Beware labeling Pope Francis a liberal

[unrepentant progress]

But the narrative of the liberal pope is misleading, both because his positions are not notably liberal and because persisting with that narrative anyway says more about the journalists covering the pope than it does about Francis—journalists are attempting to shoehorn him into US-centric, politically charged categories of creationism versus evolution, pro versus anti-LGBT rights, liberal versus conservative.

None of those reforms are “liberal” in political terms, and deep-rooted questions like gay marriage are simply not up for debate in a church that is inherently conservative by secular standards. Francis has reaffirmed that only a man and a woman can marry, and has opposed gay couples adopting children.

The media’s tendency to make all religious statements political comes from the heart of American political culture. The US media interprets the pope according to an “American protestant narrative,” where religion is read in terms of what it means for politics, said Justin Tse, a University of Washington scholar on religion and public life. “The question people are asking is, ‘Is the Catholic Church promoting or inhibiting democracy?’” said Tse. “It’s a good question, but when that’s the only question on the table, then you start to twist narratives to fit the agenda.”

Full article: http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/beware_labeling_pope_francis_a.php?page=all

[rug]

1. "Political boxes like liberal/conservative and evolutionist/creationist miss his real significance"

The subhead captures the story better than the headline.

[bvf]

2. Even if he were

he'd still be leading a lot of deluded people in the sense that he actually stands for anything in their eyes.

If Frank were to come out as an atheist tomorrow, and forgo the usual act of contrition, how many roman catholics would--knowing of his declaration--still publicly point to him as any sort of role model?

This is a serious question.

[cbayer]

3. Once again, I have a lot of difficulty making sense of a post.

"Leading a lot of deluded people: - guessing that means that you think catholics are all deluded people. Since you have indicated that you don't mean this is the common, informal sense, I can only conclude that you mean it in the literal, psychiatric sense.

"in the sense that he actually stands for anything in their eyes" - ok, you've really got me on this part. I can only guess that you are saying that he leads all these psychotic people because they think he actually stands for something.

Do I have that right? Or is this just more poo slinging?

I'm betting on the latter, but if there is some substance to this statement, I would love a clarification.

Your childish friend,

cbayer

[rug]

4. Believing Catholics are deluded is itself evidence of delusion.

See how that works?

[cbayer]

5. And the fact that his belief is a delusion can actually be supported by real live scientific data.

For this one, it's a firmly held belief which is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

But it's really not at all that uncommon for people with delusions to think that it's everyone else who is crazy.

[rug]

6. To put it in technical terms,

he who smelt it, dealt it.

[cbayer]

7. Uh oh, watch out. You might get called childish.

[pinto]

8. Great, but brief, article highlighting how the media and popular opinion often view this pope.

I don't know of any pope in my lifetime, save John XXIII, that has garnered this popular media coverage. Or made waves within the rigid RCC bureaucracy. And the author does well to note that bureaucracy remains.

[bvf]

10. When the bureaucracy goes away

expect people to be lost for guidance, unless they're looking to a single person to tell them what to think.

Wait! Maybe they are. . .

[pinto]

11. Mmm. Perhaps, yet I think not. It would be interesting to see.

[bvf]

12. I was in mid-edit earlier,

when you responded, sorry.

But it does make a good thought experiment.

[pinto]

14. Got it. It would be interesting.

[bvf]

9. "American protestant narrative"?

Sounds like fighting words!

Which side's imaginary being will prevail??

[pinto]

13. An imaginary being isn't the point of the piece. I read it as a take on religion & politics.

In the media, overall, and the US in particular. I wish the piece was more in depth from the author, but a good read for what it is.

You're missing the author's discussion if you choose to see it as a god/no god dichotomy. That's not the point being made, imo. It's your take. I'm cool with that. Suggest you take a step out of that, though, to get more of the gist of the article.

i.e. Outside of the imaginary being issue, what did you think of the points made in the piece?

[bvf]

15. I did read the piece in its entirety

Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2014, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)

and found it pretty interesting, actually.

The extent to which the US media tries to shoehorn a religious discussion into a political mold certainly signifies its low regard for its consumers.

I realize the dichotomy being addressed here is a bit more subtle, but I find internecine arguments in certain venues whose existence is predicated on nonsense somewhat entertaining.

[mr blur]

16. I woulan't dream of such a thing. (nt)