I fear for this Pope

[CatWoman]

Pope Francis fires all but one Cardinal Running Vatican Bank



He did so as they were 11 months into a 5 year term. We have been waiting for actions like this.

I think we all know there won't be a lot of change in the catholic church re abortion (even though his belief that it shouldn't be a priority is pretty major imo) and for those of us who really like this pope we do so seeing the flaws as well. Women will be another issue but one i hope to see slow change in during his reign. However in other areas he has been a breath of fresh air and now he is starting to clean up the corruption in the bank.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Francis’ move essentially undid a decree issued last year by his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, who confirmed the Vatican Bank’s supervisory body for another five years, just days before announcing his retirement. The most high-profile figure sacked on Wednesday was Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Benedict’s secretary of state and the face of administrative woes of Benedict’s papacy.

This is a big deal. Firings are not the norm at the bank, they have gone their own way for ages with the occasional individual ousted rather than only one individual kept.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/16/1270065/-Pope-Francis-fires-all-but-one-Cardinal-Running-Vatican-Bank?detail=facebook

[House of Roberts]

1. He is certainly not part of the old status quo.

Reckon what he'll do next?

Incremental change in the Vatican is no longer glacial.

I'm about as far from being a Catholic as it gets, but I think I could get along with this Pope. We'll see. I hope his health maintains.

[shenmue]

2. Me too

[theHandpuppet]

10. Fairness to all?

I guess that's true if your idea of "all" doesn't include women and gays.

[House of Roberts]

15. I don't think he'd preach being vengeful against gays.

He might feel more disappointment about the holier-than-thou crowd that does.

Women as Priests? Give him a little time. He just might get there,

[theHandpuppet]

16. Do you have ANY idea what he has said about gay people?

DO YOU?

Women as priests? Do you actually know what he has said about that? Do you?

Indulge your fantasies. Some of us have to deal with the realities.

[House of Roberts]

21. You may exhibit support for your 'realities'

I would welcome your input.

[theHandpuppet]

23. "Site search" is your friend

I and dozens of other DUers are probably sick to death of bursting that fantasy bubble. Some of you want to idolize an avowed homophobic misogynist on a progressive forum, have at it. And by the way, the Pope wouldn't need to preach being "vengeful against gays", since they haven't done a damn thing to HIM.

[House of Roberts]

24. I'm alternating between here, Crooks and Liars, and a Wordpress

blog I call home. I could use a link that specifically supports your POV. If I have to dig, I'm afraid I'll not be certain I found what you wished me to find.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. Then you will allow yourself to become mouthpiece for hateful things

He has said gay families are 'a destructive attack on God's plan, which comes from the Father of Lies'. That's Satan, Father of Lies.
He, whose own Church harbors child abusers of the worst sort, says adoption by gay parents is a form of 'child abuse' and also 'discrimination against the child'.
I dig that you are America-centric to the extreme, but Francis is an old man with a long history in his home country. The President of Argentina called his hate speech against gay people' Medieval and suggestive of the Inquisition'.
If you have any value as a blogger, you'd already know the fact before stating your opinion. Right now, you seem conciliatory to very awful things.

[Shemp Howard]

36. Speaking of reality...

I'm not Catholic, so I'm approaching all this from a neutral stance.

Is the pope right about everything? Certainly not.

But is he moving in the right direction? In many respects, yes. This is not a "caretaker" pope. This is a pope that will take chances.

And so I'm not ready to knock him, just yet. I will applaud him if he can take matters from "very bad" to just "bad". The Catholic Church has a long, long way to go. That's the reality of the situation.

For now, I will applaud his small steps instead of criticizing the lack of great leaps.

[theHandpuppet]

42. That is not what angers me

It's the inevitable comments about how good and fair this man is. He "thinks in terms of fairness for all"? Really? That's just going too damn far and it has nothing to do with reality.

[delrem]

63. Number of Roman Catholics in world circa 2011: 1.21 Billion

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

There's no way the RC church will instantly vanish, or instantly change from being one of the most "conservative" ("tradition bound&quot institutions to something progressive. Won't happen.

However, this Pope comes from Argentina, South America, where he was weaned on a church culture at odds to that of the USA, Canada, Europe, .... -- a culture where Liberation Theology was invented.

Compare Pope John Paul 2's public embrace of Ronald Reagan in the midst of Reagan's scorched earth right-wing fascist wars and proxy wars in Central and South America, during the same visit where JP2 publicly scolded and humiliated Fr. Ernesto Cardinal for his involvement in liberation politics of Nicaragua.

If you can't see the huge sea change brought about by the movement from Popes John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 to Pope Francis, then you aren't looking. If you expect instant gratification of progressive desires (and I consider myself a progressive) in the RC church, you're simply dreaming.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. I'll never understand why posts like yours don't PROVIDE the answers to the questions you ask

since you already know them. My Dad does that, has always done that, and it's the single most frustrating thing about my relationship with him. He'll NEVER ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to, but he'll never PROVIDE the answer to the fucking question... He'll simply ridicule someone for not knowing the answer themselves.

Hey... are you related to my Dad? Because you just did the SAME THING.

So I'll ask, because I DON'T know... What has he said about gay people?

What has he said about women as priests?

And I'll Thank You in advance.

[theHandpuppet]

53. You know why I hesitated?

Because the answers to those questions have been posted here on DU literally hundreds of times. And if I post them yet again I will undoubtedly be accused of hijacking this thread.

Sure, I can reference you at least some of the threads in which these issues have been discussed but in order to provide exact quotes from them, I'll have to do the same as everyone else -- use the site search. It will take me a while to find and provide the links, which I will do in the next post.

[cherokeeprogressive]

56. So you don't know? Can't you at least give me a synopsis? Summarize his answers for me?

The post I responded to was so FIRM... "Don't you KNOW?" it was as if you not only knew, but had the answers close at hand, even memorized.

Now I'm just wondering if your post was simple dislike... voiced in an authoritative tone.

[theHandpuppet]

65. Or maybe I'm just getting cranky...

I was assuming you wanted the absolute quotes. Sorry, but I don't like to paraphrase and God forbid I might have a word out of place.

I've taken the time to do a site search and plucked just a few of the many threads debating this subject for your perusal. Didn't really have the time to read through them to any extent. The first link, by the way, is a thread started by me... with plenty of quotes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024009872
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024230915
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024226840
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113733442
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024332268
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014696038
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024334998
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024259410
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113734078
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024237143
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024102380
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014599642

[Bluenorthwest]

81. And notice the silence you brouth to the naysayer.

That same crowd also complains that these things have been posted 'too much'. They say whatever they want and they would still adore Francis if he rounded us all up for the fires.

[AngryOldDem]

78. Opening the priesthood to women won't come under his watch. n/t

[RKP5637]

73. Yeah, it was a stretch, he'll keep up that backward tradition ...

[mr blur]

108. If you are head of the RCC, you CANNOT have "a fair sense of balance in life",

when your Church is founded on misogyny, bigotry and hypocrisy.

[RKP5637]

109. Yes, quite true, I got carried away with hopefulness, in fact, I'm going

back and delete that comment I made.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. So do I.

Most people don't seem to understand the risks he's taking. There's a reason the Vatican is stodgy and unyielding,

[Thinkingabout]

4. It is a sad day when leaders would even consider doing harm to another man dedicated

To serving the church. Corruption and greed brings out the worse part of humans. I do not expect to see any changes in having women as priest nor do I see big moves on changing abortion and birth control. I don't expect to see much change in the church accepting same sex marriages. So far I have seen a move to assist the poor and ill, this is a good thing. If he is successful in removing some of the corruption it will be good also. For those unwilling to accept a move to change women in the priesthood,abortion and same sex marriages, Pope Francis may not be to your liking but remember he is Pope Francis of Assisi, he is concerned about the poor.

[GP6971]

5. My guess is the Vatican

is very politically complex, more so then most governments. He's fighting the in house establishment, but not in a serious way. He still maintains the basic tenants of the RCC.....anti abortion, birth control, gay marriage,,etc. He appeals to the poor, which is great, but on the major issues, he's not rocking the boat

[Cleita]

9. If he's messing with the banking, he's rocking the boat. n/t

[Eleanors38]

13. "not in a serious way?" Banking? Where's economic determinism when you need it?

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Jesus, Prince of Peace, used a whip to violently drive moneychangers from the

holy place. Francis is running a bank in his holy place, and is not driving it out nor giving away the wealth to the poor as Jesus also commanded, he's simply reforming a financial institution that owns vast hoards of high end everything.
How a faith that claims to be about Jesus could think to run it's own bank in their holy place is a contradiction beyond measure. But they are reforming it. Yeah.
Let me know when they sell their commercial real estate holdings and give the proceeds to the poor.

[Squinch]

28. The poor aren't a major issue?

[GP6971]

45. Of course it is and I'm thrilled to see it

But core issues are not being addressed

[Squinch]

48. The poor aren't a core issue?

[GP6971]

51. Off course it is and I applaud his sincere efforts to address the issue and taking positive action

But see my # 5 post. Nothing is being done to address those issues.
Plus I have major issues with the priest pedophile scandals which I think the Vatican, for now, has put on the back burner

[BarackTheVote]

72. Equity is an extremely important issue

I think economic equity is a pretty good basis of all freedoms.

From that stems equity under the law because nobody has the power to bribe their way out of justice, or be unjustly confined due to not having the money to lodge a proper defence; from that stems equity of education, access to effective learning that opens life-long opportunities to all; from that stems equity of race, opening pathways for social mobility, social influence, making them impossible to marginalize; from that stems equity of genders because, regardless of an accident of birth, all will be able to make wage that will make themselves independent; from that stems social equity because it removes class tensions, allowing people to more easily identify with one another, and movements require time and energy, which are syphoned by the struggle to make ends meet; from that stems equity of health because everyone has access to live-prologing procedures and medications; from that stems freedom from fear because you have confidence that you will have a roof over your head, food on the table, you will be able to provide for yourself and your family.

Economic equity touches and affects everything, makes a people and a nation stronger, more unified, safer, and happier. You have your priorities, I get that (and I apologize if you read this before it was edited, I was in a mood), but any ally in the fight to make our and other countries less inequitable, I think, deserves acknowledgement.

[nomorenomore08]

121. The real problem there is the Church's opposition to birth control. Because being able to limit

the size of their families would lift many out of poverty all by itself. So all this "anti-poverty" stuff, while I certainly support it in principle, rings slightly hollow to me.

[Holly_Hobby]

7. I hope he has a food taster n/t

[TexasProgresive]

11. I heard he prepares his own meals. n/t

[Cleita]

8. I'm certain there is a certain faction that have mixed the

poison and sharpened the knives and they are sitting back waiting for the right opportunity. I think Francis knows that as well and doesn't mind becoming a martyr.

Too bad. If they do him in, probably they'll bring back Benny the Rat, who is still around. Seems nothing changes in the long run.

[babylonsister]

12. And I bet there are people rejoicing his actions.

This pope is a good man. There are things he's done in his life that piss off a lot of people, but his renewal of the precepts of being a good person cannot be understated.

I like this man, and I don't care IF he's the Pope!

[Eleanors38]

14. No Catholic here, but this guy has good stuff...

And last I heard, we need all the help we can get.

[babylonsister]

35. It's not even about help, it's about such a man of stature finally doing

the right thing. That resonates with this atheist.

[Eleanors38]

79. I agree. Lest they are too religious, I hope atheists see this, too.

[840high]

30. I like him very much.

[Squinch]

32. I'm a "fallen" Catholic, and no one is more critical of the church than a "fallen" Catholic,

but I agree with you.

[tiredtoo]

17. link to washingtonpost.com

does not work.

[herding cats]

20. Here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/pope-francis-shakes-up-vatican-bank-sets-financial-cap-for-sainthood/2014/01/15/2ecf5d20-7e21-11e3-97d3-b9925ce2c57b_story.html

She just copied the text and not the actual URL. No biggie, took me 5 secs to get there.

[no_hypocrisy]

18. John Paul I "died" after one month in the Vatican

after planning to audit the Vatican Bank.

[3catwoman3]

52. Read the book...

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)

In God's Name if you want to learn more about that. There was also speculation that John Paul I wanted to approve artificial birth control.

And, at the time, according to the author of the book, the Vatican owned stock in companies which produced burth control pills.

[NealK]

62. That's the first thing that crossed my mind when I heard that he was

doing some cleanup at the Vatican Bank.

[drmeow]

113. I also keep remembering John Paul

and worrying.

[PADemD]

162. He wasn't the only one who died.

There were over 30 similar deaths around the same time. There was no internet then, so it was not widely known in the United States.

Read Lucien Gregoire's book, The Vatican Murders: The Life and Death of John Paul I.

http://www.amazon.com/Vatican-Murders-Life-Death-John/dp/1491835257/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391724038&sr=1-4&keywords=Murder+in+the+Vatican

[herding cats]

19. I've wondered if he's ok with the idea of being a martyr.

Before anyone takes offense, I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Not at all. To me it almost looks as if he's felt strongly about some things within the church for a long time. Now that he has the ability he's acting on those things, and being vocal as to why he took the actions he did. Which makes it difficult for others in the church to simply go back to business as usual if something were to happen to him. Once the curtain has been pulled back, there's no simple way to make everyone who saw what was behind it forget again. I can't help but think he must know he's putting himself in danger, and he's alright with that so long as the things he feels strongly about are put out there in such a way that they can not deny what they're seeing.

[babylonsister]

37. That's what is so special about this guy. He broke the mold, and

it was high time.

[sabrina 1]

22. This IS a big deal. I read this earlier and had the same thoughts regarding his safety.

He's messing with some powerful people.

Seems he has decided to refocus his Church on Christ's message regarding the poor. Starting right where he is most likely to be criticized. Notice the attacks on him already, proving his earlier statements to be correct. They USE women and gays to keep the focus OFF Wall St, 'tricle down'/'austerity' etc.

As a woman, knowing the Church's positions on issues important to women, I am sick to death of the use of those two issues, most often by those who could not give less of a damn about either, for political purposes. I guess he knew they would do it so he pre-empted them by warning Right Wing US Catholics to stop 'focusing on these issues' and start acting like Christians, stop judging and stop supporting greed and oppression of the poor.

Because he probably knew once he threatened the 1% he would be attacked relentlessly, using those issues to do so.

I wonder why people who CLAIM to support human rights think that keeping women poor, is 'supporting women'?

He's making all the 'right' people angry, that's for sure.

[theHandpuppet]

25. This is one of the most insulting posts I've ever read on DU

If you think people here criticizing the Pope on his homophobia and misogyny are doing so to as some kind of conspiracy from the right or the 1% as you put it, then at least have the integrity to address directly those you would so accuse.

[sabrina 1]

26. No it isn't, not by a long shot. I find posts USING WOMEN to be among the most insulting I've

experienced anywhere. Nice try though. Anyone who cares about women cares about poverty, and anyone who tries to undermine this man's efforts to end poverty USING WOMEN to do so, is not just insulting the intelligence of women, they are proving to me, and yes, I have concluded that this is the aim, that they do not support what would actually make women more powerful, ending the poverty and the wars that are keeping women DOWN all over the world.

Do NOT accuse ME of being insulting. I AM a woman and I have been more than insulted for far too long by the use of MY issues for political reasons.

Hyperbole of the highest order. Insulting beyond belief.

[Walk away]

27. Meet the new pope. Same as the old pope. nt

[sabrina 1]

31. I have met neither, but I like this one. Not so much the other one. He certainly is getting all the

'Right' people very angry, unlike the last one. And that is a big plus in my book.

[Walk away]

93. Lots of new converts and the best cover for immoral & illegal activities ever!

Much better than the Real Pope who is hiding in his little palace counting the profits with his boy toy Monsignor!

[sabrina 1]

98. Excuse me?? Could you say that again in a way that it makes sense? I have no clue what you

just said but it could be me. Thanks in advance.

[Walk away]

101. Sure...

Francis has provided the church with lots of new converts and the best cover for immoral & illegal activities ever! (Happy Catholics can forget all about their church being responsible for child rape victims and the monsters who made it possible and are still in charge) They are shiny clean courtesy of the Papal Beard! All it took was a new Spokesmodel! More Believers = more $$$ and more power.

Much better than the Real Pope who is hiding in his little palace counting the profits with his boy toy Monsignor! .......http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/03/02/ratzinger-may-no-longer-be-pope-but-he-gets-to-keep-his-handsome-toy-boy/

Your Welcome

[sabrina 1]

105. That's quite a conspiracy theory. It must be hard to have become so cynical

that you cannot believe that someone who has a record of a lifetime of helping the least among his people, would suddenly become part of a huge plot to deceive the world, totally change his personality and engage in a huge conspiracy such as that POS article you just linked to, is insane enough to propose. Anytime I see blatantly false accusations, and the use of gutter press words, such as 'toy boy' (thank the British Tabloids, Murdoch et al for that kind of gutter 'journalism', I know what I am dealing with. A suggestion, improve your choice of sources, that one will not be helpful if you are looking for credibility.

[Walk away]

110. That's right...

Ratzenberg is straight and not guilty of anything, Francis has actual power and the pedophiles and rapists have magically disappeared! That's the great thing about the Catholic religion. They forgive themselves everything as long as they suspend reality and believe

[sabrina 1]

111. There are all kinds of bigotry in this world.

How is it identified? It's simple. One of the main signs of bigotry is the holding of an entire group group no matter how innocent a majority of them may be, for the actions of a few. No evidence required, any old hate filled tabloid garbage suffices if it confirms the deeply held 'beliefs' of the bigot.

Bigotry, so horrendously ugly in all of its forms.

Don't you agree?

[theHandpuppet]

29. I stand by my post

You will not succeed in silencing people on the issues of misogyny and homophobia by insinuating - and without the least shred of subtlety -- that they are part of some RW conspiracy and don't really give a damn about those issues, or poverty, at all.

[sabrina 1]

34. You will not succeed in silencing women, like me, and there are millions of us, from stating our

opinion on what we believe is important to women by jumping in with 'oooh, this is so insulting' hyperbole. Women have had enough being told what is good for them. THEY know what is good for them and WAR and POVERTY contribute more to the oppression of women than ANY OTHER ISSUE. The world doesn't revolve around America. Millions of women suffer as a result of War and Poverty all over the world. THOSE are the most pressing issues for women world wide and this pope has stepped forward and said so.

I have no interest in your opinions, you are entitled to them, but YOU attacked ME for having an opinion. When you do that, don't whine when you get a response.

[Katashi_itto]

38. +1000

[theHandpuppet]

40. What a surprise.

NOT.

[Katashi_itto]

41. Do I care what your opinion is, other than you have a right to one?

[theHandpuppet]

44. Of course not.

I never suspected for a moment you gave a damn about my opinion. Thankfully.

[Katashi_itto]

47. Good for you! Least you have something right

[NealK]

70. Lol!

[theHandpuppet]

39. I will not stand idly by when you accuse other DUers...

... of being part of some RW conspiracy because they speak out against institutional misogyny and homophobia. If you didn't care about my opinion or that of others who have spoken out, you wouldn't have posted that accusation. There are many of us who have spent a lifetime battling the evils of war and poverty and still manage to fight for the equality of ALL people. And that includes equality for women and all that encompasses, including reproductive rights, which would be a giant step in reducing the poverty and suffering of millions of women and children around the world. But then you've no interest in my opinion, anyway, so carry on.

[sabrina 1]

50. And I will not stand idly by when DU women like me, are attacked out of the blue

for expressing opinions someone doesn't like. And when I am attacked I will respond. Especially when I see the kind of hyperbole I just saw here.

Use your ignore feature because I will not be changing my mind on what issues are important to women world wide and will in fact be working to get more attention for issues that are keeping women down more than any others, War And Poverty AND I will support every person who finally addresses these issues, often drowned out by those who claim to speak for women here.

No one can claim to care about women's issues so long as they support War and are in denial about the impact of Poverty on women's rights to take their equal place in this world.

THIS pope gets that. And I support what he is doing to highlight these most important issues for women everywhere, something he saw his entire life living it as he did.

And no one will silence me with hyperbole and faux outrage because I dare to express MY opinion.

[theHandpuppet]

55. Nice try.

You started throwing out your wild accusations in response to the OP, not to anyone's responses to your post. And if you have found any warmongers or Republican trolls infiltrating DU under the guise of battling homophobia and misogyny by all means speak out. Otherwise, you can stop with the conspiracy theories.

You see eradicating poverty as the key to woman's equality. I see equality for women as the key to lifting them out of poverty. You cannot eradicate global poverty while declaring half the world should not have the full rights deserved by all.

[sabrina 1]

59. I stated my opinion and I will repeat it whether you like it or not. I as a woman am sick to death

of women being used for political purposes. Every time someone tries to do some good out comes the 'but they hate women' nonsense, a clear attempt to emotionally manipulate women to remove their support for someone who is trying to do some good. If you don't like my opinion, that is not my problem.

I absolutely believe, no I KNOW it is done for political purposes and if you doubt that, see how the Radical Right Wingers used it against Kerry when he was running for president. They tried to get him to 'admit' that he supported abortion, which would have been against his Catholic faith, hoping to lose the Catholic vote for him. THAT is using women for political purposes. They KNOW these issues have become obsessions, as the pope stated so correctly, to the exclusion of all others in political campaigns.

Kerry prevaricated, or so they claimed, stating that he would not allow his own personal views to influence his decisions a president, he would be guided by the Constitution in that role.

Because he would not come right out and condemn abortion, they demanded that he be refused Communion, which they hoped, would alienate Catholics, a large bloc of voters from him.

THIS is why the pope told Catholics to 'stop obsessing over gays and women and to start focusing on issues that are so important to the poor. He KNOWS the Right Wing here win elections by claiming to be 'Good Catholics' based on these two issues, while Dems they claim are 'sinners'. The POPE TOOK THAT AWAY from them when he admonished them for their 'obsessions'.

I have no interest in discussing anything with anyone who failed to see the political significance of him doing that. Thankfully a majority on the Left and Right to their disgust as they have made known, did.

I said it before and I will say it again. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I do NOT agree with you that women who are poor will ever have a voice strong enough to fight inequality. If you believe that then explain why in every country in the world where poverty is widespread, women are the most oppressed.

[theHandpuppet]

68. And this is what I believe

http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/contraception-philippines-and-pope-francis-passion-poor
Pope Francis has been highly touted for his criticism of institutional evils that create poverty. But there is something deeply troubling about a church leadership that rails against poverty and institutional sin while using its resources to defeat civil laws aimed at alleviating the suffering of the poorest.
If the pope and his brother bishops are to be fully honest about roots of poverty, they must take an honest look at the ways in which the policies and agenda of their institutional church contribute to inadequate medical care for mothers, the starvation of families, the swelling of the slum population, the spread of HIV/AIDS, and environmental degradation.
I realize Pope Francis cannot change the contraception teaching overnight, but he could call the bishops of the Philippines to cease this relentless, well-funded campaign. The institutional church now stands as the lone impediment between poor Philippine mothers and adequate maternal health care. The hierarchy's lobbying has kept mothers and fathers from raising families they can afford, families small enough to allow children to be fed and educated....

[PeaceNikki]

76. A woman's autonomy may not be important to you, but out is to me

AND many others.

Reproductive freedom and contraception are important in fighting poverty and equality. You and the RCC just refuse to see that because it interferes with your belief system.

By the way, he didn't say to stop focusing on them, he said stop focusing on them without context. He still vehemently wants to restrict my rights and yours.

“MT [Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.”
― Christopher Hitchens

I really miss Hitch and what he would have to say about Francis.

[sabrina 1]

92. It is because a woman's autonomy is so important to me that I have so much concern for the fact

that women around the world have NO autonomy due to poverty and wars perpetrated by Western Governments who say all the right things to get themselves elected but are directly responsible for oppression and brutality against women. You are free to focus only what directly affects you or what YOU care about. Women live in other countries too, not just the US.

I suppose I could say the same thing to you. Women's autonomy must not mean anything to you. But I am aware that people CAN care about the same issues, but have different views on how to take care of me. For me, poverty is one of the most pressing issues facing women today and nothing affects their autonomy more than poverty. Maybe it's time to have a real conversation rather than the recycling of the same things over and over again, about women. DU as many women have expressed in the past, is probably not a good place to do that though.

[PeaceNikki]

94. Access to contraception reduces poverty and disease in developing countries.

I get that. Do you?

"The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has. Wherever you look in the world and you try to remove the shackles of ignorance and disease stupidity from women, it is invariably the clericy that stands in the way, or in the case of—now, furthermore, if you are going to grant this to Catholic charities, say, which I would hope are doing a lot of work in Africa, if I was a member of a church that had preached that AIDS was not as bad as condoms, I'd be putting some conscience money into Africa too, I must say."

--Christopher Hitchens

[sabrina 1]

97. Christopher Hitchens opposed women's rights to live in peace, to education, to equality as they had

in Iraq with men on pay for equal work. His disgusting support for that brutal illegitimate war plunged the women of Iraq, who were among the most autonomous of all ME countries back into the dark ages.

Thanks for producing a perfect example of what I am speaking about. Those who say the right things, then go on to oppress women in the most awful possible ways. Have you any idea of what that war that he was such a cheerleader for did to the women of Iraq?

I have women friends from that part of the world, educated, brilliant, whose lives were destroyed by Hitchens wars.

I would love for him to have had a conversation with them. My heart breaks for what Hitchens wars have done to them and their daughters.

Hitchens was a phony, always was. He was a selfish, self appointed wannabe and was viewed that way by many who knew him best. He had problems with alcohol, which is a sad thing for anyone, and I hope he is at peace. If you are quoting Hitchens on womens' rights, then I understand where you are coming from.

[PeaceNikki]

99. Your feelings about him aside, his words I posted are 100% true.

Attack him all you like, but the fact remains "the only known cure for poverty is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. "

[sabrina 1]

104. Words. Easy things to spit out. No one can support War AND Women's Rights

at the same time. He was a phony and he proved it. He also supported torture. Great example of someone who stands up for women's rights or anyone else's for that matter. And he supported torture AFTER we knew what was being done to women in Iraq by our own government.

I remain haunted by the woman named Noor and wonder to this day if she survived. Hitchens knew about these horrific stories but I do not recall him ever addressing them at all. Noor was a middle class woman, upper middle class as far as we know before our supporters of womens' rights decided to invade her country, rape and pillage and torture men, women and children. She disappeared after being finally released no doubt traumatized. Her family left their home. And yes, we know what was done to her and so did Hitchens

Democrats who also say nice words about womens' rights completely ignored what was done to those women, some of whom eventually found the courage to speak to International Human Rights representatives and what they had to say, many with their identities hidden out of shame, as if THEY should be the ones to be ashamed, was horrific.

The shame is on every single American, elected or not, who supports these travesties, who votes for those who support them and who make excuses for them.

There is more than one issue for women in this world. Noor, educated, free, free to earn her own living, thanks to people like Hitchens, was reduced to nothing. He never had the integrity to answer those of us who went to his blog and asked him for an explanation. But then, even back then, I never expected him to. He did NOT support women and I would refrain from ever using him as a hero for women.

[Kurovski]

120. K&R

It's Always good to read what Sabrina 1 has to say, imo.

[theHandpuppet]

126. And yet...

I guess someone needs to remind me how the Pope directed his flock to take the emphasis off abortion and wanted to focus on poverty. Bull.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/01/09/catholic-bishops-allies-dominate-hearing-on-sweeping-anti-choice-bill/
Catholic Bishops’ Allies Dominate Hearing on Sweeping Anti-Choice Bill
by Adele M. Stan, RH Reality Check
January 9, 2014 - 5:50 pm

For the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), it was a good day in the U.S. House of Representatives, when the all-male Subcommittee on the Constitution gave the bishops’ current top lobbyist and former anti-choice spokesperson the chance to express their support on Thursday for a sweeping anti-abortion bill that would, among other obstructionist measures, single out for tax penalties women who exercised their Constitutional right to end a pregnancy.

Because Republicans have a majority in the House, Subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks (R-AZ), was able to use his prerogative to choose two witnesses while the Democrats were left with one. Presenting testimony in favor of HR 7, dubbed the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, were Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USCCB’S Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, and Helen M. Alvaré, professor of law at George Mason University, and former spokesperson for the same USCCB secretariat.

Susan Wood, associate professor of health policy at George Washington University, testified in opposition to the bill. Wood is a former official of the Federal Drug Administration who resigned in protest in 2005 over what she saw as political interference in the approval process for the emergency contraception drug Plan B One-Step.

Forbidden to testify, despite the request of ranking member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), was Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia in the House. Because HR 7 would permanently bar the district from using revenue collected through local, not federal, taxes to fund abortions for poor women (an option that remains open to the states), Norton had asked to address the committee for five minutes. Instead, she was left to sit in the audience while the men on the committee argued over whether House rules permit her testimony....

[Bluenorthwest]

87. This is what you stand with, what you defend, Francis on equality for LGBT

Francis on equality for gay people:
"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."
: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/is-there-hope-for-francis-on-gay-rights.html#ixzz2NzvrBd4I

So saying our families are a product of Satan is hate speech. Rationalize it as much as you like, it remains hateful, ignorant, superstitious hate speech.

[sabrina 1]

95. This is what you oppose:

Pope Francis Cited In Illinois Gay Marriage Passage By Catholic Speaker Of The House Michael Madigan

Illinois lawmakers voted to approve a same-sex marriage bill on Tuesday in a historic vote that concludes over a year of intense lobbying from both sides, reports the Chicago Tribune.

The Tribune identified two key events this year that may have contributed to the affirmative vote -- first, the Supreme Court decision that ruled the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, and second, the tolerant remarks of Pope Francis about homosexuality, namely his statement "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"

The Pope's remarks have definitely made an impact, as some Catholic lawmakers who were initially undecided about the bill specifically cited his example when discussing their decision to support it. Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia (D-Ill.) commented, "As a Catholic follower of Jesus and the pope, Pope Francis, I am clear that our Catholic religious doctrine has at its core love, compassion and justice for all people."

The most notable statement came from Catholic Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, who echoed the Pope's words when explaining his support for the bill, stating, "For those that just happen to be gay — living in a very harmonious, productive relationship but illegal — who am I to judge that they should be illegal?"

Progress. If you don't want progress then feel free to oppose it.

Did you vote for President Obama btw? Pretty everyone here did. By doing so they were standing up against Gay Marriage.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. No it's not. This is

The pope told the gynecologists that they had a responsibility to make known the "transcendent dimension, the imprint of God's creative work, in human life from the first instant of conception. And this is a commitment of new evangelization that often requires going against the tide, paying a personal price. The Lord counts on you, too, to spread the Gospel of life."
Pope Francis characterized abortion as a product of a "widespread mentality of profit, the 'throwaway culture,' which has today enslaved the hearts and minds of so many.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1303991.htm

And this

In a recent private conversation, Pope Francis has reiterated his view that same-sex 'marriage' is an “anthropological regression”.

The Holy Father was also “saddened” by legislative proposals in Malta to extend equality legislation to homosexual couples, particularly those who wish to adopt.

In an interview with the Italian bishops' newspaper Avvenire published today, Auxiliary Bishop of Malta Charles J. Scicluna said that when he met Pope Francis on Dec. 12, he expressed his concern to the Pope about the proposed law. “The Pope showed his sadness at this development, especially on the question of adoption.”

He added: “I told him that the promoters [of the bill] quote his words: ‘If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?’ but they don’t quote his words from 2010 when he was still Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The Pope repeated the phrase of his letter of 2010: ‘It's an anthropological regression.’

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-repeats-that-same-sex-marriage-is-anthropological-regression

It is beyond disgusting that you would question my Democratic voting record because I support equality and choice. Democrats support equality and choice, Francis opposes those things, it is you who is promoting a man who spews much right wing bullshit. Abortion is murder, gays are from the devil, whoopee!!!!!!!!
Drop the McCarthyite crap, it is just revolting.

[sabrina 1]

102. It is beyond disgusting that you would question my commitment to equal rights for everyone

simply because I see progress where you do not. Absolutely disgusting. I asked if you supported this President who was opposed to Gay Marriage because you are SLAMMING people for seeing just a little progress in the right direction which you refuse to see. That was NOT questioning your Dem voting record. IT was a fair question in the context of this discussion. For me it was a difficult decision and for many other disappointed Democrats. But in the end, the choice was between someone who outright opposed women and gay rights and someone who at least was against the kind of vicious hatred of the other side.

So if you supported this president then you are claiming for yourself the right to make what you think was the best decision you could while denying that right to other people.

The pope has said a lot of things. I notice you cherry pick his statements giving no attention whatsoever to his other statements regarding the members of his Church who have been filled with hatred and literally slamming them for their hypocrisy, ALLOWING Catholic politicians to vote without fear of being attacked by those hypocrites.

If you don't want that kind of progress, then go right ahead do as you please, but it is disgusting for you to say to me that I am supporting discrimination when nothing could be further from the truth as everyone who knows me knows. How dare you. I will go on supporting women and gay issues and any small progress I see, I will support and you have zero right to tell other people how they ought to react to every little bit of progress they see.

I am glad eg, for supporting Obama despite my disgust at his anti Gay Marriage stance because my reasoning was that it there was a slight possibility of being able to change his mind while there was NO possibility of doing so with the only other choice we had. And I turned out to be right.

I am doing the exact same thing here. Recognizing the positives and knowing that for this enormous institution which has immense influence on OUR politicians, this pope has REMOVED the weapons they've been using as the vote in my link showed.

I am more than comfortable with my position on these issues and no matter how nasty the attacks, I know where I stand, and will NOT be intimidated by any kind of bullying.

The pope, fyi, has also spoken thoughtfully about the children of gay marriages, of course he was immediately 'corrected' by the fundies in his own church but he doesn't appear to the be the type to allow bullying to stop him from making progress either.

[Humanist_Activist]

150. You are such a hypocrite, you question the commitment of others for their criticism of a fucking...

homophobe and misogynist, yet when you are called out for supporting that fucking asshole, you call foul? I'm sorry, you opened this door. You lie with pigs, be prepared to get dirty.

[sabrina 1]

158. If this is how the anti-Pope contingency speaks to

other people, it is no wonder they are so much in the minority.

As a woman I am appalled that someone who claims to support women's rights would use such demeaning language and be so patriarchal and condescending to any woman. Speaking of misogyny.

Please do not speak for women, your attitude towards women is reprehensible and can do nothing but harm them and their cause.

[Humanist_Activist]

160. So now you lie? Really, I call you out on your obvious hypocrisy, and you lie?

I would say I'm shocked, but I'm not, really.

[NealK]

67. +1000!

[Cleita]

58. You are perpetrating what she is talking about.

It's a distraction and you are falling into the trap set by those who care neither about women, GLBT or poverty.

[eShirl]

60. Don't be ridiculous.

theHandpuppet has been speaking out on the internets for women and LGBT since years before there was a DU. Fuck the 1%; the emperor still has no clothes.

[theHandpuppet]

69. Nope, the Pope is managing to do that himself

And he could be the one to eliminate the distractions by speaking out for the full equality of women and LGBTs. He perpetuates the divisiveness himself.

[sabrina 1]

71. Thank you ...

[Bluenorthwest]

84. Francis on equality for gay people:

"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."
: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/is-there-hope-for-francis-on-gay-rights.html#ixzz2NzvrBd4I

[theHandpuppet]

88. Another good one, even more recent

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-repeats-that-same-sex-marriage-is-anthropological-regression

[Bluenorthwest]

83. I'm posting a past thread in which you say "The church is not anti-gay" among

other things, people who care about honest and decent treatment of minorities should read this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022530631

You also say this:
" It's the same with being gay. If you confess and promise not to have gay sex, you can receive communion. Nobody thinks you have to pray the gay away first."

Context for the readers.

[Humanist_Activist]

148. Kinda like you, Ms. "lifestyle choices"? I still don't understand how you weren't PPR'd. n/t

[NealK]

64. Well said, sabrina.

[nomorenomore08]

122. I haven't made a single hyperbolic, or even particularly vehement, post against Francis.

But my problem is that, by maintaining the doctrine forbidding contraception, he's helping to keep people (especially women and families) poor by not being able to limit the size of their families. And that seems to somewhat undermine his overall anti-poverty message - which, in itself, I find laudable.

[theHandpuppet]

124. Case in point...

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/01/09/catholic-bishops-allies-dominate-hearing-on-sweeping-anti-choice-bill/
Catholic Bishops’ Allies Dominate Hearing on Sweeping Anti-Choice Bill
by Adele M. Stan, RH Reality Check
January 9, 2014 - 5:50 pm

For the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), it was a good day in the U.S. House of Representatives, when the all-male Subcommittee on the Constitution gave the bishops’ current top lobbyist and former anti-choice spokesperson the chance to express their support on Thursday for a sweeping anti-abortion bill that would, among other obstructionist measures, single out for tax penalties women who exercised their Constitutional right to end a pregnancy.

Because Republicans have a majority in the House, Subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks (R-AZ), was able to use his prerogative to choose two witnesses while the Democrats were left with one. Presenting testimony in favor of HR 7, dubbed the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, were Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USCCB’S Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, and Helen M. Alvaré, professor of law at George Mason University, and former spokesperson for the same USCCB secretariat.

Susan Wood, associate professor of health policy at George Washington University, testified in opposition to the bill. Wood is a former official of the Federal Drug Administration who resigned in protest in 2005 over what she saw as political interference in the approval process for the emergency contraception drug Plan B One-Step.

Forbidden to testify, despite the request of ranking member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), was Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia in the House. Because HR 7 would permanently bar the district from using revenue collected through local, not federal, taxes to fund abortions for poor women (an option that remains open to the states), Norton had asked to address the committee for five minutes. Instead, she was left to sit in the audience while the men on the committee argued over whether House rules permit her testimony....

[nomorenomore08]

128. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad he's pissing off Limbaugh and all the rest.

But I wish that, at the least, he'd tell U.S. bishops to stop meddling in reproductive-rights legislation.

[sabrina 1]

127. He, like our president, who has far more time actually, does not have the power to walk into

the Vatican and change 2000 years worth of doctrine.

Here's what you are suggesting, using a different example. You are demanding that one man change everything in a one billion member, 2000 year old religious institution. Do you have any idea of what that would entail? He has taken giant steps already to the amazement of people who DO understandl. Steps that fly in the face of the fundies who have ruled that institution for centuries. Rather than marvel that finally someone has come along who has TAKEN ON those fundies, who has stripped them of the weapons they have used in THIS country for as long as it has existed, all some people can do is to demand MORE, 'Faster please'. And he has barely had ONE YEAR out of 2000 to try to begin the process of reform. I am amazed. So are millions of others who unlike the 'me, now, I want' people who appear to have no clue about history or the danger he probably has already placed himself in, are screaming for MORE.

It is far more possible for the leader of a secular, democratic nation to apply the rule of law to war criminals, to Wall St. criminals, to use his power given to him by the people, to address poverty, to address equal pay for equal work among other issues we face right here in the US.

So, let me apply your standards for the Pope of a 2000 year old religious institutions still controlled by right wing fundies, you know the way our Congress is controlled by right wing fundies to see if you can begin to understand the momentous changes he has already made in just a year.

Why has Obama not passed the ERA? He's had four more years than the pope and this is not a religious institution.

Why has Obama not prosecuted Wall St criminals who plunged the working class which includes women, into poverty?

Why has Obama not even begun to start investigations into War Crimes, many of which involved the rape and torture of WOMEN in Iraq?

Why has Obama not stopped Republicans from undermining a Woman's right to choose in several states?

Why has Obama not ended poverty for women by instituting educational programs for single moms who are on Welfare but are forced to go to work to minimum wage jobs in order to keep receiving those much needed benefits?

I can go on, but I know the answers to those questions. The most familiar being 'how can he do this when he is dealing with a Republican controlled House'?

So we are left with appreciating the few things he has done. Gays in the military, eg, and it took long enough while many Gays were still in the position of having to hide who they were or be forced out of the military.

And yet, how much easier it should be in a Democracy when the people make a choice, for a leader to be able to do all those things. But realistically we KNOW the reality don't we?

So explain why the demands on a man who is facing far more obstacles to any reforms he wants to make than a US president when many of the same people don't expect much at all from the leaders of this country.

By comparison, this pope has moved things forward by miles considering the obstacles he is facing.

He doesn't have a magic wand. As we are constantly reminded about the President. Still he has already given the power to US elected Catholics to pass Gay Marriage in Ohio without fear of the fundies who this pope has effectively disarmed. And in such a short time. THAT is progress.

As for women in third world countries, I wonder what their priorities are. In war torn countries? When asked, they want food, they want to be able to collect wood for fires to keep their families warm, without being raped or killed on the way. They want their spouses to be able to work, rather than fighting for their lives. They want to keep their children alive rather than see them blown away by bombs and guns. They want their children to be able to go to school without being killed on the way.

They want foreign invaders to leave them alone, they want torture to end. They are totally absorbed with the survival of their loved ones.

Somalia, women desperatly trying to feed children who are starving eg. And when their children die, which they do every day, should we be telling them to use 'contraception' when what they want most is another child? Or do we think we know better? The Congo, where women are raped several times a day as soon as they step outside. What do you think their priorities are? The same as ours? I don't think so.

We do NOT know what is good for everyone, we don't even understand what women in other countries are going through. We THINK that they need us to tell them what they need. How arrogant. THIS pope worked among the poor his whole life so he has an idea of what poverty means to people.

How about we try to take care of our own immense problems right here and stop pretending we have any clue about what women in other parts of the need the most. Because we have no clue. We have not even succeeded in getting equal pay for equal work here. Even in Iraq under Hussein women had that. Let women decide what they need. Ask rather than tell them. You are assuming that you know what women in other parts of the world want. We have no right to do that. POVERTY is a killer. This pope knows that. How about we mind our business for a change, our interference has cause nothing but tragedy for women in the countries we brought 'democracy' to.

[nomorenomore08]

130. I'm no great supporter of Obama, even if I voted for the guy twice. Not as if I had a better option

on the ballot, really. And I agree that our attempts at "spreading democracy" have been disastrous at best. But I wasn't even talking about the U.S. government here. I was alluding to how, for instance, American bishops stick their noses into the debate over anti-choice legislation, thus (in some cases) helping repressive laws to pass. Francis could at least tell them to lay off on that, just as he's rightly criticized some of the excesses of American (and global) capitalism.

[sabrina 1]

142. Wrong place on the deleted post. Anyhow, Francis did tell them to lay off on their 'obsession with

women's and gay rights. He told them they should be focusing on the poor and not judging other people. I have a feeling he may replace a few of them too. Catholic Dems seem to be using the new power his words have given them already, see the Ohio vote on Gay Marriage where two of the legislators referred to the Pope's words passing the bill finally.

[theHandpuppet]

131. Nice diversion

Let's get back to what I posted. That was just ONE recent example of the ongoing war against reproductive choice that continues to be led by the leadership of the church. Was it not made a big deal when Pope Francis stated that there was too much emphasis put on abortion and gay marriage? Or was that all words, while his minions continue to lobby against gay rights and reproductive rights with full steam ahead, right up to Capitol Hill here and indeed, around the world? Would you like more examples?
Is Francis the head of the church or is he not? Does his word mean nothing to the bishops and lobbyists because if so, he's little more than a figurehead and a photo prop. Supposedly his words can move mountains to stop wars and global poverty but he can't put a lid on bishops who perform exorcisms on a state for permitting gay marriage? He can move millions to help the poor but he cannot put an end to bigotry and misogyny by opening his mouth? Oh, that's right -- he has spoken on those issues, but not to end them. That's much too high a mountain to climb, unlike war and global poverty. And of course, as we all know, those who speak out against the bigotry of the church are complicit in perpetuating global poverty and armed conflict.
If the issue here was one of institutional racism, what timetable would you accept as reasonable for that dogma to change? The church has had a thousand years. How many more should be tolerable to those who are suffering under the oppression?
Who is telling women in third world countries they should be taking contraception? How do you turn an argument for reproductive rights into one where poor, third world women are forced to take birth control? The issue is one of CHOICE, the kind of autonomy many poor women in third world countries currently do not have and the lack of which contributes immeasurably to poverty and suffering.
Lastly, and I'm going to lift here what I wrote in another post in this thread: Just who can solve this dilemma?
That’s a bit like blaming the victim, isn’t it? If there are elements of the RW who are using these issues to divert attention way from the 1% as is claimed then whose fault is that? It’s certainly not the fault of the women and LGBT victims of the church’s dogma. The solution to these issues being used as a distraction is to address them, not tell the people who are being oppressed that by speaking out they are part of the problem. And the responsibility for that solution lies with the church and its leaders, including Pope Francis. It is the homophobic and misogynic dogma of the church that continues to create the real diversion and divisiveness. Eliminate the bigotry and you remove the possibility of those issues being used as a diversion. Simple, isn't it.

[sabrina 1]

132. He doesn't have a magic wand.

Why has Obama not stopped the war on women in this country? Is he not the elected leader of this country and in charge of defending the Constitutional rights of all citizens? Why has he not forced the application of the law that gives women the right to have an abortion??

If you can answer that, you can answer all your question about why the Pope isn't waving HIS magic want, just as Obama isn't either. Because neither of them has one, do they?

[theHandpuppet]

134. I suggest you check my DU Journal

... if you think I haven't raked Obama over the coals in good measure. He is pretty much the President my partner and I expected him to be.

[sabrina 1]

135. Well, he certainly is in a better position to make changes than the leader of an ancient

religious institution. Still even with that, even I who am not especially thrilled with him either, have to acknowledge that changes don't happen overnight when you have opposition to those changes who also have powers to stop them.

What I wanted to see was progress. We have seen a little. I see far more by comparison, taking all the factors into consideration, from this Pope regarding thousands of years old, ancient dogmas. More in one year than the past century. The Pope has no control over me but he has influence over those who can affect my life and the lives of those I love.

He just dealt those Right Wing morons a blow and I am always happy to see those who have been using MY issues to further their own malicious agendas get such a rude awakening from someone they presumed would be on their side. Sort of like Jesus, who they claim to follow, walking into the Temple and angrily warning the money men.

He admonished them for their hypocrisy.

And already that has resulted in Catholic politicians feeling free finally to vote for Gay Marriage, using HIS words to justify it, in case the Right Wing morons chose to attack them, which now they cannot.

If you don't see the significance of that, I can't help you.

[theHandpuppet]

136. As long as we occupy foreign lands....

...and drop bombs on women and children, as long as prisoners remain caged at Guantanamo, as long as our citizens are subject to warrantless surveillance, as long as the third-world poverty of our Appalachian people is ignored, as long as the criminals of Wall Street remain immune from prosecution, I will speak out on what I consider to be a deeply flawed presidency. There has been good, much good done is some areas, but that will not stop me from criticizing what is still very wrong.

[sabrina 1]

141. Well, we are very much in agreement on that. I have never stopped speaking out on those very issues

either and will not do so until they are no longer issues. I think we agree on most issues. I just see SOME progress coming from this Pope and as I did with Obama who has been a huge disappointment on so many issues, I will acknowledge it because support for progress, no matter how small it is, encourages more progress.

I see this as some of that progress emanating from the pope's words to the Right Wing:

As Illinois House approves gay marriage, speaker cites Pope Francis

At least one Catholic lawmaker cited the pope's statement as she explained her recent decision, and Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, also a Catholic, used the pope's words to articulate his own reasons for supporting the bill. Previously, he had been criticized for not pushing hard enough to rally support within his congressional chamber.

Democratic Catholics have been under attack from the Right Wing Catholics on women's and gay rights for far too long, as in Kerry's case eg. They USE these issues to try to discourage Catholic Voters from supporting Democrats. The pope ended that tactic when he spoke, many believe, directly to them and now Democratic Catholics do not have to prevaricate or be forced to say something that could them votes from their Catholic constituents. To me, this is progress. I remember the frustration of watching what happened to Kerry. We will not have to see that again. They can now quote the Pope in their favor.

I am sorry we cannot agree on this issue but you have a right to your opinion and I respect that. We appear to agree on most everything else and I for one, have no hard feelings. I guess it is all about expectations to an extent. I never expected ANYTHING from a Religious leader such as the Pope but am pleasantly surprised by his baby steps towards at least shutting down the fundies in his Church. I expected way more from a Democratic President so disappointment was natural imo.

Take care ...

[joshcryer]

139. That poster doesn't think the Pope has a "magic wand."

When he quite literally does... he can change doctrine at the flick of a pen and is infallible when he does so.

No one can question him.

It's ridiculous.

[sabrina 1]

143. If you have something to say to me say it directly so I can respond. The POTUS can issue an

executive order at the flick of a pen also but we are told constantly that he 'doesn't have a magic wand' which is what I was referring to. Which I am sure most people 'got'. As a matter of fact I know they did. It is a simplistic statement to say that the President OR the Pope 'can change doctrine at the flick of a pen'. Although the President probably can do it more easily, still he would have consulted with advisors and would not just go 'do it' as you claim the Pope can.

The pope CANNOT change doctrine at the flick of a pen. You are confusing the issue of 'infallibility' (even that is acknowledged only rarely, and means he is infallible, on doctrine already established, not that HE can create new doctrine, infallibly)with the Pope's power to change doctrine. He cannot.

A short explanation to help you understand:

Change in the Church

From now on, I believe that Pope Francis will rely on collegiality, the method stressed in Vatican II in which the pope does not have ultimate authority to make changes alone but only when the bishops united approve significant change.

One significant example of how Vatican II’s exercise of collegiality resulted in radical change in Catholic doctrine happened during the council’s deliberations on religious freedom.

The document, in which the bishops refuted the old church stance that “error has no rights,” was approved by Pope Paul VI.

Church teaching on one or more of the aforementioned doctrines could be changed in the same way by a new council or through a synod, with elected members representing the world’s bishops and the pope’s approval.

I hope that helps to understand how ridiculous it is to claim that any one person can just get up one day and write new doctrine for a huge organization like the Catholic Church.

[joshcryer]

145. Papal infallibility concerns ONLY doctrine.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6

The Pope and only the Pope can change Church doctrine and can make gay marriage and choice legal with the flick of a pen. Literally. Absolutely. Without reservation. There is no other power more great. In fact he has alluded to allowing all priests to marry if the Church requires it, and may do so in the coming years.

Where you get your convoluted view from, I don't know. And why you insist on replying to me when I do not reply to you in any way, I am confused. Again you address me after I have consistently refused to address you after you requested I not do so.

Please don't talk to me again. My comment was to the poster you were misleading, not you, as you clearly haven't refuted what I have said here.

[sabrina 1]

154. I want nothing to do with you so I will thank you not to comment on my comments, as I have made it

clear in the past that I do not wish to engage you at all. You attacked my comment and you thought it would go unanswered. Do not refer to my comments, I find it disturbing and it necessitates a response to correct your distortions. Something I do not wish to do. This third party trick is popular among certain people.

No, the pope can do no such thing as change doctrine, that is a ridiculous claim. And infallibility has zero to do with MAKING doctrine.

I am attaching this to your comment ONLY to refute your false claims for the benefit of others. Please engage someone else and do not address my comments as I do not wish to have to correct any more false statements from you.

[joshcryer]

155. You responded to me.

I did not respond to you. If you want me to retroactively stop posting in regards to misinformation that you spread, tough luck. If I see someone posting misinformation, I will instruct the person being misled of the truth. That will not change.

I have quoted the relevant passages of Church theology and the fact that the Pope can in fact change doctrine as it regards faith or morality. If you have a refutation for that, you can feel free to reply to the poster you are intentionally misleading, but I will not stand for someone misleading others of the facts of how the Church works.

You are intentionally trying to mislead a poster here. I cannot in good conscious allow that to stand. Stop responding to me. This is the second time you have done so after your request for me not to do so to you. It is pathetic that I have honored your request but you have refused to do so whenever it is convenient for you.

[sabrina 1]

156. Do not comment on my comments, it is an attempt on your part to engage me. You are wrong, period.

The pope cannot change doctrine at the flick of a pen, anymore than a US president can.

Now I will post facts to counter this false information, but elsewhere.

[joshcryer]

157. You initially responded to me.

Do not try to turn this around. This is the second time you have dishonestly done this. You could have easily responded to the poster you were originally trying to mislead and I would not have even known about it. Fortunately I expect said poster can use Google and verify my statements, as what I have said is 100% factual.

The Pope, as I established, can change doctrine quite easily (as another poster in this thread agrees with me and has admonished you for your misleading statements likely stemming from ignorance in the Church).

Feel free to post your false 'facts' concerning Catholic Church doctrine. If I come across them, as uninteresting as your misleading posts are, then I may or may not respond to the poster or posters you're trying to mislead. I hope I see it, as it will be interesting to debunk the falsehoods, but really, your nickname is hardly relevant in my postings and I will likely overlook it.

[joshcryer]

138. His anti-poverty message is the least committed thing possible.

Poverty reduction worldwide is on a one way trajectory. It's literally the least committed statement he could make on anything.

Homosexuality, drugs, choice, inequality, those things are things that the church literally feeds off of, and therefore cannot be helped.

Homosexuality is a grave sin.

Drugs are bad for you.

Choice is murder.

Inequality keeps the plebs coming.

[sabrina 1]

144. I think it depends on what people know about this huge religious institution. If they do not

understand it and were hoping that ANY Pope would immediately change centuries old doctrine, they were bound to be disappointed. He can go only so far to try to move things just a little bit. He cannot change the Church's teachings on contraception even if he wanted to. He has been straightforward on that. He has stated the fact that some things won't change, but he has added 'change is coming'.

He has also said much of what I just did. That 'some people expect things too quickly'.

He is treading water when he speaks about long time doctrine. Even if he personally supported contraception, for him to come out and say so and then move to change the Church's doctrine on the subject, it would be the equivalent of the President saying 'I am going to change the Constitution on the Right to Bear Arms because I don't agree that everyone should be running around armed to the teeth'. That's what some people are asking him to do. He cannot.

When you accept the reality of his job it is easier not to expect more than he can deliver and to be grateful that he is doing more than his predecessors to address issues that are important, such as the greed and downright selfishness of 'trickle down' economics and the disastrous results of it on people. He was speaking directly to Republicans here and many Repub voters ARE Catholics and are likely to take his words to heart. THAT could help change things here.

[Egalitarian Thug]

146. Sorry Sabrina, you're just wrong on this. There is no comparison between the Office of the POTUS

and the Pope, beyond the fact that they are both leaders. The Pope has far more direct and cultural power than the President.

Just reading your replies on this thread leaves me to conclude that you are not Catholic, or at least weren't born into it, because you have significant gaps in your understanding of the differences between these offices.

[joshcryer]

149. +1

Flick of a pen, the Pope could change everything.

[Egalitarian Thug]

152. It's easy to understand how someone not indoctrinated since birth into the lunacy can misunderstand

the Church and try to ascribe moderate sensibility where none exists.

[joshcryer]

153. True.

But it is bad when someone not familiar comments from ignorance. If you don't know, then you should not comment.

(My parents were raised Catholic and I was indoctrinated from childhood. My mother later became a Protestant and pushed that view. Neither were compelling to me, even as a child.)

[JNelson6563]

106. Nonsense. Many valid points.

But you're on a tear so have at it.

Julie

[pnwmom]

116. You must be reading an invisible post.

One written entirely between the lines of what sabrina DID write.

She is criticizing Christians who think that as long as they're not gay and they're not women who've had abortions, then they can ignore all the economic/social teachings of Jesus and the Church.

[sabrina 1]

119. Thank you. I thought it was pretty clear myself. The pope has also been clear on these tactics they

use, and it has been wonderful to see some of the results of their loss of those issues.

[joshcryer]

137. Good luck with that.

Veiled insults and nastiness is par for the course with some.

[pnwmom]

115. Yes -- they have been using women and gays to keep the focus off the 1%.

And so have the Rethugs in this country. They want to make people think that as long as they don't happen to be gay, and don't happen to be a woman who uses birth control or has an abortion, then they can consider themselves to be good Christians.

I'm glad Pope Francis, for one, isn't going to let them do that anymore.

[el_bryanto]

117. That is pretty bad

I like the pope pretty well, but to suggest that the people who don't are doing it maliciously is beyond the pale in my opinion.

Bryant

[sabrina 1]

118. Really, you don't think Right Wing fundies are doing it maliciously? You don't think that the

Republicans who went after Kerry USING women to try to lose him the Catholic vote were doing it maliciously? That IS BAD. I never had any doubts and was outraged that they were using WOMEN to try to force Kerry into saying something that would lose him the support of Liberal Women.

Wow!

[theHandpuppet]

123. And just who can solve that dilemma?

That’s a bit like blaming the victim, isn’t it? If there are elements of the RW who are using these issues to divert attention way from the 1% as is claimed then whose fault is that? It’s certainly not the fault of the women and LGBT victims of the church’s dogma. The solution to these issues being used as a distraction is to address them, not tell the people who are being oppressed that by speaking out they are part of the problem. And the responsiblilty for that solution lies with the church and its leaders, including Pope Francis. It is the homophobic and misogynic dogma of the church that continues to create the real diversion and divisiveness. Eliminate the bigotry and you remove the possibility of those issues being used as a diversion. Simple, isn't it.

[sabrina 1]

129. Anything to say about the women who are daily victims of our foreign policy? The raped, the

murdered, the women whose babies are blown to bits on a regular basis? Seems to me we have enough to do right here to STOP the abuse of women in the countries we are invading yet the so-called women advocates assume they know what these women need.

Ever talk to a woman whose baby was murdered by a US bomb? Ever tell her she needs to 'stop having children'??

Ever talk to a woman who was raped by NATO troops, British troops, US troops and ASK her what is most important to her?

Ever talk to a woman whose husband was hauled off to Abu Ghraib in his OWN COUNTRY leaving her without financial support for herself and her children? What do you think her priorities are? Many of them have told us if you are at all interested. The women of Afghanistan have told us, if you are truly interested in their needs. Many of them were INSULTED by American womens rights activists telling them their most important need is 'contraception'. Especially those who have no children due to our Humanitarian Bombs.

Victims? We have created millions of them, and here we are daring to tell those victims what they need. We stole their lives, their loved ones, their incomes, their homes, their countries. I think most of them are far more interested in what this pope, despite not being members of his religion, is SAYING TO THE PERPETRATORS of the crimes against them.

How about we take care of our own problems before we dare to try to decide what women in other cultures and countries need?? WE have no clue. This pope does and he's beginning with one of the most important issues those women are facing, POVERTY.

Anyone who is not speaking out about the outrages we are perpetrating on the men, women and children of the countries we are droning, bombing invading and whose dictators we are supporting, DOES NOT SUPPORT women's rights. They are hypocrites imposing THEIR first world beliefs on women whose lives have been so destroyed by OUR GOVERNMENT, I doubt they are open to being lectured on what they need by people who were unwilling or unable to stop the abuses inflicted on them.

[theHandpuppet]

133. Do you assume I am some kind of warhawk

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 01:48 AM - Edit history (1)

I was publishing an anti-war newspaper at 15 and got myself on an FBI watch list while still in high school. I have fought against war all my life. With what little money I had I drove across country, hauling my crutches (I have MS and Parkinsons), to park my ass at Crawford Ranch to protest the war in Iraq. You don't know anything about me or how I have fought against war, racism and poverty for the last 45 years. I will continue to fight the evils of war and poverty (have you ever read my threads on poverty that are in my archived DU journal?) until the day I die. But I can fight those battles and still fight for justice for all women and GLBTS. No matter how passionate one might feel about poverty and war, it doesn't give anyone the right to perpetuate bigotry and oppression, even the Pope.

[Chief D]

33. Let's all send him some positive energy!

[MannyGoldstein]

43. At the rate Francis is going, in two years time

only married Lesbians will be permitted to become priests.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. Francis on equality for gay people:

"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."
: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/is-there-hope-for-francis-on-gay-rights.html#ixzz2NzvrBd4I

Honesty should not be optional.

[ReRe]

46. I worry about him too....

.... we know what happens to people who want to do too much good on this earth. We know what happens to the justice seekers. To the Peace makers. But Pope Francis is unafraid. I think he is a true Christian. Like Daniel walking into the lion's den. I hope my fears for his life are unfounded and that he lives a long life of doing good.
The world is sorely lacking in positive forces.

[RKP5637]

74. You are so correct about the "The world is sorely lacking in positive forces." There is

so much negativity anymore, seemingly about everything. It seems the first remarks/thoughts in so many areas are hatefulness and/or the next dig. I'll take some positives where I can find them hoping it spills over, somehow, into diluting some negativity. ... hopefully.

[ReRe]

125. Heck...

... all you have to do sometimes is login to DU to experience the negativity. (Not to be confused with regular political discussions.)

[JDPriestly]

54. I read a book that concerned the corruption in that bank. It goes back a long way.

One claim was that the bank was used as a conduit for money by the CIA.

[awoke_in_2003]

57. He is against gay folks...

adopting children. Fuck him- he isn't any different then his predecessors, he just has a better PR team.

[RKP5637]

75. I don't have the link/article right now, but one of my friends sent me something

awhile ago saying similar, that delved into it being a PR job for the church.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. Francis on equality for gay people:

"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."
: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/is-there-hope-for-francis-on-gay-rights.html#ixzz2NzvrBd4I

[joshcryer]

147. And yet he's for potentially allowing marriage.

Meaning that not only is he against gays, completely, he is for changing Church doctrine that hasn't change since its founding (male priests being allowed to marry and have progeny).

So he has the power to enact equality (as well as allowing women to be priests) but teh gays and womin are just not worth his time as an egalitarian anti-poverty hero...

[PADemD]

61. This book looks interesting.

The Vatican Murders: The Life and Death of John Paul I

http://www.amazon.com/Vatican-Murders-Life-Death-John/dp/1491835257/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389936727&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Vatican+Murders%3A+The+Life+and+Death+of+John+Paul+I

[Beacool]

66. So do I.

I've been worried about him since day one. You could see that he was different from the minute he stepped onto the balcony and asked those below to pray for him. It was a humble gesture and not what was customary.

May the Lord bless him and protect him.

[AngryOldDem]

77. The bank just needs to be shut. Period.

It has been the source of corruption for eons. I often wonder if that isn't one of the reasons (if not THE reason) Benedict resigned.

The Corporate Roman Catholic Church (CRCC) has no more soul, morals, or ethics than any other business. So your concern is duly noted.

[NCTraveler]

89. I fear for those he promotes hate toward.

He is surrounded by security. My gay brothers and sisters, not so much. Save your fear for the lives of others to those who are not surrounded by some of the best security in the world. Save your fear for those he promotes hate toward. They are the ones leaving their houses in fear of being verbally assaulted, beaten, or killed.

[theHandpuppet]

91. +1000

Thank you, as one who speaks from experience.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. But Jesus said ,' do unto the least of these what you'd never allow to be done unto you.' Didn't he?

And he also said 'to he whom much is given, all that is expected is a few words about how shitty the poor have it and he's off the hook for any hate speech or misogyny he might impose on the world'.

[karynnj]

90. I don't fear for him - he is already too big for them to harm

At this point, Pope Francis has made enough statements and written enough that has been publicized and which really is revitalizing Catholicism. If powers on the right tried to harm him - and failed, he would only become stronger.

But, I suspect they know that if they killed him - he would be a martyr and even bigger in death -- and immediately seen as having been a saint. (Long before any ritual canonization could happen.

[DerekG]

107. Killing a leader can cripple a movement

This country never recovered from the assassinations of the 60s (JFK, Malcolm, King, RFK). Each and every murder managed to disempower people.

If Francis is indeed hatching big plans for progress, then he owes it to all of us to protect himself.

[Gothmog]

112. The number of priest he has defrocked is impressive

Are there statistics on how many the prior popes took action against? This Pope is out to make a difference

[PeaceNikki]

114. Those were Ratz's numbers.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/17/pope-defrocked-priests/4592907/

VATICAN CITY (AP) — A document obtained by The Associated Press on Friday shows Pope Benedict XVI defrocked nearly 400 priests over just two years for sexually molesting children.

The statistics for 2011 and 2012 show a dramatic increase over the 171 priests removed in 2008 and 2009, when the Vatican first provided details on the number of priests who have been defrocked. Prior to that, it had only publicly revealed the number of alleged cases of sexual abuse it had received and the number of trials it had authorized.

While it's not clear why the numbers spiked in 2011, it could be because 2010 saw a new explosion in the number of cases reported in the media in Europe and beyond.

The document was prepared from data the Vatican had been collecting and was compiled to help the Holy See defend itself before a U.N. committee this week in Geneva.

[Humanist_Activist]

151. He's the "bad" Pope, so he doesn't count.

[PeaceNikki]

159. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

This thread is about Francis, you know. So when someone uses data from Ratz, I thought it notable to point out.

[Humanist_Activist]

161. I was pointing out that many of the people who are lauding Pope Francis were...

harsh critics of Pope Ratzi, as he has been called here, quite often. Its a double standard.