Pope Francis: A symbol of hope and contradiction

[rug]

'Pope Francis represents the best and the worst of Catholic faithful. He is, after all, every Catholic combined'

Ric Caliolio
Ric Caliolio is the Vice President of the Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society, Inc. (PATAS), a social organization that provides social action to promote public understanding of atheism and agnosticism in the country. It stands for reason, science, humanism, and the secularization of our nation.
Published 2:55 PM, Jan 19, 2015
Updated 3:05 PM, Jan 19, 2015

Personally, I am not giving the papal visit much thought. What I only know from the top of my head is that this visit will be considered a national holiday and that MMDA officers are required to wear diapers while on duty.

I really appreciate Rappler for acknowledging that our country is the home to people outside the majority (i.e., the Catholics) and that the opinions of these minorities matter. This practice of collecting as many perspectives from as many different angles as possible is one of the primary foundations of rational thought that most of us, atheists and secularists, adhere to.

So what is the significance of Pope Francis for me?

From my world view, Pope Francis has no tangible authority and is nothing but a symbol. He is both a symbol of contradiction and a symbol of hope within and for the Catholic Church and its members.

http://www.rappler.com/specials/pope-francis-ph/81310-pope-francis-contradiction-hope

[Major Nikon]

1. Who am I to judge? And gays are working for the devil

Yep, plenty of contradiction, but don't let it be said that the Catholic church is bad at PR. They've managed to convince a lot of people that the Pope is tolerant, while he goes to Manila and says gays are disfiguring god and destroying the fabric of society.

[cbayer]

2. Well done. The contradictions are glaring at times.

He does note that the perceived liberal statements get a lot more attention than the conservative ones and thinks this is a reflection of popular opinion. He sees that in an optimistic way and I tend to agree with him.

[hrmjustin]

3. There are things I like but there are disappointments with him.

I hope he uses his address to congress to push economic justice.

[Major Nikon]

4. Claiming gay marriage is the work of the devil is a 'disappointment'?

Isn't that kinda like saying David Duke would be a great guy if it wasn't for all that white supremacist stuff?

I guess I just don't understand how some can parse out unbelievably harmful hate speech and then say he's an otherwise likeable guy. To me it's little different than "family value" Republicans palling around with confessed pedophile Ted Nugent. How does one simply disregard the elephant in the room?

[hrmjustin]

5. Yes I was highly disappointed in him.

[cbayer]

6. The work of the devil remark is loathsome, but he said it four years ago

and, while he hasn't gone nearly far enough, his remarks regarding GLBT people and their rights have shown progression since then.

The David Duke analogy fails because I can't think of a single thing that Duke has ever said or done that I could support. The fact is that while Francis falls far short of what I would like to see, he does say and do things that I can support.

If you want to hold him to something he said four years ago and not see anything about him that might be positive, that is your right. But others see more than just an elephant and have a much more nuanced perspective.

I'm going to support him when I think he is doing good and criticize him when he is doing bad.

[Major Nikon]

7. He repeated virtually the same thing this past week

The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage. These realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation.

The only thing that 'progressed' was he simply replaced his euphemism for the devil with a less conspicuous euphemism for the devil. Gay marriage is still defined by this pope as anti-God.

The point was that some things are so egregious and harmful they simply can't be parsed out. I consider preaching extremely harmful homophobic hate from the highest pulpit one of those things. YMMV.

[cbayer]

8. Agree that this is not a whole lot better, but I would prefer to pin

recent statements on him than continue to use a four year old one.

We are going to disagree on this, I feel certain. When it comes to someone attached to an institution which hasn't yet come into the 21st century and has rules that are increasingly in conflict with the rest of the world, I'm going to have to parse out some of what he says. I don't think he is always free to speak his own mind and sometimes must speak for the church.

I agree that his position on GLBT civil rights is egregious and harmful, but I don't agree that it is necessarily "hate". I hope to see the day that the RCC moves forward with this and he may present the opportunity to move in that direction.

[Major Nikon]

9. The only area we disagree on is the standard by which someone should be deemed morally reprehensible

Are his motives personally hateful? Only he can answer that, but as you concede his words are egregious and harmful, so given his position the effect makes the personal intent pretty much irrelevant. The reality of the 21st century and every one before is that religion is used to promote a very hateful and harmful agenda against certain groups. Rather than using his position to stop this, this pope is unquestionably fanning those flames.

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
― Anne Lamott

[cbayer]

10. I'm not sure that we disagree about that standard.

I just can find certain aspects of a person morally reprehensible while I find other aspects morally sound.

This is particularly true when it is an individual that is not always speaking only for themselves but is the mouthpiece of a larger organization.

Religion is also used to promote very loving and progressive agendas for certain groups. He has the opportunity to change the position of the RCC. I'm going to give him a chance to do that. He is taking a strong stand in support of the poor, the marginalized and disenfranchised and a strong stand against capitalism and economic injustice. Will he come through for GLBT rights and for reproductive freedom? I just don't know.

I like the Lamott quote and have used it before, but I don't really see it's relevance here.

[Major Nikon]

11. It's relevant here because I don't give the pope a pass on hate

Just barely over a year ago a Catholic bishop conducted a no-shit gay exorcism for Illinois. There's just no convincing anyone (other than haters) the motive there was not hate, and that very same bishop justified his hateful rhetoric with those very same words out of the pope that you claim aren't as relevant today. The pope's silence on that matter speaks volumes. People are spewing hate in the name of the Catholic church and this new pope and he doesn't seem to have a problem with that. He's part and parcel to it, has never renounced it, and is still spewing that same hateful rhetoric.

[okasha]

12. Everyone who voted for Obama in 2008

gave him a pass on hate. He's the guy who opposed equal marriage because "God isn't in the mix;" allowed his voice and image to be used to promote Prop h8; invited Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration; and instructed his AG to defend DOMA in court.

His stance is very different now, and I'm willing to give him props for a sincere change of heart. It took Obama four years to change. If Francis hasn't come around in a similar length of time, then my view of him will likely change radically for the worse.

[Major Nikon]

13. Obama opposed Prop 8, so I don't think it's a good idea to pretend otherwise

Obama is not Rick Warren. Choosing to associate with someone doesn't mean you endorse everything they support. Obama endorsed the repeal of DOMA before he was ever elected. He also has always been in favor of extending the same rights to gay couples at both the federal and state level. His position has only changed as to what such a thing might be called. That's not even in the same ballpark as claiming gay marriage is the work of the devil or is anti-god.

[okasha]

16. Obama played both sides of the issue

on Prop h8. His AG defended DOMA in court. He made the statement that "God isn't in the mix" in LGBT relationships on national TV. He was begged by LGBT organizations not to give Rick Warren a place of honor at the inauguration. He ignored them.

And his apologists made the same double standard excuses then that you're making now.

[Major Nikon]

17. "God isn't in the mix" is the same thing as gay marriage is the work of the devil?

"God isn't in the mix"

Is this really the best you can do to pretend Obama is the "same" as the pope?

Obama opposed Prop 8 both before it was passed and after. Certainly you can pretend otherwise, but thems the facts.

Every sitting president has a constitutional duty to defend the laws passed by congress. This is not something Obama can simply defy the Constitution on, as you pretend. So long as they don't have a constitutional argument to the contrary, the Executive branch is compelled by law to defend legislatively passed laws. In Obama's first year of office, the DOJ did not have such an argument. Again you can pretend this is the same as voting for DOMA, signing DOMA into law, and praising DOMA, but it doesn't mean Obama did any of those things. Obama always opposed DOMA and his position never wavered. In fact, the Obama's administration was key to DOMA's demise as well as DADT. As far as Rick Warren goes, Obama said emphatically he didn't agree with Rick Warren's stance on homosexuality both before and after the inauguration. So trying to pin Rick Warren's views on Obama is nothing more than guilt by association nonsense. It's no different than the wingnut's Bill Ayers claptrap. Yet somehow I am to believe this is the "same" as the pope?

Also you shouldn't forget the only reason we are having this discussion in the first place is your apologist argument for the pope, which so far seems to depend exclusively on tu quoque and false equivalence fallacies, and not even a good ones at that. As you are simply repeating them, I'm not going to continue to entertain fallacious arguments other than to identify them as such.

[cbayer]

19. "Choosing to associate (support) someone doesn't mean you endorse everything

they support".

Exactly.

[Major Nikon]

21. Which is a good reason why one shouldn't consider Catholics ideologicly the same as the pope

But it doesn't provide an excuse for supporting an organization that is dedicated to a very hateful and harmful position.

[cbayer]

23. The only difference between what you said about Warren and what I say about the pope

is that you and I draw our lines in different places. There is nothing wrong with that. Your line is not more righteous than mine.

I don't support "an institution" at all. I do have very mixed feelings about this pope and will continue to support what is good and condemn what is bad about him.

And I will continue to be accused of being an apologist for child rapists, misogynists and homophobes because of that position.

[Major Nikon]

24. I didn't say much of anything about Warren

If you ask me about him I'd say he, like the pope, preaches hate from the pulpit. So I'm not sure how you derived that I would draw the line any differently for Warren.

The allegation I was addressing is the ridiculous assumption that somehow Warren's hate automatically transfers to Obama via association. I don't believe that's true for Obama and Warren and I don't believe that's true for Catholics and the pope. The only person I agree with 100% is myself. I suspect that's true for most people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[cbayer]

26. The point was that you can support someone without supporting everything that they say or do.

You can support Obama without supporting his choice of Warren. I can support the pope without supporting his position on GLBT civil rights.

What I reject is someone telling me that if I support some parts, I am supporting the whole.

[Major Nikon]

27. I think you are missing a degree of separation

The only way you can link someone who supports Obama as someone who supports Warren is by an association fallacy.

[cbayer]

29. I think you are missing my point.

Supporting some things that a person says or does or chooses to associate with doesn't mean you support all of them.

Objecting to some things that a person says or does or chooses to associate with doesn't mean you object to all of them.

That's it.

FWIW, I think pulling out logical fallacies in a discussion is a logical fallacy. Have we had that discussion before?

[Major Nikon]

30. It was someone else's point to begin with

The point made by another poster was that supporting Obama is the "same" as supporting the pope. My point was this is a false equivalency, and even if it weren't the very best such an argument could ever be has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the pope is preaching hate.

Supporting some things that a person says or does or chooses to associate with doesn't mean you support all of them.

Objecting to some things that a person says or does or chooses to associate with doesn't mean you object to all of them.

I wrote the same thing so we don't disagree here.

FWIW, I think pulling out logical fallacies in a discussion is a logical fallacy. Have we had that discussion before?

Yes, but honestly that sounds like gibberish to me. At any rate I don't agree and I'm not sure very many others would either. Arguing with fallacious rhetoric is a fool's errand. I'm not going to do so other than to identify it as such. People who argue with fallacies are either ignorant of them or they are being intellectually dishonest. Either way I don't see the point in playing. YMMV.

[cbayer]

31. That is a completely different argument and one that I did not support.

I amended it to make a different point. I do not think that supporting Obama is the "same" as supporting the pope, so you can make that argument with the other poster.

Gibberish? I think pulling out the logical fallacy card is generally a distraction when someone doesn't have a strong response. While I do think they exist, I think accusations of them made during discussions are logical fallacy logical fallacies.

More often than no when sometimes calls someones argument fallacious rhetoric or says that is is intellectually dishonest, it is they that have missed the point or don't have a substantial argument.

It so much more productive to just try and get the other person to clarify what they mean than to just dismiss it as a game, imo.

[Major Nikon]

32. So what's the point of bringing up Obama at all in a discussion about the pope?

Unless the point was an attempt at fallacious misdirection.

Interestingly enough this is the very same thing you are claiming happens when someone correctly points out a fallacy. Ironic, no?

[cbayer]

33. I didn't bring Obama up, but I think I understand the point she was trying

to make, al though I don't agree with the comparison. The point is that when you support something or someone, it is highly unlikely that you support them/it 100%. There may even be things about them that you find abhorrent and reject entirely.

I know her well enough to believe that she is not duplicitous and believe that rather than there being a "fallacious misdirection" there was simply a disagreement.

This is why I reject these kinds of terms. Again, most of the time when someone points out a fallacy, they are the ones bringing in a fallacious misdirection, imo. I find it very weak.

[Major Nikon]

34. I don't think you do

Their point was, and I quote:

Everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 gave him a pass on hate.

[cbayer]

35. Look, you are trying to get me to speak for someone else, which I am

not going to do.

That excerpt is a quote of what you said using a different context.

You claimed that those that support the pope on some things give him a pass on hate. The point is that supporting someone on some things doesn't mean you give them a pass on other things. You can support Obama and reject some of the things he has done or said. You can support the Pope and reject some of the things he has said or done. I can support the democratic party….. and on and on and on.

What exactly is your point? I think that you have a very black and white position on this when it comes to the pope, whereas your position is probably more grey when it comes to others. That's fine but it's not the only correct position.

[Major Nikon]

36. You tried to tell me what their point was, unsolicited I might add

So I'm pretty sure you've already passed the Rubicon on that.

You claimed that those that support the pope on some things give him a pass on hate.

I said "I don't give the pope a pass on hate"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218178975#post11

[cbayer]

37. Parsing, again - dead end.

It's been nice talking to you. I hope we will meet again.

[Major Nikon]

38. I don't think so

Ditto, though.

[cbayer]

18. I don't give him a pass either, I just am able to see him in more than one dimension.

I never said the words weren't relevant at all. You are distorting my position.

I suspect that he could never go far enough for some, but I am going to continue to nudge him in the right direction when I can.

[Major Nikon]

20. You are distorting what I actually wrote

I wrote you claimed the pope's words "aren't as relevant today" not "weren't relevant at all". Since you made a point of saying his words were from 4 years ago and he has shown "progression", is this not a fair statement? Please explain how your position was distorted because that's what I understood your meaning to be.

[cbayer]

22. No, it's not a fair statement. I think his words are very relevant and that he has

shown some progression on the issue, though not a lot. I do think that pulling a four year old quote out is not as relevant as looking at what he has said since then.

I just posted an article from Religious Dispatches on this. I really like this writer and I think her position is very similar to mine.

[Major Nikon]

25. Then I am at a loss to understand what you are saying

I wrote "aren't as relevant" and you write "not as relevant", but somehow those two phrases don't mean the same thing.

[cbayer]

28. You are parsing which most likely means we are at a standoff, no?

[edhopper]

15. The Pilgrim

Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2015, 10:36 AM - Edit history (1)