General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPope With the Humble Touch Is Firm in Reshaping the Vatican
By JASON HOROWITZ and JIM YARDLEY
JAN. 13, 2014
VATICAN CITY Less than a year into his papacy, Pope Francis has raised expectations among the worlds one billion Roman Catholics that change is coming. He has already transformed the tone of the papacy, confessing himself a sinner, declaring Who am I to judge? when asked about gays, and kneeling to wash the feet of inmates, including Muslims.
Less apparent, if equally significant for the future of the church, is how Francis has taken on a Vatican bureaucracy so plagued by intrigue and inertia that it contributed, numerous church officials now believe, to the historic resignation of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, last February.
Francis reign may not ultimately affect centuries-old church doctrine, but it is already reshaping the way the church is run and who is running it. Francis is steadily replacing traditionalists with moderates as the church prepares for a debate about the role of far-flung bishops in Vatican decision-making and a broad discussion on the family that could touch on delicate issues such as homosexuality and divorce.
...........
Four days earlier, Francis met with the Curia in the Sala Clementina, the 16th-century reception hall in the Apostolic Palace, to deliver one of the most important papal speeches of the year. Benedict used his last such Christmas address to denounce same-sex marriage. Francis used his first to castigate his own colleagues in the Curia.
He warned the men in red and purple skullcaps and black cassocks arrayed around him that the Curia risked drifting downwards towards mediocrity and becoming a ponderous, bureaucratic customhouse. He also called on the prelates to be conscientious objectors to gossip.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/world/europe/pope-with-the-humble-touch-is-firm-in-reshaping-the-vatican.html?_r=0
Pope Francis is redefining the role of the Catholic Church and attempting to bring a new transparency to the Vatican. If he succeeds, he'll be one of the most consequential Popes in decades.
GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)I would imagine that threatening the entrenched corruption is a little dangerous.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)He's trying to change a behemoth in a short time. It's like a little dinghy trying to pull a battle ship loaded with mines. One wrong move and poof!!!
I hope that those who do support him have his back. I don't trust the Curia.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)I've seen other posts about the Pope on GD.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)belong in GD. If a post is just "gee the Pope is great" well a lot of people disagree with that, and it becomes a controversial statement.
Bryant
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)This is an appropriate venue for the op and others unless Skinner changes his mind.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Go up and look - there are no exceptions right now.
Besides, look at how these posts are greeted - do they ever not turn into a big fight over whether the pope is a misogynist, homophobic, pedophile?
If you want to talk about the Pope do it in the appropriate venue.
Bryant
Ron Green
(9,821 posts)you're missing something.
Do you object as much to the rock music threads in GD?
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)The more people he pleases with what he says,more money in the collection plate.
1 billion Catholics throw another 50 cents in= half billion dollars a week.
Ron Green
(9,821 posts)that's some political and economic action worth talking about.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and he has been a strident political activist opposing LGBT rights all around the world, he says gay couples are 'a destructive attack on God's plan' and that is religion tainting secular politics with superstitious hate toward one's neighbors.
It is disgusting to read the praises for this right wing homophobic sexist each day on DU. I so fully agree with Bryant. This indulgence in propaganda for a hate monger is not appropriate for GD, nor is the respecting of one religion over another appropriate in American politics.
This guy you defend says gay people adopting kids is 'child abuse' while he himself protects men who sexually abuse children.
You mention rock music, these are like threads cheering for Ted Nugent. Republican ideals, anti gay, sexist. But you like Cat Scratch Fever, so you post about how cool he is, this is the same thing.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I object to GD being turned into Facebook because some folks can't seem to grasp the idea that GD is a place for political discourse, not pics of your pets, puerile joke threads, Papal PR, celebrity gossip et al. The fact that the rules are not enforced doesn't mean people should be making religious postings, either, it just means you're getting away with it.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)But it got locked as "off topic". Maybe the rules aren't applied equally around here, ya think?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I posted in ATA about it.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I still believe it was grossly unfair.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Clearly just as religiously themed. I just think the moderators are inconsistent when it comes to religion.
Bryant
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I am not a religious person myself but really wish that hadn't been posted. I have no problem with folks who choose to have religion in their lives; with me, it's only when religious dogma is used to persecute and oppress others, particularly via political influence, that I get my back up.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I would really appreciate it if DU rules were enforced and this thread belongs in the RELIGION FORUM!
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)But I would agree that we could do without those postings as well.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Pope threads in GD
Seriously, why are they being allowed in GD?
Skinner: Because the pope is big news. (nt)
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12594423
Skinner: (snip) "But it seems obvious to me that this pope is big news. It surprises me that anyone on DU would want the discussion censored. And if they really do want it to go away they could add the word "pope" to their trash can."
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If he says something related to politics/economics than I guess that's fine; but if it's specifically religious or just "what a great guy this pope is" than they don't belong here, for the same reason any other religion thread doesn't belong here. It creates anger and dissension to no good end.
Bryant
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=4401Pope threads in GD
Seriously, why are they being allowed in GD?
Skinner: Because the pope is big news. (nt)
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12594423
Skinner: (snip) "But it seems obvious to me that this pope is big news. It surprises me that anyone on DU would want the discussion censored. And if they really do want it to go away they could add the word "pope" to their trash can."
You want to argue with Skinner, go to "Ask the Admin" and explain to him why Pope threads you don't like don't belong in GD, and why you shouldn't have to follow his suggestion to add the word "pope" to your trash can. I look forward to his response.
Good luck!
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I'm not one of them; i'm tenatively hopeful about this pope. But if he's not saying something about ecnomics or politics, why do you feel the need to rub him in the faces of those who think he's not all he's cracked up to be?
Bryant
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)In fact, it seems to me that a lot of folks are here just to GET pissed off!
But obviously, there are going to be some "trigger" things for people, whether that be rape, guns, dead children, abused animals, pedophile priests, the pope, the environment, pit bulls, breast feeding, Olive, Garden or fill-in-the-blank. (And I am not going to judge/minimize any of them because sometimes, it just depends on the day whether I am going to lose it over something other people may consider trivial.)
So blessed-be-the-admins, there is the "trash thread" feature, and rather than stifling discussion among those who *want* to have it, the "trigger folk" can use the tools given to make sure they are *safe*.
It is a good system.
Meanwhile, those of us who want to see changes in a very old system, or who believe that being aware of what "those opposed" think/say/do is important, who believe that CHANGE *has to happen* are going to continue to discuss these things.
I hated George W. as President, and firmly believed he damaged my country and its people, but I still paid attention to what that worthless pile of crap did. I believe the Church has had people in it who both damaged and benefited the world at various times in its history. I *hope* the current holder of the highest office in that organization, who is saying things that need to be said as steps on that path - "who am I to judge the sins of others, when we are all sinners?" as opposed to "STONE THEM!" - is going to help the cause of civil and human rights.
It is a start, and it could be a scam. In the meantime, it is news, and it is interesting, and it is important.
But if it offends or triggers, use the tools on this discussion board to "stay safe."
That is my opinion. Yours may vary.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)So, YES, REALLY, pope threads are (currently) acceptable in GD.
If you don't like it, follow the Admin advice and add the word "Pope" to your trash threads.
Hope this helps.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Most of the Pope threads in GD belong on the religion forum. I'm NOT going to ignore threads praising a misogynist, homophobic bigot on GD.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Kindly note I am not disputing your opinion of the Pope - simply your attempt to play "purity police" on this discussion board.
I think you should feel free to voice your opinion of the Pope as much as you want; if you sound foolish, your opinion will be discounted as not-worth-listening-to, which is how discussion boards work.
But you are FACTUALLY INCORRECT, per the ADMINS of this site, when you say "Pope threads in GD belong on the religious forum," so attempting to bully people into silence because you are either MISTAKEN or LYING is not something I am personally going to ignore.
I hope you are simply mistaken; this is a busy board, and if you were basing your opinion on November information, I hope that by providing you with December data, you know there has been a clarification of policy. This is January - things might be different again soon.
In the meantime, I hope you have a good day.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)The Vatican has chosen the first ever Argentinean Pope. So once again, a bunch of old white guys got a Hispanic to do a job they didn't want to do.
Conan OBrien
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)That is freaking BRILLIANT!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)organization that oppresses women and gays and supports poverty and disease by opposing birth control joins your freakish lovefests to remind you what a disgusting organization you adore.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)And truthfully, I do kind of "adore" this guy because he is standing up to a huge bureaucratic organization, and I'm hoping his David can beat the big bad Goliath who has been perpetrating the problems you are mentioning.
Only time will tell. And I am an eternal optimist.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)So your David/Goliath comparison is silly.
And your lil passive aggressive smilies are creepy.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)which you might know if you were reading the articles, which is why he is the (one man) "David" to the (large entrenched bureaucratic organization) "Goliath" in the analogy. It may have been too obscure.
<-- intending to denote sarcasm at either of us being that unaware of a long standing cultural reference
My smilies are intended to show I am not taking discussion points as personal attacks, which probably irritated you when you were making the BLATANT (should we even pretend it was passive?) aggressive comment "your freakish love-fests to remind you what a disgusting organization you adore." I did the "roll on the floor" laughing guy, because I'm not Catholic, so it was funny in a "swing-and-a-miss" way. Again, since you were probably trying to insult me, I can understand why my amusement bothered you.
Bottom line, I'll give your opinion of the "creepy" smilies available to all posters on DU all of the consideration its due.
<-- intending to denote amusement that your opinion on "passive aggressive" matters
Either way, have a good day. You've made me smile, and sometimes, that is the best a person can do.
<-- intended to say good-bye, I won't take your hostility personally, and I wish you a good day
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)Talk or action, which will it be?
Beacool
(30,244 posts)We'll see how he proceeds.
Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)I guess it's still just talk then.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)He just got in a few months ago. If nothing has been done in a year, then you can complain.
Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)Every day we have to see posts praising this asshole but we should... Wait... Really? As long as these posts are going to go up in GD every day, the faithful should be prepared to have it pointed out that talk means shit... And the fact is, all he is doing is talking.
Is he welcoming the LGBT community into the church?
What is his stance on contraception? Abortion?
Are women being treated as equals in the church now?
We know he is still protecting pedophile priests...
You know... He is talking a good game but... Talk is a long way from action and until he starts acting, I see no reason to give him any kind of break.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)He's doing a lot more than talking.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The pope is allowing the archbishops in the US to continue to protect and pay out millions to abusers while hide millions from victims.
How can you support that?
Beacool
(30,244 posts)These lawsuits have been going on for years. The Milwaukee archdiocese declared bankruptcy in 2011. I'm still willing to see what comes out of the investigations that he requested.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The Vatican has had explicit detail of these abuses for years. Have you seen Mea Maxima Culpa? It's disgusting and the fact that Dolan has not been kicked out on his shitty ass is protection of these creeps.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)that puts gay people in prison for life? During the time Uganda prepared this law, Francis was raging about gay people in Argentina, his views shared around the world. He said in the press that gay people are an attack on God's plan, our families, dig this, he said gay parenting is a form of child abuse.
They passed that law, Francis said nothing. Nothing. His followers are the majority faith in Uganda, and he said nothing about what they have done.
That law also requires others to turn gay people in to the police or face prison themselves. Francis has not said a thing about that either.
How do you defend that bullshit?
I think it is a poor choice to stick Hillary's face next to such anti gay promotions. It implies she supports this shit as well as this religious testing you engage in. She does not, in fact, support this sort of crap at all.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This routine of never answering direct questions is becoming transparent as hell. Evasive patterns describe the figure.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)the accused clergy will be sent to the Vatican; investigated and tried. Upon conviction, the accused will be thrown out of the church, stripped of his clerical status and then extradited the abuser to the country where the charges will be tried according to the laws of that country. I don't know how accurate my friend is but, he has been very accurate in the past.
Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)I don't mean your friend or you, I'm speaking of the pope. This guy is still a priest:
A Calaveras County grand jury has indicted the Rev. Michael Kelly of the Stockton Diocese on several child molestation counts. The district attorney's office, in a statement issued Monday, said it would seek to work with authorities to extradite Kelly from his native Ireland to face the charges.
The criminal grand jury indicted Kelly on three counts of lewd and lascivious conduct on a child and one count of oral copulation with a child.
Kelly, a longtime priest with the Stockton Diocese, fled to his native Ireland in April 2012 after a civil jury found him liable of sexual misconduct against a Marin man when he was a Stockton parish school student more than 25 years ago. He left on the eve of the second phase of the trial to determine damages.
-snip-
Kelly has not been defrocked he continues to hold the title of priest but he is no longer allowed to wear a priest's collar or perform the sacraments.
http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_fe26ed0e-cc23-5567-8f85-12e970d5f43c.html
Ellipsis
(9,123 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The lack of concern for the victims is a defining aspect of Francis, who thus far has not done a thing to protect the children. That callous nature is reflected in the posts supporting him, which try to downplay the criminal abuse, the bigotry, the anti choice nuttery.
If you expect good people to forget about the abuse and the cover ups, you will be very disappointed.
Ellipsis
(9,123 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,469 posts)he will investigate them as he claimed he will do. Time will tell. I'm cautiously optimistic about that point. He seems to find that chapter of depravity in the catholic church revulsive.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)This Pope has only been in office 10 months. Some here seem to expect that he should have transformed the Church in that short a time. He has ordered several investigations, including one on the accusations of child abuse by some priests. I'm willing to wait and see what comes out of these investigations before making a judgment call.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)From the second paragraph of the article...
"...Francis has taken on a Vatican bureaucracy so plagued by intrigue and inertia that it contributed, numerous church officials now believe, to the historic resignation of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, last February."
The other contribution to Benny's departure was the clergy abuse charges. His involvement in that is, imho, the major contributor to that Pope's resignation. I think he was on the verge of being publicly exposed...and the media wasn't going to let go. A new Pope, especially one like Francis, changes the entire story and focus of...well, EVERYONE.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)I don't know if we'll ever find out what led to Benedict's resignation, but I always thought that there was a lot more to the story than his failing health. I think that he was coaxed to resign.
I hope that Francis is indeed able to make the changes that he wants to make before his time is up. He's vigorous, but a tad older than the average newly elected Popes of the past.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)covering up horrific crimes. Going to be exposed so Francis rushes up there and does his Tonight Show best? He's a consciously employed distraction from truth and from the making of justice?
Ugly stuff when you put it that way.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)of Benny's departure. However, my cynical theory is being debunked:
Vatican To Be Grilled By UN On Allegations It Enabled Rape Of Children
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/vatican_un_child_protection
I do believe, though, Pope Benedict was escorted to the door, so to speak, because his involvement in the scandal is horrific.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Do you really believe Benedict was escorted out? Obviously his "retirement" was unprecedented, but he and the hierarchy were so very invested in protecting the reputation of the church...what finally made them see the light, I wonder? That any good they were doing was now firmly seen as corrupt and enabling of evil?
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)he knew what was going on and when it was happening because he was the guy that approved it (moving child abusing priests from one parish and/or diocese to another). The media was beginning to report Benedict's involvement in the decision making and, I think, that was causing panic in the upper echelons of the Church; so, the idea of escorting him to the door before the scandal swallowed him (the Pope) became important. OTOH, I think Benedict could not deal with the Curia as is mentioned in the OP. In short, I think there's a distinct possibility Benedict was not qualified to be Pope, mentally or emotionally. He was a "good" rottweiler but a very lousy administrator. Hope that makes sense to you.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Do you think he was a "controllable" Pope (by the Curia) since he was so invested in the cover-up? Good at following orders, I mean? And if so, *who* was giving the orders behind the scenes?
Francis seems much more independent; obviously that could be a cover-up, but....?
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)More than likely, he is/was incompetent. Again, a good rottweiler but, a very bad Administrator. If there is a real power base in the Curia, it lies with the Italian cardinals, as the OP describes. And that base has tentacles, other Cardinals in other countries that are influential, e.g. Cardinal Dolan of NYC
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)BarackTheVote
(938 posts)After nearly a decade of feeling like a pariah in my own Church, Francis keeps giving me hope. Now, if only he can get control of the USCCB!
Beacool
(30,244 posts)I think that he's trying to make significant changes and I'm willing to wait and see what he can get accomplished.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Thanks for posting it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This man the OP venerates is a warrior against my rights, rights for my family and community, he is opposed to birth control as well as to abortion rights, in fact he is opposed to many aspects of the Democratic Party Platform, and instead champions the Republican point of view.
When I see folks promoting a bigoted preacher, I assume they agree with the hate speech, the ugly characterizations of LGBT people, with the opposition to birth control and to condoms for AIDS prevention. In short, I assume they hold tight to Republican policy goals, and that they are extremely prejudiced against people like me. Their actions indicate that all of this is true of them, and I don't give a shit what they claim to 'believe' because anyone who would cheer for a bigot is not an honest person, but a person who cheers for a bigot who lies and libels others.
The Pope's ignorant superstitions about gay people and his years of political activism opposing us and slandering us will not be forgotten, this creep Frank would have to do years of penance and making amends to make up for the horrors he has poured onto the heads of innocents.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Pope threads in GD
Seriously, why are they being allowed in GD?
Skinner: Because the pope is big news. (nt)
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12594423
Skinner: (snip) "But it seems obvious to me that this pope is big news. It surprises me that anyone on DU would want the discussion censored. And if they really do want it to go away they could add the word "pope" to their trash can."
I look forward to the Pope (who is putting moderates in positions of power and has said "who am I to judge?" about gay people) CHANGING the standards of an institution that has traditionally been used to abuse people in the LGBT community. It is a slow process, but it looks like "baby steps" so we are extremely excited because before, there was only *backward* movement.
I might simply be optimistic. I hope I am right. Either way, we will continue to support civil rights for everyone.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)me. This is not the case. Francis is a strident international opponent of equality for LGBT people. Those who promote him without caveat are not supporting equality at all, they are promoting and normalizing bigotry.
Folks who want to say 'who am I to judge' need to first stop judging or they look like asshats.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Republicans and right wingers everywhere hate this guy. He's doing something right.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The bulk of what Francis teaches is straight out of the Republican Platform, abortion is baby killing, gay people are sinful haters of God, contraception is wrong and should be outlawed....
Your claim that right wingers 'hate this guy' is specious and without support, right wingers actually agree with this guy on the great majority of his actual teachings. In Argentina, Francis was so nasty in his attacks on gay people that the President there called his words 'Medieval and suggestive of the Inquisition'.
Good to know who is willing to toss supporters of choice and equality under the bus for some right wing preacher wailing that abortion is murder and gay people come from the devil. Those who would attempt to paint such policies as Democratic are in the wrong. Those are Republican policies he teaches. They will never be the policies of this Party, no matter how hard some of you might try. Never going to happen.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)Are you or, have you ever been a Roman Catholic? Thank you in advance for your response
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The homophobe who says my family is an attack on God is not a 'hater', those who disagree with him are.
I think supporting a guy whose positions are largely Republican and specifically opposed to the Democratic positions on LGBT equality, on choice and on birth control is something that people should do with a careful hand, if they feel compelled to do so at all in a political forum. They should expect political challenges to such support on a political board. They should try not to forget or excuse the really awful bigotry and sexism in some rush to announce the Second Coming. Support for an anti choice bigot needs always to come with an asterisk, much like folks do when they agree with someone like Rand Paul on one issue. The Pope has one good issue. Like Rand Paul, on the rest of it he is full of stinking, antiquated bigotry and foolish preconceptions. The unflagging praise for him and ugly tone toward any critic of him does not seem appropriate considering he is opposed to equal rights and contraception and abortion rights. I think specific and pointed support for good things he says could be fine if there was occasional mention of the various right wing policies. There should not be attempts made to paint Francis' positions as Democratic, for they are not, save for his rhetoric on finance, which has yet to be seen as action. On issues about which he has taken action in his life, he is a Republican by our standards. This should not be forgotten.
Pretending he's things he is not because we like part of what he is does not really serve anyone or anything. As a Democrat, I support choice, I oppose those who do not. I support equality for LGBT people, and I oppose those who do not. Francis can not have my unequivocal support because I oppose most of his views. When he is offered unequivocal support with extra characterizations of his critics, I find that to be unacceptable, because it is a demand to support an anti choice, anti equality public figure on a board dedicated to supporting a political Party that supports choice and equality.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)If both the Right AND the Left hate someone, then they must represent the average person.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Criticizing a homophobe is 'hate'? If we refuse to tolerate bigotry, we 'hate'? Isn't that what Republicans say? 'Those liberals are really the intolerant ones'?
I say Francis should be free and equal, he says I should not have right of family. He says, in fact, that my desire for a family comes for the devil. But he's not hating? And to criticize that view is hating?
Do you also claim up is down and night is day?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Where this belongs.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)(At the risk of being repetitive, but aware not everyone reads all the responses...)
Threads about the Pope are fine in GD.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=4401
Pope threads in GD
Seriously, why are they being allowed in GD?
Skinner: Because the pope is big news. (nt)
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12594423
Skinner: (snip) "But it seems obvious to me that this pope is big news. It surprises me that anyone on DU would want the discussion censored. And if they really do want it to go away they could add the word "pope" to their trash can."
Beacool
(30,244 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I am very interested in this "progressive Pope" but realistically, there is A LOT of cleaning up to be done, and I understand the cynicism many here exhibit. Hopefully as he starts addressing some of the corruption scandals that have made the church such an anathema to so many (booting pedophiles is a GREAT start), things will get better.
Keep posting!
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Besides, no one is forcing anyone to read this post.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)... and over and over again on LBN and GD as you have done, you can bet your cassock that I am NOT going to ignore you or anyone else who uses this forum to prosthelytize. This is supposed to be a forum for DEMOCRATS, i.e. people who share such ideals as equality for women and reproductive choice (both issues that directly affect the poor), equality for LGBTs, including marriage and adoption, et al. Not only is this man an enemy to all of those principles, his minions work ceaselessly to defeat the very ideals many of us are fighting for. I do not believe that praising a bigot here should get a pass just because Francis is Pope.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)maybe they should start throwing it in there.
The SOP of GD:
So my question: what's the point of having an SOP when nobody follows it?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Because there are a lot of people expressing interest in this thread, and only a few who say they want to stay ignorant of events at the Vatican.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12594423
SKINNER: (snip) "But it seems obvious to me that this pope is big news. It surprises me that anyone on DU would want the discussion censored. And if they really do want it to go away they could add the word "pope" to their trash can."
So MY question: Why do you think YOUR opinion of the reading of the SOP is "better" than that of the GUY WHO WROTE IT?
Follow-up: And if it bothers you so much, why don't you just follow his advice and add "pope" to your trash can?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Let me be blunt about this - if that is Skinners position right now (and I'm not sure it is because there are no exceptions in the SOP), than it is inconsistent - or I don't understand the purpose of locking certain types of threads away from GD.
Bryant
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)the Pope is more "political news" than religion, which makes sense to me. In a similar vein, I would have assumed threads about Mother Theresa would have been fine in GD, too, since they would have been about children and poverty and not about "why would anyone use their religious beliefs to try to fight those things FOR FREE"?
Seriously, not being sarcastic, why don't you go to "Ask the Admin" and get a clarification that makes sense to you? Ask him to spell out the difference between "Pope, Guns, Israel-Palestine and Conspiracy Theories" in his mind, since his opinion is the guiding force behind the enforcement of the rules. You can even reference him to this thread and my quoting him repeatedly.
Personally, I agree with him - the Pope is a world wide recognized figure, and he in charge of the "Papal State/Holy See." His opinions and that of the organization he runs influence the opinions of a billion people. Putting our fingers in our ears and chanting "la-la-la-I-can't-HEAR-you!" seems like foolishness to me.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't have a problem with it being in GD. ON the other hand this thread is more about RCC organization/"isn't the Pope swell." Well I do think he's kind of swell (or closer to being swell than the last guy) - but it's still not a topic that belongs in GD. By the same token a thread about him counselling on specifically religious matters doesn't belong here either.
Bryant
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I think the organization of the RCC is a big deal, just like management changes in other large corporations (to use an analogy) are a big deal because they impact the direction the company ends up going. And I *love* to read about him counseling on things like "who am I to judge" when asked about the "sin" ( ) of homosexuality, or "greed versus poverty"; religious beliefs really impact the opinions of many people on issues of social justice.
But if you want Skinner to clarify, I once more abjure thee: Get Thee to Ask the Admin! At the end of the day, your opinion AND MINE are not the ones that count.
Talk to you later!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)To pretend that a person can oppose the rights of another and not be sitting in judgment is intellectually dishonest. 'I don't judge them, but they must not have equal rights'. What a load of self serving horse shit that is.
And you are not even honest about what he said. He said homosexuality is a sin, Ida, but that being a homosexual without the sex is 'who am I to judge' stuff. In the same discourse, he ranted about the 'gay lobby' having too much influence and said it is 'very bad' so he clearly opposes political organizing by gay people, wants us silent and sexless. But he doesn't judge.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)on a bigger scale, do you really want to never know about the folks who oppose equal rights?
Don't expect me to agree with everything the man says, Bluenorthwest. I'm not Catholic, I don't think anyone is "infallible", and I have different views on a lot of issues.
With that being said, there is *some* movement happening. Is it enough? NO! Is it a start? I hope so. Is it news? YES.
If you need to trash the thread because it just puts you in an understand rage, that is okay. Talking about different viewpoints doesn't mean people agree or support them. You can read any "Zimmerman" thread for proof of that - the people who talked about him were (mostly) not supporting his right to kill unarmed teenagers - and being interested in what the Pope is doing doesn't mean the people reading support all of his viewpoints, either.
We have a bunch of evangelicals who just made homosexuality a death sentence in one country, and we ALSO have the first "softening" of the Catholic church's position, with a hoped for "changing of the guard" in the people who come up with the opinions that will influence the next generation. Are we interested? Hell, yes! Does ANYONE on this board support policies that hurt the LGBT community? The answer had better be (per the admins and all decent people here) HELL, NO!
I don't like the fact this is such a slow, painful process, but it is going to happen. Baby steps....
muriel_volestrangler
(101,161 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I will be following your thread!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12594665
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I see more posts (8) in this thread that want to see this thread in the Religion forum than I see Pope supporters in this very thread.
So...what's your outrage about?
What's the point of having an SOP in GD? We might as well let everything go here. Let's talk about Israel/Palestine issues. Let's talk about guns. Hell, why don't we talk about creative speculation in this forum?
Would it be really hard for you to go into the Religion forum to read about the Pope?
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)But I think the "8 posters" (and I'm not going to bother counting, so I trust your numbers) who are scolding at a thread with nearly a hundred replies and a thousand views are mistaken about whether it is interesting to the GD population, because it obviously *IS*, otherwise it would be dropping like a rock.
The original poster obeyed the rules put forth by the Admins (see the links in other posts). In my opinion, squawking about the fact you don't like someone obeying the rules *CLEARLY* spelled out by the Admins is rude and inappropriate.
If you want to discuss how Skinner runs this board, I suggest you take it up with him in "Ask the Admin." Now, if you want to join in the discussion and comment on the Pope pro or con, I personally support your participation 100%, and look forward to your insights. (I've read other stuff you wrote, Vashta, so I know you are capable and frequently interesting.)
What I don't support is criticizing the original poster because someone doesn't like how the Admins run the board. It just reeks of meta.
Use the trash or ignore feature if you need to; they are there for a reason. If the Pope pisses you off, one click and your day is better.
Mine is actually going well. Talk to you later!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)progressive majority - like many of us do - They are against it
http://www.advocate.com/year-review/2013/12/16/advocates-person-year-pope-francis
Beacool
(30,244 posts)that the Vatican conducts business. I thought that it was an interesting article. After all, the Catholic Church has over a billion members and some of them are members of DU.
The are certain things that will never change because they are dogma. The Church's stance on abortion is one, but I'm hoping that in time they will loosen their position on birth control.
Baby steps.
As for me, I was raised Catholic but have attended a Lutheran church for years. We are currently on our 4th woman pastor.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)retrograde by modern enlightened standards - FDR's, Truman's and even LBJ's attitudes would have been considered racist by what we now know - but they moved things forward. It 1970 you could have fit the number of American liberal Democratic politicians who would have gone on record supporting full equal rights for gay people into a small room. Even the Mattachine Society - the first gay rights organization in America supported the medical establishment's position that homosexuality was an illness - but they sought society's understanding and compassion. That was as retrograde as you can get - But it was still a step forward in the context of the time. But fortunately things changed and progress did break through. Changing an ancient religious institution is as slow and tedious as changing society as a whole. But the pope is moving in the right direction on almost every issue - even if he is far, far from an altogether enlightened position - especially on social issues.
The fact is - on economic issues - he is taking sides in a way that is neutering the power of reactionaries to raise Catholic religious authority as a legitimizer of their cause. He is increasing the ability of progressive and left-wing forces to appeal to the moral and spiritual sensibilities of hundreds of millions of people on issues of economic justice.
FSogol
(45,363 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)So now women and gays are NOT second-class citizens to the Pope anymore and he's come out in favor of equal rights for all, including autonomy over one's own body? I must have missed that.
~ A "Crazy"
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)We're the crazies, not the man calling gay people a product of Satan's plan to attack God. He's great. It's his critics who are nuts. Also nuts, those pro choice people. Crazies.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)If you think it's weird that a cracker changes into the flesh of a long-dead guy, you're a bigot. But if you run a church that has systematically and brutally oppressed millions of people for centuries and continues to do so, well, you're a progressive!
Response to Beacool (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Beacool
(30,244 posts)That was actually not my intention. The Pope may be a religious leader, but he is also the head of an independent state know as the Vatican. As such, articles on the Pope's proposed fundamental changes to the running of the Vatican, could be arguably considered current events.
As for locks, alerts and ignores; what is the point of being on a discussion board if some seek censorship of posts that they disapprove?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)He's anti gay, anti choice, opposed to birth control, this is a political forum, to support him in this context is to support his politics.