you of anything. I am just noting that this article has a clear political agenda that is generally not in line with the objectives of this site.
John Cleese wrote for the Spectator because of they way they had treated him for years. His writings were primarily tongue and cheek and I will give them credit for putting him on their staff.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"This article is primarily focused on the Pope's take on economic issues."
I don't see how anyone could read it and come to that conclusion. It touches on many issues, none of them "primarily."
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Such nuances didnt concern the American conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who accused the Pontiff of espousing pure Marxism. Clearly this was just another version of the Fantasy Francis a misapprehension of the man and his message that the Catholic hierarchy has done little to correct. But there is a price to be paid in allowing such myths to grow a price that may have been paid, for example, by the Archdiocese of New York, which may have lost a seven-figure donation. According to Ken Langone, who is trying to raise $180 million to restore the citys Catholic cathedral, one potential donor said he was so offended by the Popes alleged comments that he was reluctant to chip in.
Under Francis, the church is deeply committed to what theologians call the preferential option for the poor. But in order to opt for the poor, the church has to court the super-rich. A few generous multi-millionaires, for example, fund most of the major Catholic initiatives in England and Wales (including a significant part of Benedict XVIs state visit in 2010). If just one of them was put off by the distorted Marxist image of Francis, the church here would be in trouble.
Because if it is, I do not detect terror in Coppen's writing. He merely raises two points: 1) liberals have largely misconstrued his criticism of Chicago and Austrian-school economics as a wholesale condemnation of capitalism, and 2) because the church relies heavily upon the donations of wealthy Catholics, he probably won't condemn capitalism wholesale even if he wanted to.
I don't know what Luke Coppen's personal political positions are, and I don't think they're relevant to the topic. He's not discussing whether or not Francis' economic positions are aligned with his, but whether Francis' economic policies represent a departure from established Church doctrine.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's why I think the source is of importance here. This paper and the author of the piece (and the group he represents) do not want for the pope to be a liberal. The very much don't want that. They would much rather he be a buffoon and that people would stop rallying around him because of the rather leftish turn he appears to be taking.
So they have an agenda. And if you read this with that in mind, the meaning may be different.
The piece is dense and requires some effort to get through. It is easy to see what one may want to see, but I think there is a significant nuanced edge to it.
I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of being a conservative. I don't think that at all. As I said, I think the source and it's secondary agenda are important in this case.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Does Francis represent a departure from established Catholic teaching?
This is a pretty straightforward question that needn't necessarily be encumbered by one's own political position. One simply must look at what is established Catholic teaching and see whether or not Francis is headed in a different direction.
I sank thirteen years into the Church. I was educated at a Catholic school. I was an altar boy. My grandfather was a deacon. All eleven of his brothers and sisters were Eucharistic Ministers, save one, who joined a convent. From my own anecdotal experience, Francis isn't the breath of fresh air everyone seems to think he is. From my own non-anecdotal, amateurish investigation into the matter, I can't find a single issue upon which Francis stands apart from his two most recent predecessors. Coppen did an acceptable job illustrating this, whatever his personal feelings on the matter may be (and again, I would urge you to look him up on LexisNexis; he's been a fairly staunch proponent of Francis since the Papal Elections).
I don't presume to lecture you, but if you think he's wrong, then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate it. Attacking his publisher, or his own political positions--whatever they may be--isn't sufficient. Just because he's a conservative doesn't mean he's wrong, especially on a topic which isn't necessarily dependent upon political ideology.
(As an aside, you mentioned you were in Mexico. If you speak Spanish, and if you have the time, you may want to verify whether or not Francis' criticism of capitalism was indeed misconstrued in translation. The original should be available on the Vatican's web site.)
That door swings both ways, incidentally. Sure, conservative Catholics want Francis to be conservative, but certainly no more than liberals would like him to be a liberal. But I'm not interested in what people want him to be, I'm more interested in what he is.
If I had to offer my amateurish opinion, I would sum it up thusly:
Benedict XVI was difficult to like. John Paul II, in his waning years (and there were many) lacked the charisma and cogence of his early days. It isn't that Francis is saying anything Benedict XVI or John Paul II didn't, it is simply that it has literally been decades since the Vatican fielded a Pope with Francis' vitality and presence. It's his personality, not his ideas, that are new.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's overall message is one you want to hear, isn't it.?
I'm not going to argue about the pope. I like the tone he has taken and the direction he appears to be heading. I will wait for some real action and remain cautiously optimistic. I'm not sure, but I sense you have an interest in seeing him not make any changes or are completely convinced that that can't happen. We shall see.
I looked up Coppen. His organization is committed to the Vatican and they are not going to say anything bad. It is again my take that they don't like some of the things he is saying and need to defang him a bit. Between some of his message (and I disagree with you that he is no different than his most recent predecessor) and his amazing public approval, they have a strong vested interest in weakening him
. which is basically what this article aims to do.
I would also be interested in whether he was mistranslated. I can't seem to find that claim anywhere else and my Spanish is not good enough to determine for myself. I thought it was interesting thought that they needed to say that he was not talking about trickle down economics, which, of course, they would most likely be strong advocates for.
So glad we were able to pursue this in a civil way. It's turned into a very interesting conversation, imo.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)I hope not.
The Catholic Herald:
Despite its fairly small circulation (generally to Catholic parishes), it is nevertheless a reasonably influential paper, becoming a bastion of social conservatism in the British press. It's editorial line is always that of the Catholic Church; whilst there is no direct or official Vatican oversight, the paper never prints opinion contrary to current Catholic doctrine by internal covenant. Some non-Catholics read it for this exact reason. Generally, its slant on social issues is to the right of the ''Daily Mail'' (see below), advocating, for instance, a ban on abortion even in cases of rape or incest. It is a relentlessly pessimistic paper (though, in its defence, it is hard to see how it can be else in an increasingly secular and liberal UK), and tends to publish the same kind of doom and gloom stories as the Mail and Express, only generally with a way, way higher standard of reportage.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BritishNewspapers
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Doesn't seem like it.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)is that , yes, the source is very important, as well as the slant and spin they put on it.
Do you know understand it now, or must I break it down a little further for you?
into very simple little bits?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You don't have a point, but instead just needed to fling insults as usual.
Stay classy, kwassa. Keep acting like the wonderful Christian you are!
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Attacking the source proves nothing. If the source is so clearly in the wrong, you should have no trouble demonstrating that.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)unfortunately i had to read through his the explanation of the obvious.