Pope Francis: I am not a liberal

[kpete]

Pope Francis: I am not a liberal
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/646738316784742400

Shortly before Pope Francis touched down on U.S. soil for the first time on Tuesday, he assured journalists that he is not a liberal, according to reports.

“Some people might say some things sounded slightly more left-ish, but that would be a mistake of interpretation,” Francis said aboard his flight from Cuba to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

“It is I who follows the church ... my doctrine on all this ... on economic imperialism, is that of the social doctrine of the church," Francis added, according to Time.

Francis arrived to cheers and chants welcoming him to the U.S. when he landed outside Washington, D.C., where he will address a joint meeting of Congress on Thursday, with speculation running rampant about what he might discuss.

?itok=lDoBinLn

[PeaceNikki]

1. Oh, some of us know, Frank!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11362224/Pope-Francis-he-aint-no-liberal.-Beware-of-his-two-faces.html
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7249020
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9112081/the-fantasy-francis/
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116056/progressives-who-love-pope-francis-are-abandoning-women-and-gay-rights

[packman]

2. Kick him, kick him and then kick him again

[PeaceNikki]

3. I'll stop 'kicking him' when he stops 'kicking' others.

[TBF]

6. Better than past occupants of the role -

but he still has many issues to work on - particularly when it comes to women.

[PeaceNikki]

7. Not much, really. Ratz wrote a book railing against Capitalism.

[TBF]

9. Some nice tidbits on Ratz in this article -

you've probably seen it but just posting it for anyone who is interested. Vatican money laundering, et al ...

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/pope-francis-the-times-they-are-a-changin-20140128

[cleanhippie]

59. He gets what he deserves.

[Orsino]

4. Some of his views are very liberal, and he ought not to be ashamed of them, or of that label.

He is mired in Church dogma/sexism, but keep calling out the follies of capitalism, dude.

[reformist2]

38. What he's saying is that his views on economics pre-date liberalism. They are rooted in old values.

Obviously, he is now in the same place as most liberals on economic issues. But he's just saying that he came to that position via a different road. It's not an inconsequential point.

[Hortensis]

53. Yes. Those who've grown up after our nation shifted strongly to the right

may not realize that much that today's deep conservatives reject under the labels "liberal" and "progressive" was once actively supported by many traditional conservatives. Old values.

The pope is not "ashamed" the slightest bit of being liberal. He just does not accept the opportunistic definitions of the likes of Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove of what conservative and liberal are, the former of which, in fact, bears very, very little relation to the traditional conservatism that has been suppressed.

[Orsino]

70. It's an inconsequential point...

...particularly from a man with something to lose by alienating conservatism.

[pnwmom]

63. He's not ashamed of them. He's just not associating himself with any country's

political divisions.

[mmonk]

5. In the US, he is considered so because he is left of American rightwing ideology.

[PowerToThePeople]

69. In the usa

If you are not pro "the American way" ie facism, you are putin loving socialist.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Awesome...we agree on something!

Who would have thunk it.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Obviously. At least for one shining moment he is honest.

He's a conservative. Full tilt.

[Chan790]

71. Fairly certain that he would also say "I am not a conservative."

It's really a consistent argument from Rome over the past 100 years that the church's values have always been the church's values (they haven't; I know because I studied papal history during college.) and are not mired in global politics.

[Brickbat]

11. Indeed.

The way some liberals are going to pieces over him is baffling to me.

[Arugula Latte]

25. It's disgusting.

[niyad]

12. NSS

[Wounded Bear]

13. Arguably, his stances on economic systems and policies...

are liberal, and are in line with how most of us think the church should think and act. Frankly it seems to follow the words of Christ far better than the US Evangelical extremist versions we get.



But yes, he remains a social conservative, very much so. Many people seem unable to separate those facets of the debate. I, for one, can strongly support his ideas on improving economic conditions for all, while still decrying his medieval policies regarding women and LGBTQ people.

There is absolutely no danger of me turning Catholic, ever.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. But his ideas are not 'for all' they are for straight men. One can not be medieval toward LGBT and

women while still seeking to improve life for all. Being denigrated by some asshole priest is not an improvement. It is in fact exactly what the US evangelicals do. Not better than, same as.

[LanternWaste]

21. Much as MLK Jr was...

"But his ideas are not 'for all' they are for straight men"

Much as MLK Jr was... and no doubt, MLK receives the same criticisms from the same demographics whenever something is posted about him.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Where do you get that shit?

Trying to hide behind Dr King to protect a current era anti equality activist is an interesting choice. You offer no citations because you have none to offer, it's crap you are making up.

"I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.

"My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, 'We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... an inescapable network of mutuality,... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.' Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

-- From remarks delivered by the late Coretta Scott King, wife of civil rights icon Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at the Task Force's Creating Change conference in Atlanta on November 9, 2000.

[merrily]

35. He's a fiscal liberal and very conservative on all else, including even contraception.

And his comment about homosexual priests (Who am I to judge?) is not what many interpreted it to be. Priests are supposed to be celibate. Pope Francis has said nothing about peope of the same gender having sex, which his church has said is wrong.

[ananda]

37. That's why separation of church and state is so important.

Keep the church out of government's business, and keep both
from practicing medicine and curtailing the rights of women!

[merrily]

39. I cannot agree with you strongly enough. Jefferson was correct: a wall between the two

benefits both. But, the Pope ended his comments with "God Bless America," just as do our Presidents.

The Supreme Court starts its day with "God bless this honorable court" and claims that is tradition, not religion.

Prayers being Presidential inaugurations and sessions of Congress.

We have National Prayer Breakfasts.



Etc.

[MellowDem]

30. It matters why he holds liberal positions...

And when you realize it's because he believes a genocidal God told him to on certain subjects, you realize why he can fight for the poor while fighting against women's bodily autonomy and contraceptives.

[pampango]

14. His value is that he will embarrass conservatives on a host of issues while liberals will not be

influenced on issues of women's rights and reproductive freedom and gay/lesbian rights.

No real liberals, and few confirmed independents, are going to be influenced by the opinions of the head of an infamously conservative institution. Everyone has known the Catholic Church's opinion on those issues for decades. Anyone who is swayed by him repeating what his church has said a million times was probably going to be swayed anyway.

OTOH, if the Pope addresses poverty, income inequality, out-of-control capitalism, the wisdom of peaceful negotiations between countries and the evil of military solutions to international problems, republicans will be embarrassed, if that is possible.

If Bernie said the same things, republicans would just shake their heads and say, "That's liberal and socialist talk. All you regular republicans can just ignore him but don't forget that we are the party of religion and family values." If those sentiments come from the head of an infamously conservative religious institution, they are going to have a harder time convincing their base to "Ignore the Pope. Listen to Fox News for the truth."

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Why should it bother Republicans? Both Parties have strong disagreements with Francis, so

neither is in a position to lord that over the other, pun intended.

[pampango]

28. They pretend to be the "party of religion" that's why. We make no such pretense.

If an internationally renown leader of a famously liberal institution came to the US and made a speech that both parties disagreed with, conservatives would laugh on their disagreements. The speaker is a world-renown liberal after all. They expect and would be proud of their disagreements with him or her. Democrats, OTOH, might take their disagreements with such a famous liberal leader more to heart than a republican would.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Do they? They claim to be conservative Christians. Anti choice, anti gay. So is the Pope.

They sure had no problem disagreeing with Rev Wright or the Nuns on the Bus. No trouble telling denominations that want to perform same sex marriages that they should not be allowed to do so. They sure as shit don't like Islam and they are not overly prone to electing Jewish Republicans either. So are they the Party of religion or the Party of that old time religion as tailored to the needs of the moment?

The problem with trying to make the Pope a partisan thing is that he agrees with the Republicans on tons of things. Democrats also disagree with him on lots of things. It is perfectly fine to disagree with him. Republicans can also disagree with him.

I think Democrats should be ashamed to be seen promoting a bigoted activist. But they are not. Republicans like the bigoted part. But Democrats don't seem to mind it all that much.

I see this Party in a whole new light these days. Not a good one either.

[pampango]

60. More accurately their party represents conservative religious folks, not the liberal variety.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/

If a life-long conservative or leader of a conservative institution professes some liberal policies that he supports that is progress. It is not the end of the struggle but it is progress.

The problem with trying to make the Pope a partisan thing is that he agrees with the Republicans on tons of things.

He does indeed. But he publicly disagrees with them on more subjects and more overtly than previous Popes.

Democrats also disagree with him on lots of things. It is perfectly fine to disagree with him.

We do indeed and we should continue to point out and oppose the many conservative/traditional policies that he professes. As he says, he is indeed "not a liberal". He is just not as great an arch-conservative as we are used to from the Vatican.

I think Democrats should be ashamed to be seen promoting a bigoted activist.

I hope none of us are 'promoting' him. He is very flawed.

I do appreciate any significant conservative spokesman pointing out the error of conservative thinking on many issues, e.g. income inequality, out-of-control capitalism, global warming, concern for the poor, immigrants and refugees, even if he still professes some policies that one would expect from a conservative spokesman. At least he does not sound like Donald Trump or John Boehner. That counts for something.

[Drahthaardogs]

47. Democrats won the Catholic vote last two elections.

Evangelicals and Charismatics are almost 100% Republican. Catholics are not.

[pampango]

58. We lost the white Catholic vote 60-40 in 2012. We won non-white Catholics 75-25. Up 50-48 overall.

Those are close to the same percentages of non-Catholic white, non-whites and total numbers who voted Democratic.

Protestants were 57-42 republican; evangelicals 80-20. Wether they will be embarrassed by the leader of a traditionally conservative religious institution supporting liberal policies in a number, if not all, areas remains to be seen. I think we all believe that their capacity for embarrassment has been demonstrated to be extremely low.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/

Catholic voting patterns were pretty representative of the country as a whole. Obama won liberal, non-white Catholics (and non-Catholics) and lost conservative, white Catholics (and non-Catholics). The first group of Catholics is going to continue to vote Democratic and support liberal policies no matter what the Pope says. Any one who thinks that liberal American Catholics are going to suddenly realize that they do not think like 'real' Catholics in areas like women's right, gay/lesbian rights, etc. because the Pope makes a speech in the US does not know many liberal American Catholics.

The latter group - conservative white Catholics (like Boehner) - will, like other conservative whites, continue to vote republican and support conservative policies, though they may be temporarily embarrassed by what the Pope has to say.

[Drahthaardogs]

61. The modern Catholic Church has become more "Protestant" in many ways.

When I was young, the Church supported Unions, Social Justice, and immigrants. For the last fifteen years, all I heard was "abortion, abortion, and more abortion". Pope Francis is bringing the Church back to the 1960s in my eyes. I welcome it.

[Jamastiene]

15. We've been trying to tell the swooning masses on DU that for a while now.

They won't listen to us though. Maybe they will listen to him.

[Maedhros]

16. We should praise politicians when they do good things, and criticize them when they do bad things.

What you call "swooning" is praise for his stances on economic inequality. He should be rightfully criticized for his conservative social positions.

Good positions on one subject do not negate negative positions on another, or vice-versa.

[Jamastiene]

23. It would be great if that was how it has been working on DU.

but that is not how it has been working. The swooning masses won't criticize this Pope for his anti-gay views. Far from it. They gloss them over. Sure, some might criticize some of his other majority conservative views, but when it comes to gay rights, they downright defend and agree with him, more often than not. So, your theory doesn't really work the way you think it does.

[Maedhros]

33. Take it up with them.

I judge policies, not people. The idea is to aspire to better behavior than our opponents, rather than mimicking them.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. And yet others are subjected to a whole different standard. I do not see any praise for the 'good

things' said by Pat Robertson. He says them. Where is your praise for him? It does not exist. Can you show me even one example of a racist that is cited on DU because of 'good views on other things'? If not, why not?

The basic Golden Rule works well. If I said about Catholics what Francis says about LGBT people, the Catholics would be furious and stomp their feet and weep 'how dare you say our ideas are from Satan and that we are disordered'. But they, you, expect LGBT to endure that tripe, that endless filth. Where is this Christ in that action? Why shit on your neighbors for the sake of your own jollies?

A bigot is a bigot. That's all there is to it.

[Maedhros]

32. I see we disagree.

Judge policies, not people. Doing so helps us be less like our opponents.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. I am judging the policy of denigrating LGBT people and opposing our rights. Why aren't you?

I'd like them to stop trash talking us. Where in this am I judging people? I am judging their policies. The church teaches in the catechism that gay people are disordered. That's official policy. Doctrine that judges us.

[Maedhros]

54. I do judge that policy - harshly.

However, consider:

The Pope obviously wields an enormous amount of influence world wide. When someone with that kind of power uses it to oppose wealth inequality and the oppression of workers, we should welcome it. When the same person uses that power to oppress LGBTQ persons, we should denounce it.

I get how you are upset that some people only see the first part, and ignore/rationalize the second. I feel the same way about Obama - he gets credit for some good things like the ACA, but nobody mentions the truly heinous things he's done.

[whatthehey]

18. We know, Jorge, we know.

[rug]

20. He's right. It's stupidity to compare religious doctrine to a party platform.

[SidDithers]

22. ...

Sid

[leftofcool]

44. And there you go.

[rug]

67. How do you measure whether a Pope of the eighth century was conservative or liberal?

Is it easier for a twelfth century Pope?

[NCTraveler]

27. He is a full on conservative.

Many of us are fully aware. Others will remember after election season.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

29. No shit but like the Jesus you are liberal when it comes to economics and poverty. Perhaps you can

Convince your fellow Christians to actually follow the Jesus instead of the almighty dollar

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Jesus was poor, Francis is head of his own private bank, his Church worth billions.

Jesus taught by example, Francis blusters about how he opposes the rights of women and LGBT, which Jesus never did. Jesus said only the perfect get to call others sinners, Jesus himself refused to cast the fist stone which Francis hurls with eager entitlement.

But you were saying.....

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

40. Agreed he is not perfect but he is trying so he gets some credit for that

Besides he is hated by the right so he must be doing something right. Even if it is just piasing them off
I have nothing to do with the church or religion except for donations to the local food bank run by Catholic Charities and the local one gives food to anyone who shows up without question so I have no problem supporting my local food bank. No preaching either just show up get food

[Darb]

41. Francis didn't invent nor found the institution he now heads.

The leader of the Catholic Church doesn't hold every belief that you do? He should change so that your belief system takes control of the Catholic Church, damn him.

But I guess we should just thank goodness you just couldn't STFU on a beautiful day for a whole lot of people and whole lot of Americans. Thank you. There is no way we could let them enjoy it without your sanctimonious blurbs putting them into their place. Thank you. Thank you.

It is so refreshing now that I think about it. You are an original.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Ah a personal attack from yet another Francis fan. A consistent people you are.

I object to his denigration of LGBT people and to those who overlook his strident anti choice politics in order to pretend he is what he is not.
Why do you believe his organization is entitled to demonize LGBT persons? Just because they have always done so? Heritage?

Why do you think I should not express my opinion of his bigoted and hateful views? Why don't you just say it in plain clear English? Why beat around the bush?

[Chan790]

72. It's not going to change anything for you...

but he's pretty much the most accepting Pope on LGBTQ issues ever and probably about as accepting as he can get away with. There is this misconception that he can unilaterally declare tomorrow that "gays are okay" and it will be so. It will not; if he did that, the larger magisterial body of the church would simply declare he was out-of-communion with God, remove him from office and replace him with someone else...someone like the Latino JP II the Cardinals thought they were electing.

But, explicitly stating that there is room in the church for all, including a devoutly-religious transgender individual, was ground-shaking for a lot of bad Catholics. So was stating it was none of his business if homosexually-attracted males wanted to become priests--especially after his two immediate predecessors both explicitly denounced it as an affront to God.

It is measured in microns and about as fast as glass flows...but this is progress.

[LostOne4Ever]

31. And the truth from the man himself. He is a social conservative. Nt

[Maedhros]

56. I don't think this was ever in doubt. [n/t]

[Rex]

34. Don't worry Francis, I would never accuse you of being a liberal.

[mythology]

42. He has liberal views on somethings but not others

I see no problem with making common cause where there is overlap, and disagreeing where there isn't. He's not reflexively conservative in all things. If I believed in only working with people who believe only what I do, then I'd spend a lot of time working alone.

I don't see a problem with saying that he has outdated views on women and gays (although I have no idea if he personally holds those views or if the slow to change Catholic Church hierarchy isn't ready for changes on those fronts).

[nichomachus]

43. He's less liberal than some previous popes

"Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice."

Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum 1891

[Codeine]

46. Now maybe DU can stop fucking swooning

over him like preteens giggling at a Bieber video.

[PeaceNikki]

48. That will never happen.

He's so DREAAAAAAAMMMMMYYY, Codeine!


It just occurred to me that I am allergic to Codeine IRL.

[Codeine]

49. My only side effect is snarkiness. *

*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA.

[PeaceNikki]

52. Well, you make me giggle and sometimes cheer.

Other (much fewer) times, flip the bird at my screen. I have not broken out in hives while interacting with you all of these years so I think I am safe.

[beam me up scottie]

51. But he's progressive! A breath of fresh air!

He doesn't judge celibate priests!

[MineralMan]

57. Who mistakes him for a liberal?

I can't imagine, really.

[restorefreedom]

62. he reflects the catholic church

the catholic church is much more liberal than most other Christian churches on matters of economics and justice for the poor and middle class. They are also anti-death penalty which is something the wing nut evangelicals are not. On the social/moral issues, they tend to be more conservative, but no more conservative than evangelicals except perhaps on the issue of contraception.

Believe it or not, the Catholic Church is among the most liberal of Christian churches. They get criticized regularly by evangelicals and so-called Bible-based churches is for being too liberal.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. DU mocks the ever living shit out of evangelicals for the same things they praise Francis in spite

of. They are all anti gay and anti choice but the evangelicals are mocked for that while Francis is excused for it and called a great hero. This suggests bias against LGBT, also against evangelicals and a strong bias in favor of themselves.
People who are anti gay and anti choice are conservatives. The Vatican hosts conferences to which they invite all the nasty evangelicals, NOM, FRC, you name it, they invite it to bash gay people with them. They are the same creatures and they all say so.

[restorefreedom]

65. i never said he was a hero for being against ss marriage

or contraception. but evangelicals are anti choice, anti science, anti environment, want to cut the safety net, and want the state to be able to execute people.

we have the leader of one of the largest religions in the world who rabidly attacks capitalism and greed, stresses the need to deal with climate change, is anti death penalty, advocates endlessly for the poor, and possibly (i would guess) might support significant prison reform.

sometimes i think we have to take help from whence it comes. there will never be a perfect ally.

does the catholic church need to continue to change? yes imo. are they about 1000x better than evangelicals on some issues? also yes imo

[MisterP]

66. the US political configuration is very different from Continental cultures'

"liberal" often means free-market, and it did for a whole century--in fact the Church's "reactionary" reputation is in large part because it opposed capitalism: it was the height of reaction in the 19th c. to say that the Pope should have power to name bishops ...

and the prelates are always chary of yoking theology to politics--carts and horses and all that

(and heck I'll add that the people behind the Giordano Bruno statue in Rome blew up a lot of people some decades later)

[Act_of_Reparation]

68. I am unconvinced.

The Bologna Massacre wasn't "some decades" after the monument to Bruno went up in Rome; it was very nearly a century. Benito Mussolini was five years old at the time, and had been dead for a decade before Vilerio Fioravanti was even born.

How in the name of Odin's eyeball are you drawing these connections?