2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Vatican: Pope Didn't Invite Bernie Sanders [View all]nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... so I can relate. And I grew up in a Massachusetts Catholic Democrat family whose various positions on things often reflected the Democrats before they reflected the Church with my stalwart city councillor aunt being involved with the DNC back in the day.
I have a strong regard for strides this pope has taken but I also don't think he's all that different than the others. The issues are nearly all the same with only the emphasis he puts on some over the others having actually changed. He focusses more on economic justice and is less judgmental regarding divorce and gays but he has also made it clear that they are still considered sins.
But the fact remains that this is an organization that has 2,000 years of oppression under its belt along with the good things it has done. It is a foreign nation. It has walls around it bigger than anything the ghastly Trump would probably ever be able to build. It has meddled in affairs of state since it began and, one might argue, began from affairs of Roman state.
I may be a Hillary supporter, if you want to call it that. I'm not especially enthusiastic about either of them. I'd rather keep Obama but will vote for whichever of them gets the nomination because they each represent the largest number of interests I have. I'm more of a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist but we're all products of perspective and life experience so I don't begrudge anyone their views in life. However, that being said, this conference issue would bother me no matter who got the invite. I'm not jealous that Hillary didn't get one. It would be just as upsetting to me if she got one and Bernie didn't because this is bigger than some conference. This is Vatican leadership yet again showing its willingness to use its muscle to meddle in affairs best left to voters. The Kim Davis debacle (which apparently didn't have the full buy-in from the Pope either) was another example of this.
I don't want the Church telling people who to vote for anymore than I want Goldman Sachs doing so, but to let the church do so is even more dangerous to me because, despite the toxic allure of greed, it is a far easier mindset to negotiate with than devotion. I've never seen a suicide bomber head into a nightclub for a stack of cash and a six pack of beer.
I'm not fan of huge corporations controlling as much as they do, but they're a lot quicker to adapt than most religious groups are. Not much more than a century ago, we had child labor in this country. A hundred years later we don't (here anyway). Not more than a century ago, there weren't female Catholic priests. A hundred years later, well, you get the idea. And lets not forget the role of corporations like Disney in compelling the Governor of Georgia to veto one of the most anti-gay pieces of legislation in America.
And, quite frankly, I mainly signed up to post after years of lurking because I can't believe that the Hillary people aren't talking about this. That is what people should be concerned about, not who invited who, whether or not he's going to meet the pope, who's jealous of who, or why didn't Hillary get an invite. I think it's hypocritical of Bernie to rail on about big money controlling elections yet throw his lot in with big religion all while making sure to outline the disagreements on gays and abortion. What difference does his disagreement on two such issues make? The bigger picture isn't what he agrees with the church on. The bigger picture is, where is the will of the voter versus the pressure of religious leaders on their flocks to conform? I hated the Liberty University thing too, and the Candidate also Known as Two Corinthians was an utter embarrassment and signpost as how badly religion and politics can mix.