Why the Pope matters

[cthulu2016]

A lot of negative analysis of the Pope is, ironically, kind of religious in nature.

He doesn't support reproductive choice or marriage equality. True. He doesn't.

In a dogmatic structure, that means he is BAD. And maybe he is, indeed, bad. Maybe he will go to Hell. Maybe he is evil.

But it is fucking ridiculous to say that he is not a good phenomenon.

Gorbachev was better than Stalin. Really... he was. Doubtless a monster with blood on his hands and such... you didn't lead the USSR by being a wholly admirable figure. But if somebody said Gorbachev was better than Stalin, would anyone reply that they were the same because the USSR still didn't have a free press?

The Pope is the fucking POPE. It's not like Romney versus Obama where there was some pro-choice candidate running for Pope.

There is no such thing as a pro-abortion Pope in 2013. Subtract that from both sides of the Pope equation. It is relevant to the senate candidate equation and the facebook friend equation but it is irrelevant to the Pope equation.

There was nobody in the college of Cardinals who was going to become Pope and announce it was all primitive superstition and disband the operation.

The current Pope has influence with millions and millions of people, including millions of people with whom you or I or Obama or Elizabeth Warren have zero influence. Zero. People we cannot reach.

That is why the Pope matters. He has some influence over a lot of VERY CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE and he is not a total militant RW dick.

And he is as progressive as a Pope could have been in the 2012 Pope equation. Almost implausibly progressive.

Think Dennis Kucinich winning the presidency in 2008. That kind of thing. Or Elizabeth Warren in 2016.

That what the Pope is... the Elizabeth Warren of contemporary Popes.

I don't get how someone could hope for something in a Pope beyond the Elizabeth Warren of Popes.

[PeaceNikki]

1. All the more reason why his stance that gays raising a child is a form of "child abuse" is relevant.

As well as his opinions on what I do with my lady parts.

In summary: fuck the pope and the RCC.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's a super nice guy who hates capitalism (so did Ratz!) and props to him for talking a good game about the poor, but my rights, and the rights of LGBT and women are important to me.

[jeff47]

2. So use him where he is helpful, and discard him where he is not.

Use him to help reign in unchecked greed.

Fight him when he's being a dick.

Just because he's wrong sometimes doesn't mean he can not be a useful tool.

[PeaceNikki]

5. I will leave that to the sheep of his flock.

[rug]

4. Yeah, well Richard Dawkins said raising a child Catholic is child abuse.

Pick your poison. You have lots of choices. Idiocy abounds.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. RCC, clean your house of your pedophile priests! Stop covering for them! That's REAL child abuse!!!

[rug]

38. Are you posting from a street corner?

I'm getting that annoying street preacher vibe.

[AlbertCat]

61. Idiocy abounds.

as the Pope, not a scientist like Dawkins, proves.

[rug]

95. No, Albert, as a ideologue he 's right up there abounding away.

[eqfan592]

128. Given the churches history of sheltering pedofiles, something I know you like to pretend....

....doesn't happen (proven by your dogmatic desire to change the subject away from it each time it happens) Dawkins may have a valid point to a degree.

The pope, with his views on homosexuals, women, contraception, etc.? Not so much.

[rug]

130. Sorry, between the grammar, the spelling, and the spittle, I didn't follow that.

[eqfan592]

139. You have a spittle problem? I'd get that checked if I were you.

As for the rest, just par for the course. Thanks for, as always, proving my point, Rug. You never fail to come through when it comes to brushing the issue of child rapists under the rug.

WAIT! I totally get your name now!!!

[rug]

140. It comes and goes.

Good to see you again.

[pnwmom]

8. Are you unaware that many DUers are included in your nasty "summary"?

The laity comprise the vast majority of the membership of the RCC. People like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. Your F-U is aimed at every Catholic who's part of the RCC, including all those here on DU.

[PeaceNikki]

12. Oh, spare me the "oppressed Christian" BS.

DUers are Catholics, DUers are NOT the RCC.

[pnwmom]

15. DUer Catholics are included in any slur against the RCC.

Without the laity there would be no RCC.

[PeaceNikki]

21. If any DUer's are systematically oppressing me or anyone else - fuck them, too.

If they aren't, it doesn't apply.

That net is cast on all organizations, religious or otherwise, which actively work to oppress people.

[pnwmom]

23. When you call out the RCC, you include millions of lay people

who are doing nothing to systematically oppress you.

Why don't you refer to the Vatican, or the Curia, or some other group with concentrated power, rather than the RCC as a whole?

[PeaceNikki]

34. Narcissistic much?

[pnwmom]

59. If you want Catholics to vote Democratic, it doesn't make sense to insult them.

I'm really surprised that you haven't figured this out.

[PeaceNikki]

63. I am not personally responsible for how Catholics vote. But it's cool that you think so much of me!!

[pnwmom]

69. Weren't you working hard on an election campaign?

I hope you weren't insulting Catholics you met there, as you are here.

[PeaceNikki]

70. lol... buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn

[skepticscott]

45. Anyone who voluntarily contributes to the Catholic Church

ultimately supports their efforts to prevent same-sex marriage from becoming legal everywhere, as it should be. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's the plain truth.

[pnwmom]

62. If Democrats alienate too many Catholic voters through insults

they won't win Presidential elections.

[napi21]

86. Not true. I'm a catholic, and I contribute to my church. but I also took

BC pills for many years, and disagree with the church on many positions they have. I think it's wrong of you to put down everyone who is a believer in any religion because some of their teachings are different from yours. That's what the RWers do and we all condemn they for it.

[skepticscott]

97. Hmmmm..so you're comparing me to a right winger

because I'm speaking out on a progressive web site against anti-gay bigotry, and those who support it? Nice.

But whether you like it or not, if you're tossing money in the plate at a Catholic Church, you're supporting their agenda and their efforts. I'm sure you and a lot of other Catholics here want it both ways, but sorry.

[Dorian Gray]

155. When you throw money in a plate at a church

(unless otherwise instructed that it will go to Diocesan use), it will be used to repair/pay bills of/pay for programs within that particular church structure. So, no, that's not entirely true.

[skepticscott]

156. And if enough money isn't given for that

money will be taken from other areas that would otherwise have gone for the purposes I mentioned. There is nothing like complete segregation of funds.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Do they put money on the collection plate?

That's something right there.

[pnwmom]

77. Once a year there is one collection at each church that goes to the Vatican,

and that is called "Peter's Pence." No one has to contribute to it, and many don't. (It is a separate, additional collection, not mixed with the regular collection.)

The rest of the money collected in a parish is spent locally, running the parish and the school, with a contribution to the local diocese and to charitable orgs like Catholic Community Services.

So putting money on the collection plate doesn't mean you're giving money to the Vatican.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. That explains where the RCC gets so many millions to spend here in WA state on political stuff

that affects me, a non-member of the church.

[pnwmom]

88. Do you have a link for that? The Bishop asked priests to distribute his letter

during Church, and many of them didn't even do that.

If you're talking about same-sex no marriage, I saw no Church-funded ads during that campaign.

I understand that the Knights of Columbus was against the initiative, but that is a separate org that has its own finances.

[PeaceNikki]

90. Here.

Roman Catholic Church Leadership Poured $2 Million Into Fight Against Marriage Equality: REPORT

During the election cycle, leaders of the Roman Catholic Church directed nearly $2 million toward campaigns against gay marriage in four states, according to a recent report from the Human Rights Campaign. Many of the contributions, derived from dioceses across the country, likely came from parishioners who had no knowledge of what the money would be used for, the HRC noted in a press release.

The $2 million represents a significant share of the contributions used to fund anti-gay marriage campaigns in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. However, including contributions from the National Organization for Marriage and the Knights of Columbus, an affiliate of the Catholic Church, the three groups were responsible for funding about $11.3 million or 65 percent of campaign efforts against marriage equality in the four states.

[pnwmom]

92. Thanks. Unfortunately, that report lumps donations from the Knights of

Columbus, a separate right-wing Catholic org with its own finances, together with funding from the Church itself -- whose money came from parishioners. So it's hard to know how much actually came from the "collection plate."

As the report notes, about 60% of Catholics support gay marriage -- a significantly greater number than in the broad population -- so this was a colossal waste of money, wherever it came from.

[PeaceNikki]

94. More than $0 came from the collection plates.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/11/15/catholic-church-directed-2-million-fight-marriage-initiatives

They spend a ton on pregnancy 'crisis' centers and stomping on my autonomy as well. There are plenty of oppressive causes the local churches fund.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Hell, here's just one issue. Top six donors against, all catholic orgs.

Washington State, Death with Dignity act. (I-1000)
Top donors in opposition:

Connecticut Knights of Columbus: $250,000
Knights of Columbus: $75,250
Washington State Catholic Conference: $70,394
Archdiocese of Seattle: $55,000
Catholic Health Association: $50,000
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: $30,000


One year, one state, one issue.
An issue they have NO FUCKING BUSINESS touching for non-members.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. EXCELLENT IDEA

[vlyons]

107. I'm a Buddhist, and

I see Pope Francis as a Boddhisattva. That's someone, works for the benefit of others, to relieve their suffering and the causes of their suffering. There's a lot about the RCC, and Christian ideology in general, that is wrong, stupid, and not in accordance with the real teachings of Jesus: feed the poor, heal the sick, practice peace, and love thy neighbor. I also see Jesus as a Boddhisattva, rather than a divine being.

The Christian religion was hi-jacked in 325AD at the 1st Council of Nicea by Constantine the Great as a means of ruling an empire. That's when the RCC came up with the belief in the trinity, the papacy as head of the Church, and rolled canon law and Roman law into one body of law. Anyone who disagreed was exiled or executed.

I think it's important to distinguish the real teachings of Jesus from the established church of power, greed, and domination. The two or not the same. Pope Francis has a shit load of crap to clean up in the RCC. It's unrealistic to expect him to fix everything over night. This week, he has appointed a new person to start cleaning house in the Vatican Band. God only knows what crimes, corruption, and money laundering are in there! The last Pope Benedict, who when he was a cardinal, was SUPPOSED to be the top guy to deal with all the pedophilia--but didn't. Well he's been retired and put to pasture.

I'm hoping that Pope Francis will open the priesthood to women. Now that would be change!

[skepticscott]

13. And do those DUers

Support the pope's stance on issues like abortion, contraception and gay marriage, and weasel around when confronted about it? Or do they have the courage to stand up and reject them publicly? If the former, then the F-U is entirely justified. If the latter, then no.

[pnwmom]

16. So do you say F-U to Joe Biden and, when he was alive, Ted Kennedy? n/t

[skepticscott]

26. If they said that they believed

homosexuals were "objectively disordered", if they said that homosexual sex was sinful, if they said that they would fight to keep same sex marriage illegal, then yes, you bet I would. Expressing those views would get them booted off of DU, regardless of anything else, so why would anyone here kiss up to them if they held those views?

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Ted Kennedy wrote the No Child Left Behind bill.

Nobody's perfect.

It is not the same as attacking him to say 'fuck the pope and the RCC'. The church established dogma, including discrimination against same sex couples, and continues to do so from the top down, despite things like the lay catholic members supporting things like Abortion at a higher rate than the average American.

So that poster's attack was leveled at the top-down entity, clearly, and it is disingenuous of you to assume it applies to the lay members as well.

My father died slowly, and painfully, waiting for an option like I-1000 here in WA, an option the RCC spent millions opposing. So I say FUCK the RCC and the Pope (though in that case, the former Pope, though this one would have the same opinion on that issue) and that is not a criticism of Kennedy, Kerry, etc.

Lay members did not establish, and do not maintain the line item dogma of that church.

[pnwmom]

78. Lay members like Ted Kennedy consider themselves the biggest part of the RCC.

In fact, they argue that they ARE the RCC -- as opposed to the hierarchy who purport to speak for all of us.

People like you are taking the side of the hierarchy, when you should be taking the side of the laity, if you really wanted change.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. If you were right, the RCC would support abortion, as more than half the lay members do.

They are not in control of the church. This is a self evident fact not of my creation.

[PeaceNikki]

18. Amen.

[sabrina 1]

131. Or his condemnation of Right Wingers who 'obsess over women and gays', a FIRST for any Pope

and a tiny baby step towards letting the world know, as he did, that God, the one HE believes in and the one Republicans claims to believe in, made all of us and that we 'have no right to judge others'. He, he has said, and in HIS world this was an enormous step forward, will not judge Gay Priests, as he was asked to do, because they come to God, THEIR God and his, with love in their hearts' or words to that effect.

I know for certain that his words were mostly directed at our very own hypocritical Right Wing fundies who USE these issues in every election to get votes from actual Christians who they are trying to influence.

He has now taken that weapon away from them, finally. ONLY HE could have done that, and he did.

As a woman I am sick to death of being used for political purposes. I know that there are many Gay Catholics, I know some of them, who not only welcomed him WELCOMING THEM and refusing to play into the political use of these issues.

In fact HIS position is no different to Kerry's during the campaign, when Right Wing 'catholic operatives' went after him for refusing to say that he would 'judge women who had abortions' as his faith, according to them, demanded. They went further when he stated that he would not 'allow my personal beliefs to influence my public policies' and demanded that he be denied Communion.

See, they can't do that anymore. The Pope has slapped them down. Kerry today could point them towards the words of THIS Pope which he could not back then.

THAT is another reason why this Pope is important. I can't wait to be able to do that the next time a Republican Catholic tries to use these issues. Now we have a weapon that they simply cannot refute.

[PeaceNikki]

134. uh huh. sure. it's all talk. Dolan mansplained that all for us already.

And did you miss this?

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/20/pope_blasts_abortion_after_decrying_focus_on_rules/

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis offered an olive branch of sorts to the doctrine-minded, conservative wing of the Catholic Church on Friday as he denounced abortions as a symptom of today’s “throw-away culture” and encouraged Catholic doctors to refuse to perform them.

Francis issued a strong anti-abortion message and cited Vatican teaching on the need to defend the unborn during an audience with Catholic gynecologists.

It came a day after he was quoted as blasting the church’s obsession with “small-minded rules” that are driving the faithful away. In an interview that has sent shockwaves through the church, Francis urged its pastors to focus on being merciful and welcoming rather than insisting only on such divisive, hot-button issues as abortion, gay marriage and contraception.

Even before the interview was published, some conservatives had voiced disappointment that Francis had shied away from restating such church rules. Francis explained his reason for doing so in the interview with the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica, saying church teaching on such issues is well-known, he supports it, but that he doesn’t feel it necessary to repeat it constantly.

He did repeat it on Friday, however. In his comments, Francis denounced today’s “throw-away culture” that justifies disposing of lives, and said doctors in particular had been forced into situations where they are called to “not respect life.”

And the fact he reissued the smackdown on the US nuns?

yawn.

[sabrina 1]

141. You obviously choose to remain blind to the fact that he has slapped them down regarding their

attempts to keep Gays and Women who support abortion out of the Church. He will not go further than that since it is Church Doctrine to view abortion as wrong. But you can deny it all you want, he warned all of them against daring to judge others, told them to stop 'obsessing' about other people such as Gays and Women and start thinking about issues that affect everyone, especially the poor.

He also outright attacked Predatory Capitalism, another blow to the greedy power hungry Right Wingers.

If you are not a Catholic, you do not have to care about Church doctrine. In fact most Catholics do not adhere to it on issues such as Gays and Abortion and Divorce among other things, and it is those who remain in the Church but ignore these 'rules', who in the end will begin the changes in the Church and start moving it forward into the present. But dismissing the tiny steps he has taken makes me wonder if some people prefer to see the Pope slam Gays and Women and throw Gay priests out of the church which he has refused to do. Why is a mystery to me, although I have a few thoughts on the subject.

[PeaceNikki]

142. I will stop 'caring' about church doctrine the day they stop trying to oppress me and others due to

said doctrine. Deal?

[sabrina 1]

144. The Church cannot oppress their own members let alone non-members.

Considering they have no control over what I do or don't do, I fail to see the fear of oppression by institutions who have no control over me. What are they going to do, put you in jail for not agreeing with them?

Can't go through life feeling oppressed when no one is oppressing you.

Try this. IF you are a Catholic, do what you think is right and see what happens. Hint, NOTHING.

But if you don't feel comfortable due to their rules then leave, it's easy.

And if you are NOT a Catholic, then why on earth would you claim to be oppressed by an organization you have nothing to do with and has zero power over you?

I find this amazing. I have never felt oppressed by other people's beliefs unless they are ELECTED OFFICIALS in this government and have some power to put their beliefs into action.

The Pope has now admonished those elected officials and told them to 'mind their own business' so I have even less reason to worry about hypocritical Republican Catholics using their Church to attract enough voters to keep them in power.

Whether you see it or not, a lot of Catholics who reluctantly voted for Republicans in the past due to those two issues have been released by this Pope from feeling guilty if from now on they vote their consciences.

Maybe you don't see how powerful a tool he has given the members of his own church in terms of how they vote from now on, but millions of others DO, which is why he has such a high approval rating.

[PeaceNikki]

145. They spend millions of dollars & spread a ton of misinformation against gay marriage & reproductive

rights.

I don't give a fuck what they believe. I do give a fuck when they actively work to impose their beliefs on me and the rest of society.

Get it?

[sabrina 1]

148. No I don't 'get it'. I don't get why anyone who knows they are right cares one whit about some

religious organization they are not a member of thinks or believes. I could not care less what any religious organization thinks especially one in which, half of whose members, maybe more, do not agree with them on certain issues.

Seems they have failed despite all the money they have spent according to you, doesn't it, if half their own membership isn't buying it.

Most religious organizations oppose abortion and some are way more serious about it than the Catholic Church in terms of the consequences for Women and Gays should they not act according their beliefs. THAT is where people need to focus IF they care about these issues. The Church isn't imprisoning or putting to death Women and Gays and the Church is opposed by their own statements, to any legal action being taken against them.

But other religions are not so benign and people are actually in danger of losing their freedom and even lives for simply being who they are.

I see so little concern for those poor people from the same people who claim to care so much about us Women and Gays. It also puzzles me as to why there is hardly even any discussion about the threat to minorities in countries who are OUR ALLIES and why those who claim to care so much, do not put pressure on our own government to end financing some of these horribly regressive and brutal regimes we support.

Your concerns appear to me to be misdirected. I am way, way more concerned about Women and Gays in allied nations such as Uganda and Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and NOW since we went there, Iraq, Libya since we intervened and elsewhere. Because their very lives are in danger. That is where my concerns are.

[PeaceNikki]

149. The money they spend on anti-gay marriage/choice is a matter of fact, not opinion.

And I will continue to speak out against them until they stop trying to impose their values on me and others.

[sabrina 1]

150. And as I pointed out, it doesn't appear to be very successful since half their OWN membership isn't

buying it. And you can do as you please, I will never allow anyone to make me feel oppressed. Because I am not. Unless I wanted to feel that way for some bizarre reason.

But there are Women and Gays who actually are oppressed and that is where I will focus my attention in terms of attempting to end any funding by our government for those countries who actually are brutally abusing Women and Gays.

You are free to join me if you wish, the more voices on their behalf the better chance we have of maybe actually saving a few lives from their oppressive and brutal religious overlords.

[PeaceNikki]

151. Hold on. Let me get this straight. Your arguments are:

1) Oppression is not something that happens to people, it only happens if you LET someone make you FEEL oppressed? That's ridiculous. Roe v Wade is under attack. Hundreds of bills are being introduced and passed restricting reproductive choice. In addition, my LGBT brethren are still fighting for the right to be treated as equals. And you think we should all just get over it?

2) I shouldn't care about the Catholic church spreading disinformation and lies trying to prevent LGBT from having rights or restricting reproductive rights because most Catholics don't agree. ???

3) I really shouldn't give a shit about women's rights or LGBT rights in the US because Uganda.

You're absolutely ridiculous.

[PeaceNikki]

147. The RCC's stance on abortion and contraception is a threat to the world.

They are responsible for helping spread poverty and disease.

Are you really that naive?

[skepticscott]

143. Yes, he "warned" them..so what?

Soon after he issued his "warning", the Seattle archdiocese fired a school principal for entering into a same-sex marriage. So apparently his warning was just a PR tactic, and didn't mean shit as far as actual church policy.

And he "attacked" predatory capitalism? Again, so what? What did that stop? Who did that scare? What effect did that have except to send people who were already against predatory capitalism swooning. Not impressed.

And yes, people who are not Catholic DO have to care about Catholic doctrine, since the Catholic Church is determined to force their doctrine onto everyone, not just Catholics. They have done everything they can to try to make abortion illegal or hard to obtain, to limit access to birth control, and to deprive homosexuals of equality, whether they are Catholic or not. What right do they have to do that.

[sabrina 1]

146. Lol, sorry to laugh, but your post really is funny in a sad kind of way.

Here, let me try to explain why your comment makes no sense.

Using YOUR logic:

'Why has Obama not instituted a National Health Care system? He's had five years longer than the pope to make this happen??

'Obama may have told people that we have to help the poor among us, but what has done about it? And there was a guy in the French Parliament who opposed helping the poor, called it 'making them helpless, and he is a supporter of Obama as POTUS, so apparently Obama's policies on the poor are just PR tactics, and didn't mean shit as actual influence over what his supporters do'

See how little sense that makes?

The Pope has zero influence over me. If you feel so oppressed by someone who has no power over you, then all I can say is I don't understand that.

The Pope has little influence over Catholics considering so many of them:

1) Get divorced and see nothing wrong with it despite the Church's teachings.
2) Support a woman's right to an abortion and many Catholic women have had abortions without feeling any qualms about it.
3) Many Catholics ARE Gay, including Priests, some openly and the Pope has opposed those who have asked him to remove their privileges as priest and refused to do so.

If you are not a Catholic the Pope has even less influence over you just as little as any other religious leader has. So I fail to understand your fears.

[skepticscott]

152. Sorry, but it's beyond sad to see you in denial

About the influence the Catholic Church has on laws and public policy that affect non-Catholics. Or to see you declaring that someone cannot care about that influence unless it affects them personally. Obviously you don't, but I do care deeply (despite not being gay) that the Catholic Church has fought tooth and nail to oppose the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. I don't live in Africa and I don't have AIDS, but I am outraged to see people dying of AIDS on that continent because of the Catholic Church's medieval and barbaric opposition to the use of condoms.

I could list dozens more, but you obviously care about none of them.

And the final irony is that you declare on the one hand that the pope has virtually no influence over Catholics, and even less over non-Catholics, but then swoon that he has "slapped people down", and "warned them", and is somehow a wonderful force for good in the world. I know you'd love to argue both sides, but one of those positions is full of shit. If the pope really has little or no influence over people, then his warnings and slap downs and fuzzy-wuzzy messages can't really change anything, now can they?

[sabrina 1]

153. The US Government including this President fought hard to deny Gays their rights until to very, very

recently. Thanks to those who continued to educate and inform our elected officials of the unconstitutionality of denying ANY US citizen their rights, we finally dragged them into the 21 st Century.

Rather than leave this country, rather than be forced out, activists for Civil Rights for Gays remained, and year after frustrating year they continued to fight for the rights of all Americans.

Not so long ago the US refused to recognized African Americans as citizens who had the same rights as every other citizen. It took centuries to force this country into recognizing those rights also and the work is still ongoing.

There really is little excuse for a Democratic President eg, to deny that Gays have the same to marry as anyone else. A US President is NOT constrained by faith, quite the opposite actually. Yet this was the reason presented to us by our President as to why he could not recognize Gay Marriage. But as we have seen, that kind of ignorance CAN be overcome, but not by condemning the ignorant and refusing to acknowledge any good they may have done in their lives. It comes from EDUCATION.

Ignorance is not a terminal condition. It can be cured with education and perseverence and most of all, with kindness rather than the very thing we claim to oppose, abuse and anger and hatred and bigotry.

I am confident that the Catholic Church will move forward on these issues because of its OWN MEMBERS who have NOT left the Church, but who adhere to the message of its founder, who said NOTHING about Gays or Abortion.

I argued correctly. The Pope has little influence as has been proven by statistics, on the THINKING members of his Church. Since when are Right Wing Bigots, Catholic or otherwise, 'thinking people'??

They have used the Popes in the past to slam Catholic Democrats like Kerry to influence Politics. They CANNOT use THIS Pope to do the same.

He has taken a major step forward and the proof is in WHO he has angered.

I am not even thinking of arguing both sides. There are no sides. IF someone claims to be a Christian they are lying unless they follow the teachings of the founder of the Catholic Church who said zero about Gays or Abortion, but had plenty to say about the Rich and the Poor, just like THIS POPE, and about Hypocrites.

THIS POPE has reminded them of that. I could not care less if a few disgruntled people refuse to see how important it that this Pope has slapped down the IGNORANT, the Bigots, the NON-THINKING members of his own Church, because the numbers show that a majority of THINKING people in the world DO totally get what he has managed to do in just a few months.

Meantime I will concentrate my efforts on behalf of Gays and Women on our Congress who continue to support with money, some of the most cruel and oppressive Dictators in the world, ignoring the suffering of Gays and Women who are under their control.

Clearly you are not interested, so I will not invite you again to join me in trying to end our financing of brutality towards Women and Gays.

[iandhr]

3. Chris Mathews said the Church was the opposite of moderate suburban Republicans.

He said those folks are good on social issues and bad on economic issues.

The Church is good on economic issues and bad on social issues.

[skepticscott]

9. The rest of the story is

that the Catholic Church's position on social issues, particularly contraception, undermine its alleged concern for poverty.

[skepticscott]

6. Go back to your original analogy

And explain how being "better than Stalin" is anything to be proud of in the grand scheme of things, when most countries have never had a leader approaching that level of evil.

[FiveGoodMen]

11. Not a fair comparison

"when most countries have never had a leader approaching that level of evil"

Bad comparison, because the world's largest church has rarely (if ever) had a leader this good.

[skepticscott]

22. Nobody is forced to belong

to the world's largest church, the way that people were forced to be citizens of the Soviet Union.

And you really have no idea how "good" this pope is. He has done nothing that any decent human being shouldn't do, but that somehow seems to impress you enormously. But there are churches who have not in a long time had leaders who have held the kinds of bigoted views that this pope does.

[FiveGoodMen]

28. You do realize that whoever was chosen as Pope was going to be Catholic, right?

"But there are churches who have not in a long time had leaders who have held the kinds of bigoted views that this pope does"

Again: You do realize that whoever was chosen as Pope was going to be Catholic, right?

[skepticscott]

41. Yes, I realize that no one could be elected pope

unless they held unalterably bigoted, homophobic beliefs. Do you realize that anyone with a conscience about such things would have abandoned the Catholic Church hierarchy long ago, and never have been in a position to be pope in the first place?

[DirkGently]

42. You mean, abandon Christianity, Judaism, & Islam, right?

Anti-gay bigotry is in the Old Testament. How is it that the Catholic Church and its leadership must answer for that, and the rest of the Abrahamic religions, which contain the same dogma, do not?

Or, do you propose that all Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religious leaders are inherently bigoted?

[skepticscott]

44. The Catholic Church leadership must answer

for what's in the Catholic Catechism, which is fundamentally bigoted, and which they voluntarily adhere to. Do you need me to quote it for you, or will simply be honest and acknowledge that?

Not every religious denomination has the anti-gay bigotry of the Bible enshrined into their own sacred doctrine, now do they? The Catholic Church chose to embrace that bigotry and not to change. You do know that, don't you? You do know that your argument is fundamentally flawed, don't you?

[DirkGently]

52. Ouch. Touched on your logical fallacy, eh?

You want to blame the Catholic Church for Christian / Jewish / Muslim doctrine that is wrong in all the same ways, on all the same points, because those wrongs are contained in the Bible.

Which religious leader of these other sects that you excuse has come forward to declare that the Bible is wrong on women and wrong on homosexuality?

What you are attempting to argue is merely emphasis. Which is the point of the OP. The present pope appears interested in emphasizing the less-offensive parts of Catholic doctrine, rather than the very worst.

Under your own reasoning, that is a good thing.

If, on the other hand, you want to hop back and say there is no escape from the black and white rule of dogma, which must always be utterly condemned when it is wrong, you're stuck with condemning all of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, none of which have disclaimed the vile bigotry contained in their religious texts.

That's what I know.

[skepticscott]

102. You failed to point out any "logical fallacy", you've simply resorted to making things up

and dodging direct (and uncomfortable) questions.

I'm blaming the Catholic Church for Catholic doctrine, not for any other religion's doctrine or teachings. The RCC could have chosen and can choose to reject an interpretation of the Bible that is sexist and homophobic, but they have refused to. Your pointing fingers and saying "everyone else is doing it too" is not a justification. Other religious groups HAVE made that choice or have taken strong steps in that direction, including the ELCA and the Presbyterian Church (in other words, you know squat). Fundamentalist Protestants, Orthodox Jews and conservative Muslims are answerable for their own anti-gay bigotry, where it exists, but no one is fawning over their leaders' alleged embrace of gay and lesbian equality on this site, now are they?

As far as emphasis, I've seen nothing but empty words. I heard the pope SAY that it's wrong for the church to spend all of its energy focussing on issues like gay rights, and then I saw the Seattle archdiocese fire an employee for entering into a same-sex marriage. Guess they didn't get the memo. But the pope will be reversing that decision forthwith, right? Unless he's only interested in de-emphasizing the media attention that the offensive parts of Catholic doctrine generate, and not the actual doctrine itself.

You ducked the question of whether Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuals is bigoted, so I'll ask again-do you agree or deny that it is?

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Some religious leaders are gay, because not all religons are bigoted. Did you not know that?

Well, it's true. Gay people are ordained in some faiths. There are thousands of laws in the Old Testament, Dirk, that are not followed by Christians at all, and some are not followed by anybody because to do so would result in prison as it teaches us to stone to death neighbors who are not up to snuff, snotty kids and other sinful wretches.Folks who wear blended fabrics, that sort of abomination. To follow the OT is against the law in modern times, to put it bluntly.

[DirkGently]

85. Which ones have denounced the Bible?

I know a few Christian sects have de-emphasized the worst teachings of the Bible, but that's also what we're talking about with the new Pope: Emphasis.

The Bible is the Bible. It contains horribly unethical ideas.

You made the point earlier that he has expressly embraced anti-gay bigotry, and that is utterly deplorable, of course.

But if the supposition now is whether the Pope is moving away from emphasizing the worst Christian beliefs, as those Christian sects you allude to have done, it is likewise possible that he is pushing Church policy in a better direction now, which should be encouraged.

It's one or the other. Either Christians of any sect can push their religions in a better direction by embracing the good and avoiding the bad in the various "holy books," or doctrine is doctrine, and all are condemned because all the Abrahamic religions include despicable nonsense.

[cthulu2016]

31. Did I say the Pope should be proud?

I don't care how the Pope feels about himself.

This Pope was a huge improvement.

A better world is made up of improvements.

Seems childish to not acknowledge that... much like the folks who say/said Obama is the same as Bush.

Obama has problems, but to say he's the same as the old regime because he has points of similarity seems silly.

[skepticscott]

35. Did I claim you said that?

No, of course not. Why you would try to use that as a distraction, I have no idea.

I said there is no reason to be proud of this pope. He holds unalterable views that are diametrically opposed to those of any progressive worth the name, and of any decent human being, period.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Niceguy1]

87. so improvement

and steps in the right direction shouldn't be recognized?

[skepticscott]

98. I don't call a few staged photo ops

Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:16 AM - Edit history (1)

and a well-crafted PR campaign "improvement", nor do I think the RCC deserves brownie points for small, even real improvement on what was originally pretty crappy. A single step in the right direction, even if it were sincere, can be retraced just as easily as it was taken. Many other churches have taken far more decisive steps towards acceptance of gays and lesbians, and put their money where their mouths are, and are unlikely to ever slide back to where they once were. When the RCC does that too, I'll start to give it some credit.

[JoePhilly]

7. The purity police draw smaller and smaller circles.

Consider how many Warren supporters stopped attacking the recent budget deal once she voted for it.

Warren is currently pure because she hasn't had to take many tough votes.

None of these people are pure ... not Obama, not the Pope, not Warren, or insert your favorite pure person here.

DU falls into this trap all the time. You aren't a REAL Democrat unless blah blah blah. With the purists (our own self proclaimed Priest class, sitting in judgement).

Sooner or later, all purists run afoul of each other. And they start pushing out the impure.

The GOP is experiencing this now ... and some on the left are working towards the same end.

[djean111]

30. You left out the people who are impure because they dare criticize some of Obama's policies........

[JoePhilly]

57. They are the purist of all.

For they know that Obama is not a REAL Democrat.

The purists want the impure to LEAVE the party.

Those who support Obama don't claim that those who attack him are not Democrats. Misguided, naive, maybe.

Consider the endless threads attacking Hillary. Yet none attacking Warren.

Only the purists work to split the party.

[zeemike]

43. Yes I think they are too.

But I don't think they are having that much luck at it, because the more we see of it the more obvious it seems...at least to me.

This pope could be a wonderful resource for progressives, but not if we are intimidated by the loud voices coming from the purity testers.

I had one poster tell me that if we support the pope then we then have to start loving Ron Paul too because he supports legalizing weed.
And no we don't have to love ether one of them, we have to use them to bolster our positions against conservatives...And if we used Ron Paul's position on weed in our case for it, then conservitives would have to throw one of their own under the buss...instead of us.
But they never do that, because they know that it is counter productive to do so...and some here just can't see that.

[DirkGently]

53. I think they're just anti-Catholic bigots.

Last edited Fri Dec 27, 2013, 09:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Most of the venom-soaked outrage about the RCC around here claim the same bigoted, ignorant views contained in all of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as the problem, but somehow the leaders of those other parts of the spectrum, none of whom to my knowledge have ever said the Bible is flatly wrong on its views of women and sexual orientation, get a pass.

Now, the RCC is a big institution, and has some "special" sins of its own, like pedophile priest abuse, the crusades, the Inquisition, and so forth. People can and should focus on those things as wrongs particularly belonging to the Catholic Church.

But it's simply not possible to honestly lay homophobia, misogyny, or abortion rights at the doorstep of the Catholic Church in particular. It is a fact that the most vocal, extreme and violent loons in each of those areas -- at least in this country -- are American Protestants.

But you don't see the same people argue that anyone who has failed to leave Protestant Christianity, Judaism, or Islam can go fuck themselves because their belief system implicitly includes all those same backward and bigoted views, or that each leader of any of those religions is a despicable monster because they have failed to undo all the evil bullshit contained in "holy books" around which each of those religions center.

[Vashta Nerada]

55. The RCC is the bigoted organization and those of us who dare question it are the bigots?

What. The. Fuck.



That statement is equivalent to RW statements made last week about Phil Robertson. They said that those who opposed Robertson were bigots, even though Robertson was the one who committed the bigoted behavior.

[zeemike]

72. No but if a Protestant leader suddenly saw the light and came over to our side

You probably would...and then the same people would try to piss off the Protestants as well...as if we only need non believers in the party to vote.
That is a losing strategy for democrats...and one could suspect that is why some are doing it.

[skepticscott]

46. Well, I submit that you're not a real progressive

if you think that homosexuals are "objectively disordered", and if you think that gay marriage and abortion should be illegal, regardless of your views on other matters.

Do you disagree? Are are you going to argue that those positions are in any way compatible with a progressive agenda and worldview?

[JoePhilly]

65. No ... and I have yet to see anyone on DU advocate for the positions you describe.

The purists draw their lines much closer than the extreme lines that you used.

[Vashta Nerada]

47. Pope Francis fails all tests of purity except his stance on economic issues.

Good god.

[JoePhilly]

67. And anyone who praises him on economic issues also falls

short.

At least that's what I see on DU.

[FiveGoodMen]

10. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Needed to be said.

[DirkGently]

14. The theory seems to be that the Pope is not

... a political leader, but rather the literal embodiment of every inch of dogma of the Catholic Church.

Which, to be fair, is what the Church's own dogma claims.

Problem being, we know that isn't true. The RCC has changed over the decades and centuries, partially through church leadership, partially through social pressure, partially through the attitudes and opinions of church members.

So this Pope is leaning in the right direction on one set of issues. He has also parroted bad church dogma regarding gays, women, and reproductive rights.

He's right when he's right, wrong when he's wrong. If he were a political leader, we'd praise the good and condemn the bad.

Obama was wrong on gay marriage too. Didn't see too many Democrats decrying him as unredeemably worthless on that basis.

The bottom line is that this Pope is already better than the last one, and seems determined to make economic justice his hallmark.

That's good. Other Catholic dogma is bad.

It's not necessary for anyone to love or hate him on the basis of either of those things, but it is a little silly to pretend that his failure to reverse everything the Catholic Church has been wrong about for the past 500 years nullifies anything he might be doing to improve things.

I wonder how many of the people discounting anything this Pope does right on the basis of everything the RCC is still doing wrong were among those wailing about people criticizing Obama too much for being wrong about some things, and failing to fix others "with his magic wand?"

Of course, the Pope may have a magic wand, in which case, screw that guy.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. His global influnence is why his attacks on minority groups he does not like are so dangerous

and need to be called out by good people. Think about this. Uganda just passed a law allowing them to put gay people in jail for life. Uganda's largest religious group is Roman Catholic, 43% of the country. If the Popes are as powerful over their followers as you claim, then what do you have to say for the Uganda laws? What did this man who calls himself Francis say or do to oppose this horror? What he actually did was fuel that hatred with years of terrible hate speech against gay people. Other than that, he and his followers either supported that law or held their precious holy tongues about their opposition.
On economic issues, his rhetoric is identical to that of Benedict, who wrote extensively on the inequality of income springing from globalism and the suffering created by that. Francis has added virtually nothing new.
It is very dishonest to present Francis deeply hyperbolic anti gay diatribes as being 'opposed to marriage equality'. This is offensive, actually. This man has said gay people are a destructive attack on God's plan, which comes from the Father of Lies. This is not merely opposition to marriage equality. It is religious hate speech, calling us satanic. This is what you are trying to downplay. Francis has a long and full record of such ugly tirades against gay people. This guy, who heads a group full of child molesters, runs around saying that adoption by gay parents is child abuse and discrimination against the child. He lives next door to Cardinal Law at the Vatican. And he says that. This is what you are trying to make seem acceptable.

[DirkGently]

29. What are the best examples of the ugly hate speech tirades?

Last edited Fri Dec 27, 2013, 08:17 PM - Edit history (1)

There seems to be disagreement on whether this Pope has parroted the same hateful delusions the Bible, Christianity, and the Roman Catholic Church have always had regarding homosexuality, or whether he is "calling us satanic" and so forth in an especially vehement way as you say.

I have seen this:

A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.

and this

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

http://americamagazine.org/pope-interview

And then I have seen others saying what you are saying -- that this Pope is not merely failing to condemn hateful dogma concerning gays, women, and reproductive rights, but is a fire-breathing hate monger, emphasizing bigotry with "deeply hyperbolic anti gay diatribes."

Which is it? Is he tailoring these moderate comments about not obsessing on matters of sexual orientation and reproductive rights for certain audiences? Has he toned down since becoming Pope?

There's no question the RCC, and the Bible are flatly wrong on these issues, but when you paint this Pope as anti-gay crusader, even in comparison to other Popes, what exactly are you talking about?

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Dirk, Francis built his career in Argentina largely upon attacking gay people and gay rights with

all manner of 'they are from the devil' crap. He was and remains an actual anti gay crusader, his language about us in Argentina was so deeply offensive to so many people that the President in that very Catholic nation said his words were 'Medieval and suggestive of the Inquisition'. This man has a very long career with all manner of vile slanders against gay people, he calls our families 'a destructive attack on God's plan which comes from the Father of Lies'. He says adoption by gay parents is child abuse, and discrimination against the child. He uses the word 'war' and says that preventing equal rights is God's war which his sort must fight. So he says we are demonically influenced child abusers and he's waging a holy war against us. Cardinal Law's neighbor says this.
Anyone can look up the facts about the man now calling himself Francis. It is not secret material.

[DirkGently]

79. Okay. Found some.

Here is Salon, with Francis' worst anti-gay quotes:

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/pope_francis_on_gay_rights_his_5_worst_quotes/

Includes "The Father of Lies" and the "Inquisition" comparison from the Argentine President.

“Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

“At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

Horrendous, obviously. As horrendous as every anti-gay political pundit and leader in the U.S., who oppose gay marriage and adoption with exactly the same insane arguments amounting to a claim that "the family" is threatened by gay people living their lives.

Which makes me wonder what he's doing, then, with these Kinder, Gentler Pope remarks he's suddenly making. Is he tailoring his remarks for a wider audience, or is he using his new position to push a different agenda?

I do suspect that if one of our Republican Party idiots, who makes these same despicable arguments, suddenly made comments like these

‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.

And coupled it with more enlightened views of economic justice, we would likely acknowledge it as an improvement.

[Laughing Mirror]

108. An improvement in marketing strategy, yes indeed

What's he doing? Well the product he's selling hasn't changed, just the way that product is being sold has. Everybody loathed and despised the last pope, so the organization got the message and decided to bring out the new improved pope. The kindler, gentler pope. Maybe more people will buy into that.

It seems to be a marketing strategy that is working for them. You could call that an improvement if you're willing to buy into what they're selling. A lot of us are not.

[DirkGently]

119. But religion is nothing but words to begin with.

So that tack doesn't get very far. If a Baptist preacher says the Bible says women should be submissive and gay people are an abomination, that IS what they're selling.

If a Pope says the RCC shouldn't obsess over reproductive rights and suggests "God" would love a gay person, that IS what the Church is selling.

Religion is just a lot of people talking about what they think is right. If the talk improves, the religion improves.

If you're saying that no matter what the Pope says, the Bible is still full of homophobia and misogyny and archaic and wrong-headed beliefs about everything from child rearing to rape to slavery, you're right, but that is a general critique of Abrahamic religion, not the Roman Church.

[Laughing Mirror]

122. You may think Jesus loves you is what they are trying to sell me

But wait until you get the package home and open it. Buyer beware. Or in other words, Beware false prophets, they come to you dressed in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.

Are you saying the Bible is full of homophobia, misogyny,etc., and the Roman Church isn't?

[DirkGently]

123. The Bible is full of homophobia, & the RCC is full of the Bible.

The disconnect I am focusing on is that the suggestion that the Roman Catholic Pope cannot say or do anything even cognizable as improving the stance of the RCC, so long as the Church fails to also disclaim its repugnant positions on gay rights, women's rights, and reproductive rights, despite the fact that those repugnant positions belong to the entirety of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

The big fallacy attempted to be foisted on us all appears to be that because the RCC is centralized and includes formal dogma and a "supreme leader," it is therefore uniquely guilty of the precise evils of American Christianity in general, despite the fact that our homegrown religious nuttery is almost exclusively Protestant.

Who bombs abortion clinics? Who shoots doctors? The Catholic League? I don't think so. And yet no one would dismiss a professed generic Christian or Christian leader calling for economic justice on the basis they belong to an institution which clings to ancient anti-progressive beliefs. Obama is still a Christian, and while he very recently "evolved" on gay marriage, that position is antithetical to his professed religion. Why is it that he doesn't have to renounce the same Bible from which the Pope is quoting in order to be heard?

American Catholics are statistically more progressive than their Protestant counterparts, but the Pope cannot even be acknowledged to have said ONE RIGHT THING, because the RCC is somehow the sole font out ridiculous and cruel religious thought on human rights?

And let's be clear: The Catholic Church has an enormity of crimes for which it must answer, and will never be "okay" while it continues to espouse homophobia or misogyny or a contempt for women's reproductive rights.

But the keening over the horrendous evils of the Pope smacks of something a little older, and a little stupider.

There is in this country a longstanding bias against Catholicism in general by American Protestants, who decried the Pope and Catholicism not because Catholicism comprises the same archaic positions on human rights and equality as all other Western religions, but despite them, and because of simple religious bigotry. Catholicism is, for example, a traditional target of the KKK, and not because of its anti-progressive stance, needless to say, but because the KKK, like most extremist Christian organizations, is Protestant, and because Catholics are often Irish or Italian or Polish or Hispanic, all groups outside the normative "WASP" culture.

And this is not ancient history. A supposedly serious question was raised over whether JFK could be President, lest he be "controlled by the Vactican."

I do not suggest religious bias is the sole reason people feel free to scream that anyone supporting the Catholic Church is supporting evil, while making no similar comment about the remaining 100% of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that have yet to disclaim the religious text that they also follow, that says exactly the same thing, but I do think it contributes to the heedless vehemence and blindness to the hypocrisy of blaming one sect of Christianity for the evils of the same core beliefs ostensibly shared by all of them.

[skepticscott]

132. So why do you keep repeating the same debunked arguments?

The disconnect I am focusing on is that the suggestion that the Roman Catholic Pope cannot say or do anything even cognizable as improving the stance of the RCC, so long as the Church fails to also disclaim its repugnant positions on gay rights, women's rights, and reproductive rights, despite the fact that those repugnant positions belong to the entirety of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

No, those positions do NOT "belong to the entirety of Christianity, Judaism and Islam". As was pointed out to you elsewhere in this thread (#102- as you are apparently hoping no one will notice), some religious denominations allow female clergy, non-celibate gay and lesbian clergy, perform same-sex marriages and support the use of artificial contraception. Why you would continue to claim otherwise when you know better is a mystery.

American Catholics are statistically more progressive than their Protestant counterparts, but the Pope cannot even be acknowledged to have said ONE RIGHT THING, because the RCC is somehow the sole font out ridiculous and cruel religious thought on human rights?

More hogwash. It has been acknowledged over and over, even by his critics here, that he has said the right things about certain issues. But in the first place, SAYING the right things is not at all the same as being sure his church DOES the right things, and saying that he holds some opinions that any decent human being should does not remotely outweigh the gross bigotry he espouses and supports.

The big fallacy attempted to be foisted on us all appears to be that because the RCC is centralized and includes formal dogma and a "supreme leader," it is therefore uniquely guilty of the precise evils of American Christianity in general, despite the fact that our homegrown religious nuttery is almost exclusively Protestant.

Show us anyone, anywhere who has claimed that the RCC is "uniquely guilty of the precise evils of American Christianity in general" That's simply something you made up. You know full well that the guilt has been assigned to many sects, but when a thread specifically concerns the pope and his church, it's the pope and his church that will receive the blame and criticism they deserve.

I do not suggest religious bias is the sole reason people feel free to scream that anyone supporting the Catholic Church is supporting evil, while making no similar comment about the remaining 100% of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that have yet to disclaim the religious text that they also follow, that says exactly the same thing, but I do think it contributes to the heedless vehemence and blindness to the hypocrisy of blaming one sect of Christianity for the evils of the same core beliefs ostensibly shared by all of them.

Still more baloney, repeating the same flawed argument. The same core beliefs are NOT shared by all sects of Christianity. And to claim that no other religious group than Catholics has been sharply criticized on this site and elsewhere for holding bigoted or sexist beliefs is simply bullshit (as I suspect you know).

[DirkGently]

135. It's actually you repeating debunked arguments.

No, those positions do NOT "belong to the entirety of Christianity, Judaism and Islam". As was pointed out to you elsewhere in this thread (#102- as you are apparently hoping no one will notice), some religious denominations allow female clergy, non-celibate gay and lesbian clergy, perform same-sex marriages and support the use of artificial contraception. Why you would continue to claim otherwise when you know better is a mystery.

You didn't argue any of those examples in the post you reference. If you had, I would have acknowledged those are good things, and pointed out that

a) None of it disclaims core Biblical teachings about homosexuality expressly. You are arguing that some groups have de-emphasized the Bible's worst teachings. That's nice, but it doesn't make the RCC or the Pope the creator of those ideas.

b) What you are arguing is that organizations with fundamentally bad ideas at their core (the Bible) can nonetheless do good by emphasizing other good ideas. Economic justice is a good idea too. You simply choose to pretend that the Pope wrote the Bible and therefore cannot be listened to, even to the extent he puts forward a good idea.

More hogwash. It has been acknowledged over and over, even by his critics here, that he has said the right things about certain issues. But in the first place, SAYING the right things is not at all the same as being sure his church DOES the right things, and saying that he holds some opinions that any decent human being should does not remotely outweigh the gross bigotry he espouses and supports.

That's not hogwash, that's my argument. I'm glad you agree. I did not claim saying was doing. But saying is what is an organization's leader does when he's trying to push in a given direction. It is what it is, but it isn't nothing. And you can't have it both ways. If the Pope is in full control of Church policy, then, yes, saying it means it's happening. We can of course agree that policies need to be followed through.

Show us anyone, anywhere who has claimed that the RCC is "uniquely guilty of the precise evils of American Christianity in general" That's simply something you made up. You know full well that the guilt has been assigned to many sects, but when a thread specifically concerns the pope and his church, it's the pope and his church that will receive the blame and criticism they deserve.

If that's not true, what are you arguing? The Pope is the head of one of many Christian organizations, all of which claim the Bible, with all of its horrendous humanitarian idiocies, are the word of God. He has now said and done several things which indicate he will emphasize economic justice, which is a good policy. If you think anyone who claims to believe in the Bible is discredited when they also put forward something good, that's fine, but it's kind of insane. Just as it is insane to pretend the Pope can't do any good because he is part of a Church that subcribes to the false and immoral provisions of the Bible.

Still more baloney, repeating the same flawed argument. The same core beliefs are NOT shared by all sects of Christianity. And to claim that no other religious group than Catholics has been sharply criticized on this site and elsewhere for holding bigoted or sexist beliefs is simply bullshit (as I suspect you know).

Nooo. This is an all new flawed argument. Bias. It's an old one, and it's part of American history. If you're going point-by-point, why did you ignore that part entirely?

And sorry, but the Old Testament IS a "core belief" of all Christian religions. They can talk around it, but again, that's what we're hoping the Pope is doing, and according to you, that isn't good enough.

Say, you're not the guy who screamed at me for like 50 posts one day about how "the leity" can't change the course of the Catholic Church, when I once pointed out in a religion thread somewhere that the Catholic Church has changed for the better over the course of time, are you? He had this rigid idea -- and I'm sensing a similar bent in your take -- that the RCC is subject to special attack essentially because it has a hierarchy and centralized control, and therefore nothing that anyone does really "changes" anything, notwithstanding things like the Inquisition and the witch burning and so forth did actually change.

'Cause while I admit I find your conversational style needlessly accusatory and abrasive, I'm NEVER talking to that guy again.

[skepticscott]

138. Your desperation shows

You didn't argue any of those examples in the post you reference.

I told you that the ELCA and Presbyterian church had rejected the sexist and homophobic interpretation of the Bible that the RCC still embraces wholeheartedly (in which effort you apparently feel compelled to defend them at great length). What "examples" did you think I was talking about? Are you being deliberately obtuse about what it involved?

You claimed that The big fallacy attempted to be foisted on us all appears to be that because the RCC is centralized and includes formal dogma and a "supreme leader," it is therefore uniquely guilty of the precise evils of American Christianity in general. I challenged you to show anyone who has "foisted" that fallacy on us. You couldn't. Your claim thereto is horseshit. You made it up.

And saying that "the Old Testament is a core belief of all Christian religions" is just more horse puckey. To even say that entire Old Testament constitutes a "belief" is laughable, and shows how much you're flailing. NO Christian religion, not even the literalists, has every single bit of the Old Testament included in its written, formal doctrine, and many reject a literal interpretation completely. Of course you know that. Again, why you keep spewing such transparent whoppers is a mystery.

The RCC is subject to special attack in posts that concern the RCC (posts that concern other homophobic bigots like the Westboro Baptist Church leave the RCC out) and because they try to impose their medieval belief system on the rest of us by law and government fiat. When the RCC actually DOES change, the attacks will stop. Call me when they perform their first same-sex marriage.

[DirkGently]

154. I see. I'm "flailing" with my "horseshit." And "whoppers."

Hoo boy. I think you are either "leity" guy I tried talking to way back when, or at least eerily similar, because this type of talk is exactly why I left that conversation. I made some basic, obvious point that non-ordained church members -- "the leity" as that person kept screeching -- DO influence doctrine.

Which is so very obvious and true, by the way. Don't you agree that's true? Who would try to argue that the membership of a church has no influence on the church itself? Who's putting the money in those baskets? Crazy, right? Water under the bridge though.

So anyway, that very similar sounding person lost his freakin' mind insisting that because the RCC has hierarchy and doctrine that nothing can ever change. It was a silly conceit with which he was attempting to pound everyone in the thread. He painted himself into an indefensible (and irrationally anti-Catholic) rhetorical corner then, and responded with wild insults and foam-flecked accusations, just as you are now doing.

Now you're going to stand on "The Old Testament is not part of core Christian beliefs," and apparently just add more invective to your responses, rather than admitting that is a rather silly position.

That's interesting about "literal interpretations," by the way. Which Church has said the Old Testament isn't speaking literally when it condemns gay people (and naughty children, and people who skip church, and women who don't announce a rape loudly enough, etc. etc.) to death? Those were what ... metaphorical gay people and women and children?

I mean, you can talk about emphasis all you want, but that's was my point, not yours. This Pope has emphasized a better Christian doctrine -- economic justice -- over a terrible one -- homophobia. Of course that does not fix everything. Of course doctrine must change. But it is also true that no Christian Church has rejected the Old Testament, regardless of how far they are in emphasizing the better over the worse. But somehow when I say it, it's all "baloney" and "horseshit" to you.

So, the Pope is still right about economic justice, despite the Church and all of Christianity being wrong about so many other things. I, like the OP, will acknowledge even an incremental step in the right direction, even from a religious institution rightfully condemned for both its past history and present doctrine. Obama started with civil unions, and look where we are.

And that still matters.

I am sorry you're so upset that you can't speak rationally or civilly on this topic, because it's a worthy one, but this will have to be it between us because, as noted, you and me and the "leity never changes anything" guy simply do not communicate well. I feel, correctly or not, that the two (or one) of you are speaking from irrational hatred for a particular church, and a poor ability to respond when certain not-well-thought-out rhetorical devices don't work the way you want them to.

Good luck.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. Phil the Duck Guy says his attacks on gay people are done out of love as well.

All hate preachers claim they love those they attack, it is part of the schtick 'I do this out of love, for God'.
If Francis wants to soften his heinous past hate speech, his faith lays out a path involving confession and penance and making amends to those he harmed which Francis would need to follow.
I ask you, if a man said about your group what Francis has said about our community and our families would you be happy to celebrate that man? If not, then why are you so adoring of Francis? You admit that his hate speech has been horrific. But you still want to 'believe' he is what his actions prove he is not.

[skepticscott]

110. Yes, the same old "hate the sin, love the sinner" crap

Though the overall PR campaign by the Vatican has been much more carefully crafted than that. It has been designed to stem the bleeding of members from Catholic churches (especially in the US and Western Europe), and to sway departed, lapsed and disenchanted Catholics back to the fold. So far, it seems to be working very well, as evidenced by the fawning adoration even on this site for the most prominent opponent of gay and lesbian equality in the world.

[PeaceNikki]

111. It's like the movie "Dogma" come to life. Francis = "Buddy Christ". Catholicism Wow!

[el_bryanto]

114. Just to translate - "Fawning adoration" means "Failure to condemn completely." nt

[skepticscott]

115. Check your dictionary, dude

It means saying I love this pope, this pope is wonderful, this is the pope I've been hoping/waiting for, and dozens of variations on the same. Adoring, fawning, affirmative praise for the most prominent proponent of anti-gay policies in the world. NOT failure to condemn him completely. Not even close.

Nice try. But it's pretty obvious which side of this fight you're on. And how weak your arguments are, when all you have to offer is made-up crap.

[el_bryanto]

120. I'm not the one who keeps quitting the argument dude.

I know what fawning admiration means; I just don't think you do.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

127. So do the words

I think he is fantastic-words cannot describe

count as fawning admiration? Or would someone have to get down on their knees and kiss his feet to qualify? Perhaps you'd like to give us YOUR definition of "fawning admiration".

[Heddi]

124. FYI, your post was alerted on

At Sat Dec 28, 2013, 12:57 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Check your dictionary, dude
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4240473

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Totally uncalled for attack on a member who is being completely civil. Not only is he accusing the other member of being on the "wrong side" (i.e. not being a democrat), he calls him weak and says his statements are "made up crap". Just ugly, rude and really inappropriate. This member can't seem to have a discussion without attacking.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 28, 2013, 01:06 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Seemed pretty civil to me.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: agree with the alert
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm sad that the alerter is flat-out making things up in their post. I think someone is alert trolling, hoping to get Skeptic Scott locked out of this thread.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: "Just ugly, rude and really inappropriate" ... that describes it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[skepticscott]

125. The fact that the alerter

said (falsely) that I called the poster "weak", when they knew perfectly well I called their arguments weak (a very different thing), is pretty revealing of their motives, indeed. In addition to claiming that I accused them of "not being a democrat" (also blatantly false).

Your support is appreciated.

[el_bryanto]

136. I'll just say I didn't alert on you - I don't alert on anything

unless it is much further over the line than you are.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

137. I knew that it wasn't you who alerted

But there are some here who will seize any chance to alert on people who get their intellectual goat, hoping for a jury that isn't paying attention.

[DirkGently]

118. Not "adoring." But I acknowledge improvement.

First, let's not rewrite the discussion. The OP posits that the Pope taking positive positions on economic justice is a good thing. The opposition to that to which I am reacting is that because the Pope is part of a religion, which like all Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths, embraces a set of archaic beliefs that include homophobia and misogyny, anything good or right or better that he says is therefore worthless.

You will recall Obama was wrong on gay marriage, for exactly the same reasons. He "evolved" what -- three years into his presidency?

No one I have seen suggests the new Pope has, or can, singlehandedly relieve the Catholic Church for its many wrongdoings and harmful beliefs. No one has suggested homophobia is okay if mixed in with economic justice.

*What people are saying is that advocating better ideas from within an institution including terrible ideas is not a nullity.*

It means something, it is valuable, and it should be acknowledged. I also think this Pope has softened his language on gay issues since achieving his new position. Whether or not that is "P.R." is yet to be determined, but is also beside the point. His job is P.R. He is speaking for the Church, and if the Church is suddenly saying it shouldn't "obsess" over sexual orientation or reproductive rights, it is moving in the right direction.

I take no issue with appending, "But the Catholic Church is still fundamentally wrong on gay rights, reproductive rights, the role of women in society, and other serious matters." What is a little nuts, frankly, is the position that Catholicism invented all the terrible ideas in the Bible, which as you and I have discussed, no religious institution seems willing to disclaim.

The United States permits gay people to be prevented from adopting children. It engages in reckless bombings of innocent civilians. It practices institutionalized racism, misogyny, and homophobia. It has only within the past months acknowledged gay marriages cannot be denied recognition under federal law.

And yet, when it does something right, that is acknowledged. When Obama took his first baby steps toward "evolving" on gay rights, he was roundly congratulated. Few, if any, said that either his or America's past despicable positions on the issue nullified that.

Given an ancient church is bound to be slower to evolve, and assuming we are not going to get rid of Abrahamic religion any time soon, why would we not therefore acknowledge ANY nod in the right direction?

[Raine1967]

19. I get what you are saying.

This was most thought provoking:

Gorbachev was better than Stalin. Really... he was. Doubtless a monster with blood on his hands and such... you didn't lead the USSR by being a wholly admirable figure. But if somebody said Gorbachev was better than Stalin, would anyone reply that they were the same because the USSR still didn't have a free press?

[Bucky]

20. But unlike Kucinich...

the Pope doesn't have a gorgeous redhead wife.

[cthulu2016]

32. ***that we know of...***

[raindaddy]

24. At least we have one party that still fights social issue battles.

The leadership of both parties have failed us on economic issues. The Pope pointing out the tyranny of unregulated capitalism is incredible. Too many places in the world where people are too occupied with their next meal than to be concerned with social issues.

[PeaceNikki]

27. No, it's not really "incredible" at all. Ratz railed against capitalism as well. Google it.

[raindaddy]

106. Two Completely Different People

Unlike Benedict Francis has walked the walk ever since he became Pope. His message will reach millions more people than Obama's occasional populist speeches and from the polls more people believe him.

[el_bryanto]

25. There is a small number of DUers who are insistent that we condemn the Pope

They are sincere I'm sure, but they have not been able to convince as many as they would like to condemn the Pope.

I started a poll earlier. Currently it is 88.3% with a Completely, Largely or Somewhat positive view of the pope, compared to a 6.38% that have a Completely, Largely or Somewhat negative view of the pope (there were some who were right in the middle or who didn't vote).

If they had strong arguments and were able to sway DUers to their side, than those numbers wouldn't be slanted as far in that direction. I guess I'm saying you don't really have to worry about it.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Many on DU have always been comfortable with homophobic clerics, Rick Warren was defended

here as well. No big surprise that the bigotry of Francis is acceptable to many here. Sad, but not surprising.

[el_bryanto]

68. Nods - but that does sort of beg the question; is DU a progressive board? nt

[davidthegnome]

33. He has some good ideas.

That said - as someone who was raised Catholic... it will take a much more progressive pope to bring me back into the fold. Economically, he supports some form of justice - this is a good thing. Yet we need to keep in mind the fact that he is not a President. The Pope is basically a monarch in his own right, he is the Church's highest authority here on earth. There was a time when Nations rose and fell, and armies went to war, all based upon his word.

Now the power of the Church has faded a great deal - this is a good thing. I expect this Pope though, does not know many gay people. I expect that he has known few women who have actually had an abortion. I expect that much of his life experience comes from books, prayers, philosophical and theological debates. I still feel that he is, essentially, a good person - with some ideas I very much disagree with. Still, the power to change the church, to reform it into something representing the ideals of peace, generosity and forgiveness - that power is all his - I am not speaking metaphorically, nor in parables. He has very nearly absolute power over what he governs.

I feel that what the church needs to once again become relevant, or to begin to redeem itself, is to begin to appoint men AND women who have more experience with actually living life. Does his opinion really matter to most of us? No. Even Catholics, generally speaking, rarely change their minds because of what the pope says, does, or thinks. I know this, I come from a family of them - most of whom abandoned the church (it could be argued they were abandoned BY it) years ago.

Give any Catholic Democrat an option... would they rather have Elizabeth Warren or Pope Francis making important decisions about their Country? Being people of good sense, they will tell you that the pope is a religious figurehead and that Elizabeth Warren is actually useful.

[blkmusclmachine]

36. Francis is engaging in nothing more than a "charm offensive," a PR stunt.

The RCC will always be the RCC: 19th Century Values. Francis is just slapping lipstick on the pig, as the saying goes.

[DirkGently]

39. Wait. The Catholic Church is only 200 years old?

If the RCC never changes, wouldn't it be 1st Century values? Burning witches, torturing non-Catholics to death, that sort of thing?

[TexasProgresive]

71. 1st century values in the Roman Empire was

not burning witches and torturing non-Catholics to death- It was feeding Christians to the lions and bears, tar and feather them and set them on fire to light up the night. What you are talking about came much later.

[DirkGently]

82. Not the point, nor particularly true.

Christian persecution by the Romans was likely exaggerated, and it is unlikely they were "fed to the lions."

Moreover, my point was obviously that the person raging about the immutable quality of the RCC apparently thinks it's been around since the 19th Century, and has never changed, which of course is demonstrably untrue.

Moss, professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame, challenges some of the most hallowed legends of the religion when she questions what she calls “the Sunday school narrative of a church of martyrs, of Christians huddled in catacombs out of fear, meeting in secret to avoid arrest and mercilessly thrown to lions merely for their religious beliefs.” None of that, she maintains, is true. In the 300 years between the death of Jesus and the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, there were maybe 10 or 12 scattered years during which Christians were singled out for supression by Rome’s imperial authorities, and even then the enforcement of such initiatives was haphazard — lackadaisical in many regions, although harsh in others. “Christians were never,” Moss writes, “the victims of sustained, targeted persecution.”.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/24/the_myth_of_persecution_early_christians_werent_persecuted/

[sandyshoes17]

40. I agree

I was brought up catholic, went to a catholic school from kindergarten to 8th grade. Went to public school after that. Have been very against the Catholic Church for the past 20 yrs, not because of my experience but I just don't believe in organized religion. It's all meant to contain us, it was a money making business with a lot of power over people.
Anyway I am gay, and am really liking what he is saying, and saying often. It's May not be everything I want, but I wasn't expecting that, I'm happy he's talking about the economic inequality.
I do wonder why the other pope resigned so suddenly and someone replaces him who talks about this constantly. I think something happened , something bad enough to crash the church, whatever it was, on top of all the child abuse they would be done. There is more to this story, but I thing he is a positive influence at a needed time

[GP6971]

75. I think it's damage

control. I agree it's very strange Benedict resigned.......there has to be something under the surface.

I like many here, left the RCC many years ago. My reason is personal.......let's just say I met very great priests and never had any issues.........it was the organization I had problems with.

A hot button for me is the protection of pedophile priests.....until the RCC takes positive steps, I don't see me supporting the RCC. No matter how good the Pope is. Or seem to be

[Dustlawyer]

50. K&R!

[Vashta Nerada]

51. As someone said earlier today, Francis is just a new hood ornament on the car.

He hasn't changed church dogma. LGBT people are still condemned by the church. Women don't have control of their own bodies when it comes to the church. The church is still against access to contraception. Women still don't have leadership roles within the church. The church still covers up pedophilia. Hell, when Francis was Archbishop in Argentina, he refused to meet with sex abuse victims and didn't offer them financial restitution.

Yet in the years after Grassi’s conviction, Bergoglio — now Pope Francis — has declined to meet with the victim of the priest’s crimes or the victims of other predations by clergy under his leadership. He did not offer personal apologies or financial restitution, even in cases in which the crimes were denounced by other members of the church and the offending priests were sent to jail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/pope-francis-was-often-quiet-on-argentine-sex-abuse-cases-as-archbishop/2013/03/18/26e7eca4-8ff6-11e2-9cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html

I guess that's all just water under the bridge now, right?

[PeaceNikki]

54. Also, don't forget how in April, Francis reaffirmed his predecessor’s censure of the Leadership

Conference of Women Religious, an umbrella organization that represents 80 percent of Catholic nuns in the United States. These nuns were penalized by the Vatican, and continue to be penalized, for focusing on poverty instead of stoking moral panic about the existence of gay people or sexually active teenagers — exactly the kind of community-centered work that Francis just declared sorely missing from the church.

In the report admonishing the sisters, and stripping them of the independent authority to develop their own charter and conduct their own business, the Vatican said they were undermining “issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality” and promoting “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

Francis’ censure places these women under the full authority of the Vatican and its “program of reform,” which includes the appointment of three male bishops to manage the rewriting of the nuns’ conference statutes, review its community-based programs and otherwise ensure the group “properly” follows Catholic teaching.

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/18/pope_francis_reaffirms_vatican_censure_of_radical_feminist_nuns/

I'm not buying this 'whole new world' pope BS. Lipstick meets pig.

[Vashta Nerada]

58. I didn't see that.

That is absolutely disgusting.

Did you see Pope Francis excommunicated an Australian priest because the priest performed gay marriages and for supporting the ordination of women?

An Australian priest who supports the ordination of women has been excommunicated by Pope Francis.

In the first such excommunication since the new pontiff took office Fr Greg Reynolds was dismissed in a letter from the Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart, which stated that “the decision by Pope Francis to dismiss Fr Reynolds from the clerical state and to declare his automatic excommunication has been made because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the teaching of the Church and his public celebration of the Eucharist when he did not hold faculties to act publicly as a priest.”

Archbishop Hart also told other priests in the archdiocese by letter that Fr Reynolds’s excommunication was “because of his public teaching on the ordination of women”, which are grounds for automatic excommunication.

Fr Reynolds is also a supporter of same-sex marriage and has attended rallies in favour of changing the definition of marriage. He has even reportedly presided at same-sex ceremonies.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/27/pope-francis-excommunicates-australian-priest/

But hey, we're just the "purity police".

[PeaceNikki]

60. Another DUer thinks that guy was ousted cuz an attendee of his mass gave the host to a dog.

really. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024230915#post78

[Vashta Nerada]

66. I never once read anywhere about the dog eating the host in that priest's excommunication.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

indeed.

[rug]

101. It was a German Shepherd.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dissidents-preach-a-new-breed-of-catholicism-20120805-23nyg.html

Sorry to interrupt your echo chamber.

[Vashta Nerada]

103. Um, big friggen deal.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. oh fucking please.

He is not materially different from Pope John Paul II. He's only apparently different on the surface because you are contrasting him only to Ratzinger.

Yay, he drives himself, and lives in an apartment. Joy. What is the net effect of that? Nothing. Actually, increased expenditure. They haven't sold off the fleet of papal vehicles. They haven't sold off the papal residence. Nothing has changed. The red shoes? In manicured climate controlled storage. Same with the golden throne, and all the red carpet.

He has the appearance of humility, and might be a humble guy, but that's it. Nothing has changed. Ratzinger spoke about poverty and economic balance/wealth distribution/accumulation too. But he looked like a stark raving lunatic for it, cloaked in gold and velvet and everything else.

Pope JP2 did the same, in a slightly more ostentatious manner than Francis, but much in line with what you are seeing now.

This is not some amazing improvement.

And I WILL point out he's the grand poohbah of a patriarchal, anti-abortion/family planning, homophobic institution. You don't get to take that off the table when people are fawning about how lovable the pope is, when the subject comes up incessantly in GD or anywhere else. Sorry. Not going to escape it.

Your analogy is BULLSHIT. He's not the Elizabeth Warren of Popes. He's the Ron Paul of the RNC, of which you sometimes hear cheering right here at DU, for taking on banks, the fed, and foreign wars. Cheering that is RIGHTLY CRITICISED because he is not one or two issues on it's own, he is a whole PACKAGE of issues. He's still a horrendous right wing lunatic on a host of other issues. People might have preferred him here in the last primary, over the possibility of a McCain win, due to those few social issues, and the wars, upon which we happen to agree, but a RP presidency would have been a horrendous thing for us. Chopped social security. Removed social safety nets. A laundry list of BS that would have come along with him.

The pope might be a nice guy on economic issues, but you also have all the shit that comes with him/his org. Just like RP would have been a nice guy on the Federal Reserve, or foreign wars/bringing the troops home, but again, all the baggage that comes with. Unacceptable.

THAT is your workable analogy. Pope Francis of the Catholic Church, nice on a couple issues, monster on others. Ron Paul of the Republican Party, nice on some issues, a monster on others.

A nice shift on a couple issues does not a worthy ally make. The RCC is spending millions nationwide RIGHT NOW to attack the ACA, to attack same sex marriage, exhorting their members to vote a certain way... No, this is not a major help, not even compared to Ratzinger, since Francis is really just a return to the same area, politically and socially, as JP2.

[GP6971]

84. Like I say, damage control

Window dressing. As I was discussing with the family over Christmas dinner, if he survives over the next 12 - 18 months, then his proclamations are hollow. If there is real change intended, then the Vatican political force will eliminate the threat before that.

[rug]

100. I don't think you can use that to spin a conspiracy about a 77 year pld man.

[Tikki]

83. Why family planning matters.

So easily many in this World would move forward with just a kindly worded adjustment by this pope and his church in regards to family planning.

Tikki

[Demo_Chris]

89. He thinks child rapists are better than women. Swell guy. nt

[el_bryanto]

93. Yeah - that's a pretty reasonable point of view. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

96. knr - it takes willful delusion not to recognize the potential shift in priorities this pope

represents

[Pretzel_Warrior]

99. at first I thought you said "Why the pope masturbates". and I'm thinking

DUH!!

[BlueCheese]

104. We have prominent Democrats who are pro-life and/or anti-same sex marriage.

Including, at one point, Barack Obama, who made a point of saying how his religion was responsible for his anti-same sex marriage position. We don't seem to criticize them anywhere near as much as we criticize Pope Francis.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. Those of us who support equality for all pushed Obama politically, endlessly.

He was criticized, challenged and eventually told he would not be getting certain large check anylonger. Additionally, Obama never indulged in attacking speech against gay people, he did not claim as Francis does that our households are 'a destructive attack on God's plan, one which comes from the Father of Lies'.
A politician in a political process is very different from some religious cleric ranting and raving about other people being inferior. Obama always supported civil unions, Francis wildly opposes them.
In his home nation of Argentina, Francis attempted to defeat equality, he ranted, he raged and the people there rejected his ignorance 70-30. Equal rights became the law, Francis got promoted to CEO of his 'faith' as reward for trying to preserve discrimination and injustice.
Now. Name for me one prominent Democrat who is 'anti same sex marriage' currently. Every Democrat in Congress recently voted to repeal DOMA. All of them.
Do you join Francis in his anti gay views? Or do you oppose him on those issues? Feel free to tell us.

[great white snark]

133. My opinion of you has changed of late.

We've disagreed in the past but I added presumed (and untrue) faults of yours to the mix that I never ever should have. They were just disagreements and you are a fair, passionate and honest person. I was wrong, please forgive me and know on this papal issue we are in total agreement.

[PeaceNikki]

113. Please name the prominent Democrats who are pro-life and/or anti-same sex marriage.

Not 5 years ago. Today. In December 2013, what prominent Democrats are anti-choice and/or anti-same sex marriage?

[DirkGently]

121. Bart Stupak (D-MI). Defender of the unborn from ... the ACA.

Your current (edit: "recent&quot Democratic Rep from Michigan's Fightin' First District. I seriously didn't know he was even a Democrat. As for prominence, he made a lot of noise over the specific issue of abortion in the ACA.

Stupak expressed a desire to support the 2009 health care reform bill put forth by President Obama,[13] but wanted restrictions on coverage for abortion.[14] Therefore, Stupak and Republican Congressman Joseph R. Pitts submitted an amendment known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to prohibit such payments. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was adopted by the House of Representatives, but a similar pro-life provision was defeated in the Senate version of the legislation (known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).[15] Stupak announced that he and several other Democratic representatives who supported health reform legislation but opposed abortion would not vote for the final version of the legislation unless the Stupak-Pitts Amendment was included.[16] The ensuing controversy made Stupak "perhaps the single most important rank-and-file House member in passing the bill."[3]

Stupak's not a good Democrat, mind you, but there you go. The guy is horrible on ... everything.

And there is an entire "Democrats for Life of America" org that enjoys the attention of the likes of Eunice Shriver.

And, while I don't see the relevance of any of this subthread to the Pope's views on economic justice, according to our handy Wikipedia, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Bill Cllnton and Al Gore were all pro-life before they "evolved." Besides Kennedy, of course, they derived their beliefs from Protestant sects.

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

Edit: Whoops. He totally retired. Thank "god." Still, 2011, and fighting Obama over the ACA? Can't say Dems are universally on the right side of abortion rights.

[Egalitarian Thug]

105. Sorry cthulu, come talk to me when he has actually done something. He's the fucking Pope,

not a Prime Minister or a President, he has actual power to act, right now, without anybody's permission, he is the Bishop of Rome and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church. The importance of the Roman bishop is largely derived from his role as the traditional successor to Saint Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys of Heaven and the powers of "binding and loosing," naming him as the "rock" upon which the church would be built.

In 1870, the First Vatican Council proclaimed the dogma of papal infallibility for those rare occasions the pope speaks ex cathedra when issuing a solemn definition of faith or morals.

He is the infallible Vicar of Christ. What he says, goes.

So again, come back and talk after he's fucking done something. This frame is similar to Barack Obama receiving the Noble Peace prize, even while pursuing two illegal wars and continuing an international crime spree, for nothing more than not being the shrub.

[Walk away]

116. The only power this Pope has in this world or the next is....

to bamboozle a bunch of religious followers into ignoring the rape of their children and the abuse of the poor with his antics.
His public relation's adviser came straight from Foxnews and Time magazine and the ex-nazi, who is really still running things, lives right next door.

[kentuck]

117. The Pope and the Dope

[loudsue]

126. Good post. I don't get people expecting a Pope to be something besides a Pope. n/t

[eqfan592]

129. Sorry, but he has done NOTHING to warrant the praise being showered on him.

Not even CLOSE! I'm not saying we can't encourage him in areas where he speaks sanity, but the sort of unabashed adoration so many progressives have for him is completely out of sync with what he's actually accomplished.

It goes to far, and in doing so it may actually do far more damage than it ever could help, by making some people think it's OK to be a bigoted misogynist, so long as you say a few kind words about the poor.