Pope Francis’ new clothes: Why his progressive image is white smoke and mirrors

[cleanhippie]

Don't buy his populist rhetoric. The new pope is every bit the sexist homophobe as his predecessors


THE IMAGE OF Pope Francis is that he is a breath of fresh air, more progressive on social issues than his predecessor and a kinder, gentler pope. But when the facts are examined, you see that he is none of these things. There is an enormous disconnect between who the pope really is in terms of his policies and his public relations image, as crafted by the Vatican’s PR man, previously with Fox News. The current PR mission is all about reversing the incredible decline in fundraising under the last pope from the U.S. Catholic Church in particular. Pope Francis has made any number of statements that seem to indicate change and progress that are not reflected in policy. In fact, in the wake of such comments from Pope Francis, the Vatican often makes a point to explicitly state that no church policy has changed.

While the pope transmits a populist vibe—particularly about the economy— he is an old-school conservative who, despite his great PR, maintains nearly all of the socialpolicies of his predecessors and keeps up a hardline Vatican “cabinet.” He has done virtually nothing to change the policies of the church to match his more compassionate rhetoric. People excuse the pope, claiming that he doesn’t have much power to make changes, but this simply isn’t true. Further, it is ludicrous to suggest that a man who denies comprehensive reproductive health care (including all forms of birth control including condoms and abortion) and comprehensive family planning is a man who cares about the poor of this world. The bigotry of homophobia and sexism cloaked in religion are still bigotry and sexism. By giving to the church, American Catholics aren’t supporting “progress,” they are supporting oppression and in this way are complicit in the bigotry, sexism, and oppression of the church.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/pope_franciss_liberal_reformer_image_is_all_smoke_and_mirrors_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Glad to see that more and more are seeing the reality of who this man is and what his church actually stands for.

And Catholics wonder why attendance is down and churches are closing?

[Cartoonist]

1. Why do they do that?

in the wake of such comments from Pope Francis, the Vatican often makes a point to explicitly state that no church policy has changed.
-
If it's a PR ploy for Frank to say nice things, why don't they let it stand at that? Let the people be fooled. Why go and take back what he said? They could keep the same backward policies without having to admit anything.

[skepticscott]

2. Because they need to placate the conservatives too

The Vatican has perfected the art of talking out of both sides of their mouth to try to keep the money flowing in from both sides.

[Prophet 451]

3. Yeah, I don't get that either

[Prophet 451]

4. He's a mixed bag, that's for sure

On the one hand, he's saying things I agree with on poverty and social injustice/exclusion.
On the other hand, he heads an organization that's still horribly anti-woman and homophobic and even if he personally doesn't hold those views, he's not made any move to change them.
I reserve the right to agree with some but not all of what he thinks, same as I do with Jimmy Carter.

[cleanhippie]

6. That's the problem, IMO, all talk, no action.

That's why it's all seen as a PR stunt. It's all BS rhetoric.

[Prophet 451]

13. You might well be right

Still, I can appreciate his words on poverty while thinking he's flat wrong on both women's rights and gay rights (his position on both is immoral, IMO). I'm not Catholic so I don't have to accept everything he says.

[skepticscott]

14. His words on poverty are hard to appreciate or take seriously

When he and the church he leads adamantly cling to principles and rabidly pursue policies that are fundamentally at odds with them. Allowing women to control how many children they have and when is one of the best weapons available to fight poverty. On the other hand, opposing the use of artificial contraception in any form condemns thousands if not millions of women and children to poverty, starvation and early death, and all because they claim that their god requires all sex to be open to the transmission of life (witjh no evidence that their "god" even exists, let alone that he really wants that).

And you're just fine with that? Seriously?

[skepticscott]

12. You have no idea what he actually thinks

You only know what he says. And what the Vatican says he really meant. And what he does to change bigoted, homophobic church doctrine, policies and practices (which would be essentially nothing).

[rug]

5. That essay is seven months old.

Are you running out of material?

Maybe you can document the decline in attendance with this today.

18 January 2015 Last updated at 08:46 ET

Pope Francis in Manila: Six million attend outdoor Mass



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30869019

[cleanhippie]

7. 1-16-2015 Pope, in Philippines, says same-sex marriage threatens family

Appealing to the traditional values of Filipino Catholic families, Pope Francis made one of his strongest calls as pope against movements to recognize same-sex unions as marriage. "The family is also threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage," the pope said Jan. 16, hours after warning that Philippine society was "tempted by confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family."

"As you know, these realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God's plan for creation and betray the very values which have inspired and shaped all that is best in your culture," he said. Pope Francis made his remarks at a Mass in Manila's cathedral and then at a meeting with families in the city's Mall of Asia Arena.

At the latter event, the pope called on his listeners to resist "ideological colonization that threatens the family." The Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, said later that the pope was referring to same-sex marriage, among other practices.

The pope's comments came less than a week after a speech to Vatican diplomats in which he criticized "legislation which benefits various forms of cohabitation rather than adequately supporting the family for the welfare of society as a whole," saying that such legislation had contributed to a widespread sense of the family as "disposable."

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1500200.htm

[rug]

8. Yor essay is from 6-20-14.

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Your comment about the decline in attendance is from today.

I'd enjoy continuing this nonsense but I'll be late for Mass.

[cleanhippie]

9. Lol

Don't buy his populist rhetoric. The new pope is every bit the sexist homophobe as his predecessors


THE IMAGE OF Pope Francis is that he is a breath of fresh air, more progressive on social issues than his predecessor and a kinder, gentler pope. But when the facts are examined, you see that he is none of these things. There is an enormous disconnect between who the pope really is in terms of his policies and his public relations image, as crafted by the Vatican’s PR man, previously with Fox News. The current PR mission is all about reversing the incredible decline in fundraising under the last pope from the U.S. Catholic Church in particular. Pope Francis has made any number of statements that seem to indicate change and progress that are not reflected in policy. In fact, in the wake of such comments from Pope Francis, the Vatican often makes a point to explicitly state that no church policy has changed.

While the pope transmits a populist vibe—particularly about the economy— he is an old-school conservative who, despite his great PR, maintains nearly all of the socialpolicies of his predecessors and keeps up a hardline Vatican “cabinet.” He has done virtually nothing to change the policies of the church to match his more compassionate rhetoric. People excuse the pope, claiming that he doesn’t have much power to make changes, but this simply isn’t true. Further, it is ludicrous to suggest that a man who denies comprehensive reproductive health care (including all forms of birth control including condoms and abortion) and comprehensive family planning is a man who cares about the poor of this world. The bigotry of homophobia and sexism cloaked in religion are still bigotry and sexism. By giving to the church, American Catholics aren’t supporting “progress,” they are supporting oppression and in this way are complicit in the bigotry, sexism, and oppression of the church.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/pope_franciss_liberal_reformer_image_is_all_smoke_and_mirrors_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

It;s like the author is talking directly to you.

Have a nice mass. Do you get the gluten-free wafer for communion?

[rug]

15. Well now, this is interesting.

Are you saying I'm "complicit in the bigotry, sexism, and oppression"?

Come on ch, don't be shy. I'm back from Mass now and I'm all ears.

[cleanhippie]

18. If the shoe fits.

But not everyone can be Cinderella.

[rug]

20. This isn't about shoes, it's about your statement.

You typed that this months-old screed was addressed to me. Now own your statement.

Are you saying I'm "complicit in the bigotry, sexism, and oppression"?

Weaseling around with-passive aggressive squirming doesn't cut it.

Now answer that question in broad daylight.

[cleanhippie]

23. Lol

You get so worked up, rug. That's not good for your health. Take a break, it's Sunday.


I'm off to Church, my mass starts at 12:05 PST, but I need to get there early to score a good seat for the sermon. My communion usually consists of Hot Wings, Craft Beer, and Poutine (Living so close to Canada has it's perks).

I'll save you a seat if you want to join. Send me a PM when you get to Bellingham and I'll let you know where we are. If you're not there by the end of the 1st Quarter, I can't guarantee you a seat, sorry.

Have a nice day!


Oh, and GO SEAHAWKS!!!

[rug]

26. I see. Weaseling.

[edhopper]

30. As a Packers fan

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

[LiberalAndProud]

32. I'd prefer to remove the Catholic church from the discussion

to illustrate why I would answer yes to your question. Please keep in mind I am trying to illustrate the idea of why I think congregants are, in fact, complicit. My real-world experience has been more approximate to the United Methodist church, so I will share my thinking as it relates to that denomination.

There are a great many United Methodists who passionately support equal rights for homosexual people politically, monetarily and personally. Many would be willing to sacrifice their own reputations and professional standing in support of those rights. Still the fact remains that the United Methodist church has taken a doctrinal stance in direct opposition to that worldview.

I have had the misfortune of sitting through more than one sermon by more than one minister regarding the responsibility of the congregation to meet their apportionment obligations, not because the ministers enjoy delivering these types of sermons, but because they are compelled by the church conference to do so. Also the church leadership demands of ministers that they must not preach from the pulpit in support of same sex marriage. Ministers who support same sex marriage are to be silent from the pulpit. Reconciling congregations have been enjoined from naming themselves Reconciling.

So the question, if a congregation continues to fund an organization that stands in opposition to social justice, how is that congregation not complicit in perpetuating the injustice?

[rug]

33. Since he brought it up, it's in.

You make interesting points. I suggest an OP.

[LiberalAndProud]

35. As you have no doubt noticed, I very rarely start an OP.

I think I'm not very good at it. I would hope that some interpolation could be made to other denominations. If not, then I'll leave it with the unanswered question.

[Lordquinton]

60. I see. Weaseling.

[rug]

61. I see weaseling.

[edhopper]

37. That was

well said.

My answer to your question is, they are.

[LiberalAndProud]

38. That would be my answer as well.

The (paraphrased) answer I received from one reconciling Methodist was, "We're trying to figure out how to not pay apportionments." That answer seemed to me to concede the point.

The same Methodist and I both believe that an institutional rift in the church is imminent. I think this is how denominations procreate.

[edhopper]

11. Make sure you donate plenty to the box

to go to Amicus Briefs to defend Hobby Lobby and bans on Same Sex Marriage.

[rug]

16. Ok, ed, I'll aask you the same question.

I'm more likely to get from you an answer in words, not smileys.

Are you also saying I'm "complicit in the bigotry, sexism, and oppression" because I went to Mass?

Spare us both the weaseling and give a straight answer.

I'll wait.

[edhopper]

24. Yes

I think the RCC has shown itself to be a Criminal Organization. And all who still support it are complicit.
If any other organization had perpetrated the kind of enabling and cover-up that the Vatican did over the pedophilia crimes,it would have been disbanded and shunned by the rest of the World.

I don't know what the answer for people who do not want to reject the teachings but want to reject the Vatican.

If joining a different Church doesn't work, perhaps it's time for a new Church.

[rug]

27. "all who still support it are complicit."

That incudes Kerry, does it not?

Senator Leahy?

Durbin, Harkin? Mikslsky, Cantwell, Gillibrand?

You voted for Gillibrand, didn't you, ed? Are you complicit?

I know you better than to say you are a bigot but I suggest you wash the handle of that broad brush before using it again. You may catch something from the one who used it before you.

[edhopper]

28. Yes

all who support the Vatican.
If I found out my donations to Gillibrand went to the Church and still gave, yes, if not, no.

I think you are stretching in comparing voting for a Politician with some different views and giving money to such an institution.

I am not using complicit in a sense that you would be guilty of a crime.

Do you think Gay people who give to the GOP are complicit in anti-gay laws?

[rug]

29. The only one stretching here is you. ed.

Those are all Catholics in good standing, along with thousands of other elected Democrats.

All of whom you call complicit in misogyny, homophobia and whatever else is on your list.

It's a bullshit position.

[edhopper]

31. Yes

I am saying that, it is what I believe. You are saying my beliefs are bullshit?

[rug]

34. That one is complete and utter bullshit.

Trot out some more and I'll let you know.

[edhopper]

36. Why yes

yes it was.
As it is whenever it is trotted out.


More to the point, we all support politicians we disagree with on some things. And we criticize them for those things.

Are you saying you don't?

I support your membership here, even though I think you give support a criminal organization.

The world is full of gray areas.

[rug]

39. "you give support a criminal organization"

Well, now, there's another bullshit opinion.

To be clear, that statement would apply to every practicing Catholic. Is that your statement?

[edhopper]

43. Ones who support the Church

With donations? Yes.

[rug]

44. Inclding those who throw five bcks in the basket?

I take it you're unfamiliar with Hegel.

[edhopper]

45. Are they giving money to the church?

Then yes they are helping.
Though to a small degree.

I get you don't like my opinion here, so I am not sure why you wish me to keep repeating it.

[rug]

46. How mch of the five bcks is left to commit mayhem afterpaying for the heat and mortgage.

You should really read what Hegel wrote on quality and quantity. As it is, you're coming off like a backwater DA trying to
convict a shoplifter.

[edhopper]

47. You're to wrapped up

In me thinking Churchgoers are also criminal.sorry you can'tbsee the distinction.
They are supporting a criminal organization, though I am sure they don't see it that way.
You obviously don't, I do.

[rug]

48. You keep using the phrase "criminal organization" as if you onderstand it.

It is not one under any code of criminal law. I don't mind rhetorical hyperbole but I object when it's passed off as fact. And that misstatement completely undermines any point based on it.

[edhopper]

49. What would you call a group that

Enabled and covered up child rape.
I call it a criminal organization.
You are free to differ and keep supporting and defending them.
Doesn't change what they did or my opinion of them.

[rug]

50. What do you call an organization, some of whose principals committed crimes?

Hint, not "criminal organization".

What is more obnoxious than that is calling every member of that organization complicit in those crimes.

What is worse than the sheer obnoxiousness of it is that it's flat out wrong.

What is worse than being flat out wrong is that you're actually taking actions based on those demonstrably wrong ideas.

[edhopper]

52. Your opinion

Is noted and filed appropriately.

[edhopper]

10. You think this Rock Show

has anything to do with church attendance?

You are wrong, it is declining.

The study also showed that from 64% church attendance in 1991, only 37% of Catholics go every week to Mass now

http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2013/04/12/dwindling-church-attendance-statistics-and-grief/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/world/asia/pope-francis-arrives-in-philippines-to-rock-star-welcome.html

[rug]

17. Absolutely. BTW, no "Rock Show" has come close to a fraction of this attendance.

Here, read the lead from your link:

MANILA — Cheering throngs greeted Pope Francis when he arrived in the deeply Catholic Philippines on Thursday evening, the first papal visit in 20 years to a country whose church is struggling with profound social changes and a decline in political power.

What you and your gluten-concerned friend fail to realize is that once the church gets out of politics, it will be stronger than ever.

What oh what will you do then?

[edhopper]

19. I will not be holding by breath until that happens

Are you?

Is that when everyone gets a pony?

Are you seriously taking my "Rock Show" point that literately? Seriously?

[rug]

21. It's as clear as day. Now, why don't you answer the question dangling above.

[edhopper]

22. which one is that?

[edhopper]

25. answered

go read

[okasha]

40. Tsk.

No dead babies in the news today. He's having to make do with outdated material.

[rug]

41. At least he hasn't yet resorted to the Crusades.

[okasha]

42. There is that.

[delrem]

53. I don't like it when someone interjects just to attack a contributor

to the discussion, after which 2 or more in an attack pack conduct a back and forth about how disgusting that contributor is.

Maybe you think that tactic has something to do with "religion". I don't.

[okasha]

54. I don't like concern trolling.

If you're hellbent on doing it, though, I can suggest. some areas where your efforts might be more appropriate.

[delrem]

55. I wasn't concern trolling. I was telling you that I don't like your tactic. nt

[delrem]

57. I wasn't concern trolling. I was telling you that I don't like your tactic.

I still don't.

Now, go look up "concern trolling" on google.

[okasha]

58. You've had as much of my time as you're going to get.

Have a nice evening.

[delrem]

59. goodbye. Thanks for listening to my message. nt

[Dawson Leery]

51. kick