Who knew that the Pope was Catholic?

[mhatrw]

I find the vitriol toward the Pope for opposing abortion, gay rights and full equality for women a bit puzzling. It's as if people are infuriated to discover that the Pope supports centuries old Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church has held for over 1000 years that the only legitimate sexual act is one that culminates in attempted procreation. The Church still teaches that masturbaton is a mortal sin, for Christ's sake.

It's about as easy for a pope to overtum that doctrine as it is for a US president to overturn the second amendment. I'm not defending the doctrine. It is demeaning and absurd, as well as woefully outdated. But castigating the Pope for being anti-abortion and anti-gay is much like castigating an atheist for being anti-God.

I also find it bizarre how many mouthpieces of the top 1% try to dismiss the Pope's refreshingly progressive message of economic and social justice by lambasting his adherence to 1000+ year old Catholic doctrine. It is possible to embrace a certain message fully while still denouncing other beliefs of the messenger.

[PeaceNikki]

1. Really? You're shocked that Democrats on a Democratic board get pissed about a man who

is the leader of an organization which oppresses LGBT and women being lauded as a hero?

I find the fact YOU find that bizarre to be bizarre.

[mhatrw]

4. The guy is heroic within the constraints of a terrible doctrine.

"Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative purposes."

That doesn't leave much wiggle room on LGBT and abortion rights. It's bullshit, but it has been the basis of all Roman Catholic doctrine on sexuality for centuries.

All things are relative, and this Pope is a big step in the right direction compared to his predecessors.

[mhatrw]

26. I don't dig a bigot. I like his views on economic justice.

Are you against these views?

[LostOne4Ever]

57. Rick Santorum is for raising the minimum wage are you going to praise him too?

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Of course not. Because he is a bigot, and overall his views make him noxious to us.

But for some reason the pope gets a pass for his noxious views...

Neither should EVER be praised by liberals or progressives.[/font]

[Bluenorthwest]

72. GW Bush did good things on AIDS in Africa. No one on DU eve praises him for that, here is Gene

Robinson praising him for it:
"All week, more than 20,000 delegates from around the world have been attending the 19th International AIDS Conference here in Washington. They look like any other group of conventioneers, laden with satchels and garlanded with name tags. But some of these men and women would be dead if not for Bush’s foresight and compassion.
When the Bush administration inaugurated the program in 2003, fewer than 50,000 HIV-infected people on the African continent were receiving the antire­troviral drugs that keep the virus in check and halt the progression toward full-blown AIDS. By the time Bush left office, the number had increased to nearly 2 million. Today, the United States is directly supporting antiretroviral treatment for more than 4 million men, women and children worldwide, primarily in Africa.

This is an amazing accomplishment, especially because it wasn’t supposed to be possible."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-george-w-bushs-greatest-legacy--his-battle-against-aids/2012/07/26/gJQAumGKCX_story.html


And Francis and his Church tell Africans not to use condoms. Makes him worse than W in that regard, by miles. 100,000 dead from AIDS in African each month. Each month.

[PeaceNikki]

10. He is still the leader of an organization which actively oppresses millions.

And still open to criticism for this bigotry.

[mhatrw]

27. Sure, the Pope and the Catholic Church deserve criticism.

However, the bigotry of Catholic doctrine does not negate the Pope's views on economic justice and abuse of power.

[PeaceNikki]

29. There is NO economic justice without reproductive freedom.

His views, even on it, are hypocritical dogma wrapped in a sweet little old man bow.

[mhatrw]

37. Yeah, we wouldn't want anybody with any influence making the case

for economic justice, now would we?

[PeaceNikki]

41. There can be no economic justice without reproductive freedom.

His views, even on it, are hypocritical dogma wrapped in a sweet little old man bow.

[virtualobserver]

78. you have the economic luxury of taking that absolute stand

some people in the world need all the help that they can get, even from the leader of an imperfect human organization.

[PeaceNikki]

79. Quite the contrary. Those people need birth control to held escape poverty more than I ever would.

This isn't about me. It's about global poverty and the correlation to not being treated as a broodmare.

[virtualobserver]

80. they need that as well......but this Pope has taken a step in the right direction

Think of him as the Gorbachev of the Vatican.

Since the Pope is "infallible" on doctrinal issues....He has the ability to change the Catholic Church.

[hifiguy]

123. "The Gorbachev of the Vatican"

is an inspired and, IMO accurate, description.

[Hortensis]

33. Sure. Who's the more righteous man? One who left the church because

he disagreed with some of its doctrines and has accomplished nothing of import since?

Or the man who stayed, has risen to the highest power possible within the church, and is using it to change much that needs to be changed?

Does the fact that he neither can nor wants to change everything negate all the good he is doing? Would the world be better off with a pope we could all fear and despise?

[PeaceNikki]

35. What has he changed?

[Hortensis]

39. Peace, Nikki. I came back just to point out that

Last edited Thu Sep 24, 2015, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is centralized, with all its many leaders around the planet subject to papal authority. That central authority is not almighty in practice, with many subversives and outright rebels at work in many lands, but the pope makes all major decisions and instructs all under him to carry them out. He has the authority to fire and replace anyone if needed, he has tremendous resources to put to work for him, and it's a lifetime appointment.

All this is to say that the eventual power of a pope to effect change on an entire planet, including the internal affairs of our nation, is pretty amazing and shouldn't be discounted.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. What change?

The only change is Francis. The RCC is still actively anti gay and anti choice, meddling in the ACA and telling people in Africa not to use condoms even as 100,000 a month continue to die from AIDS. That's what you endorse? Francis has not bothered to say a thing about it. Millions have died while he sits on his throne claiming to be so holy, the judge of others. Millions.

[Hortensis]

73. Your comment noted, Blue. Ship of Planet doesn't come around

fast, even if the hands on the wheel do. That's all I can offer. One knows it's happening even if it can't be seen in the beginning.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. No, you offered much more. Your comment made no mention of the African AIDS crisis which I

spoke of. That omission speaks very loudly. You look at massive loss of life and mutter metaphors about ships.

[Hortensis]

84. And yours completely ignores the Church's role in caring for people.

I am assuming you have heard of Catholic hospitals and clinics, right? Their missions that have been bringing food, clothing, shelter, medical care, that is to say LIFE, to people in the grimmest, most miserable corners of the planet for centuries?

I am not a person of faith and am extremely aware of the holocausts that have and are occurring in the name of religion. Organized religion scares me a lot more often than it inspires, but your assessment is extremely...incomplete.

[Bluenorthwest]

88. No, it is yours that is incomplete, the running narrative here is 'the Pope is great' so I point out

what's going on in Africa and you dismiss that. Instead you preach to me about how good they are, these men who forbid life saving protections in a place rife with virus. You insist to me that they are saviors of lives.
Would you tell your family not to use condoms? If not, why is it ok to tell Africans that? Why is it wrong for me to speak of that?

[Hortensis]

94. Speaking truth isn't truth if it's grossly distorted by exclusion.

[merrily]

12. He's the guy who gets to change the doctrine. Limbo finally went; so can homophobia and misogyny.

[PeaceNikki]

13. And at a time when reproductive freedom is being ferociously attacked, the last ting I want to do

is sing the praises of this creep.

[merrily]

16. I think we can praise him for recognizing the needy, well, need, and should be helped.

However, indiscriminate gushing is not warranted. Yes, he's engaging. Yes, he lays it out as to the needy, the environment and other issues of concern to us. But, there still is a lot of bad stuff, even if one is willing to accept that some people are religious. Many denominations have moved on equality (which includes women and gays) without giving up their faith.

[PeaceNikki]

18. You can. I won't. Not now, not ever.

[merrily]

19. Nor would I force you to.

[PeaceNikki]

20. Reproductive freedom is integral to the discussions on poverty and climate change.

Being opposed to contraception is a hypocritical position that I will not praise.

[merrily]

21. I never said he should be praised for things like that. Indeed, I've been saying the opposite.

I am saying that I don't have a problem with someone praising the good things he tries to accomplish. I would not object if someone did that, but I would understand if someone did not want to praise him for even that. The rest, I vigorously object to.

[WinkyDink]

105. I find it bizarre that Catholicism, and Christianity as a whole, gets more criticism than one other

in-the-news major religion. J/S.

And in this century, there is only one major religion killing people for not following it.

[PeaceNikki]

106. WEIRD, I hear the opposite anytime I criticize Islam. Right, the RCC kills people differently.

[LostOne4Ever]

114. Agree!

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Criticize Christianity and we get accused of never criticizing Islam.

Criticize Islam and we get accused of never criticizing Christianity.

It is almost like...we criticize both religions equally and they both use their ignorance of our history of criticism as a lazy excuse to try and avoid the issue doesn't it?[/font]

[PeaceNikki]

115. Exactly.

[Nye Bevan]

2. Especially since Joe Biden, who most here seem to like, is a devout Catholic (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Joe voted for DOMA and for decades opposed civil rights because of his faith. Don't much like him.

In his VP debate he shouted out his agreement with Sarah Palin that marriage equality was against his beliefs. On TV, shat on us to get himself a gig.

[merrily]

17. I'm sorry.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Joe and Barack both said shitty things and hired hate preachers to attack us and never apologized

Now they do it again with Francis. It's not the first time they have praised anti gay bigot preachers. It gets tiresome.

[merrily]

24. I know. I'm sorry. I wish it had been otherwise.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. My heart is breaking

Francis is here for the Meeting of Families, which is a conservative anti marriage equality and anti choice event.
Last Year, Francis was keynote speaker at a three day conference in Rome, again dedicated to opposing marriage equality. A Vatican produced event, the invited guests included Tony Perkins of FRC and Maggie Gallagher of NOM and people from the Heritage Foundation and Rick Warren and all the fundies from A to Z.
"Adds Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council: “The atmosphere was almost euphoric as the attendees from six of the world’s seven continents broke from the historic gathering to return to their respective nations renewed in their stand for marriage,” he says. “The courts may declare otherwise, and Hollywood may depict its demise, but the union of a man and a woman as the natural and enduring definition of marriage will endure until the end.”
http://time.com/3597245/vatican-evangelicals-mormons-gay-marriage/

Why this is being praised here without qualification is beyond me.

[merrily]

99. Too bad for them. Marriage equality is the supreme law of the land in the USA and we were behind

some other nations. Their time is ending. Their ugly way is ending.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Oh so bigotry is his heritage and birhtright? And he must be allowed to preach his bigotry in

the Congress? His message is not of social justice. He's anti woman and anti gay. Refreshingly progressive homophobic opponent of contraception? Are you serious?

You excuse bigotry.

[mhatrw]

5. Is the Pope Catholic? n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

7. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot is a bigot-Gertrude Stein

nt

[CincyDem]

15. Does a bear sh*t in the woods? n/t

[PeaceNikki]

8. Also, Pope McDreamy gets a hell of a lot more love than criticism here.

This isn't a Catholic board. Would you prefer that those of us who have issues with him and the RCC just shut the fuck up? Well, tough. If you want to only read resounding praises of the leader of an organization responsible for the death and oppression of millions, you'll have to find another place. This isn't it and I hope will never be such a place.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. I expect the Pope to be a bigoted asshole, I do not expect so called 'liberals' to cheer for his

bigotry and anti choice conservatism. This is a political board, not a Catholic board. Shoving any religion into the faces of others is wrong. Demanding that we agree with prejudiced right wing filth is way out of line.

Do you also like some racists if they say 'climate change' for you? I'm sure that you do.

[SidDithers]

28. "This is a political board, not a Catholic board"...

Well said.

Sid

[mhatrw]

30. I won't like them. But I would agree with them about climate change.

Wouldn't you?

[Bluenorthwest]

34. I sure as hell would not start OPs in which I claim a racist or bigot is progressive, which is what

you and others do. You praise him and you excuse his bigotry. You attack anyone who is critical of his bigotry. You seem, in fact, to be comfortable with his prejudice and his opposition to civil rights and reproductive choice.

[treestar]

50. Are we supposed to shun everyone in our lives

who is bigoted? Even our closest family members?

How is progress made? Certainly not by the hatred you display. You go so far with your victimhood stance, I swear you prefer it and don't want to see anyone make any progress. As you still hate Obama and Biden even if they've come around. That's because you want to continue to be a victim.

You don't give a damn about the poor, the climate, any other group who is oppressed, like trying to hijack a thread about the boy who built the clock. Who cares about bigotry against Muslims? Only one type bigotry counts with you and even if people overcome it, it's still not good enough.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. I did not say any of these things. Shun? Where did I suggest any such thing?

You are attacking me with lots of totally false and made up bullshit. You put words into my mouth then try to convict me for those words.
It's just you being a bully. I said not such thing, and how dare you claim I don't care about other things. You are a bully and a liar posting unsupported attacks against a DUer. Where are your links, where is even a single quote? You make up shit and ascribe it to me as if you think I am property.

If you want to continue attacking me you need to back up your libels. You have no right to bear false witness against others.

[Maedhros]

101. But they are NOT cheering for his "bigotry and anti-choice conservatism."

These things are rightfully pointed out as backward, hurtful and wrong.

People are cheering for his stances on economic equality. It's the same as praising Obama for his Iran deal even though he bombed Libya back to the Stone Age and inflicting untold misery and despair on the entire country, based entirely on lies.

[merrily]

14. Perhaps no change in thousands* of years should not be accepted or excused so very casually?

The Catholic Church did not invent homophobia or misogyny. Both are very evident in the Old Testament. The Apostle Paul supposedly "brought them forward" into the New Testament, and therefore into Christianity. However, many Jews and many Christians have been able to move past all that. They accept contraception and legal abortion and celebrate women and gays, in reality-based recognition that it is no longer 8,000 B.C.E. and the stuff considered holy then may have been more evil than holy.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Cake and eat it too. RCC says their Church was established by Christ upon Peter, 'upon this rock'

They claim that moment as the creation of the Church and Peter as Pope #1. So if it is Christian, according to the RCC they did in fact invent it.

That same New Testament says women can't speak in public, must be silent, ask questions only of their husbands and only at home, they are to abstain from expensive clothing or any other clothing that is intended to highlight beauty. How come that never gets a mention? Why is Joe Biden wailing about gay people when his own wife is doing all of those forbidden things? The New Testament says it is Joe's job to control her. She's not supposed to dress up and go give a speech. That is forbidden in the faith they claim but don't really follow.
This lie that the NT says nothing about how straights must behave and only says 'hate those gays' is in fact a lie. Christians, all of them, ignore all the rules they do not like and they shout about the rules against other people.

Hypocrites are hypocrites. I know what the NT says. When one of them follows it, I'll believe they are 'believers' and not just bigots in search of excuses for their actions.

[merrily]

38. I see it as aborbing much older beliefs into Christianity, not as inventing them, but whatever.

They can be changed and it is the Pope who has the power to change them.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. I understand. It's just so galling to see DU affect a great devotion to an anti gay bigot.

Clearly we have no actual home in this Party. All of our candidates are lavishing praise on a man who says my rights are Satan's idea. I don't want to vote for that.

[merrily]

44. I'm sorry. I don't think they intend at all to endorse the Church's homophobia or misogyny, only

those of his statements that most of us would agree with. I think politicians use what they see as being available to them, to help them forward their agenda, in this case taking care of the needy, immigration and climate change.

BTW, as I typed, Maddow was on TV saying he is calling us to embrace our better angels. So, there you have it, I guess.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. Rachel came from a very conservative Catholic family, she's not really in charge of my brain.

Maybe she's just trying to be nice because she's paid an enormous amount of money and her family is watching?

I just don't define 'better angels' as inclusive of anti gay dogma and a lack of reproductive choice. Both of those are part of Francis agenda.
Endorsing anti gay preachers is politics as usual. The part I like the least. My enthusiasm and sense of hope is just gone.

[merrily]

98. I wish I knew something to say. The only thing I can think of is that, while still very painful,

it's so much better than even five years ago and that makes me hopeful for more soon.

[Orsino]

22. Vitriol is an appropriate response to any supporting regressive views...

...but particularly to those wielding significant temporal power.

The Pope doesn't get a pass just because his packaging is indelibly stamped. He should still have to eat what he kills.

[merrily]

45. Thing is, it's indelible, only if and to the degree the Pope says it is.

[Orsino]

48. Well, to the degree a given Pope says plus centuries of all the other Popes and dogma.

Francis can move the needle, but flip-flopping would undermine his authority as shoe model of the Fisherman. He's trapped.

[merrily]

51. I think that's an excuse. Limbo was very old and had been explained and justified up the yin yang.

It went.

[Orsino]

53. Of course it's an excuse.

An excuse to prop up a mythology that doesn't withstand a moment's scrutiny.

More to your point, though, discounting Limbo was many decades old and no one cared by the time the Church's own embarrassment led them to give it up. Let a Pope start talking climate change, inequality, the ordination of women or same- sex marriage, though, and we got trouble in Vatican City, friends.

[merrily]

55. Not so fast. Contraception. You think there's going to be a big outcry against allowing that?

BTW, he is already talking climate change and inequality.

[Orsino]

58. Thanks. I'd forgotten contraception.

Yeah, there would be a huge outcry about that, too, given the enormous investment by the Church in shaming women and demanding quivers full of the next generation--despite the rank and file's cheerfully ignoring the prohibition when it becomes inconvenient or unhealthy. Flip on something people were successfully made to care about for a long time, and they start questioning a lot of your other pronouncements.

Contraception will eventually win, I like to think, but it won't be with the whimper that greeted the admission that Limbo was all made up.

Climate change and inequality are ultimately going to be big victories for this Pope, too (thanks to the huge impacts already felt by ordinary folks), but the powers that be will fight to the death.

[merrily]

59. I disagree as to contraception and probably other things too.

Anything he has said, even "Who am I to judge?" has received much praise.

[Orsino]

67. "Who am I to judge?" plays very well with those of us who aren't all that judgmental...

...or who like to think we aren't. Most of us, though, are judgy as hell.

You'd think that authorizing contraception would be a no-brainer, but it's unfortunately tied to the subjugation of women and the survival of the Church. If Francis is at all inclined to relax restrictions, it's going to be a game of inches, with excuses convoluted if not actually laughable. I doubt he'll attempt it.

[merrily]

70. We disagree. And doing the right thing is not contingent upon audience reaction, esp. for a Pope.

[Orsino]

74. Keeping one's powder dry is a genuine concern.

Just as President Obama gave up his talk of single-payer, Pope Francis can't dismantle certain institutionalized discrimination overnight. Doing the right thing gets complicated when male egos and the entitlement of the wealthy are concerned, and a wise leader treads lightly.

I doubt that Francis is inclined to do what is obviously the right thing when it comes to contraception. Even if he were, he would not do it overnight.

[merrily]

75. I said nothing about overnight. You're reaching.

[Orsino]

92. You haven't really specified a time-frame...

...but your earlier reply about change happening when a Pope says it does includes the possibility of overnight change. I think that he would be overreaching if he went that route for anything big.

I say his job is political, and that means caution, for the most part.

[SidDithers]

25. ...

"I don't go in for ancient wisdom
I don't believe just 'cos ideas are tenacious it means they're worthy"

- From the most excellent Tim Minchin.

The Church hasn't changed in 1000 years because the successive Popes who lead that Church, present Pope included, don't want it to change. The RCC is a bigoted, homophobic, mysoginistic institution, and the head homophobe bigot mysoginist of that institution shouldn't be lauded by progressives any where, any time, any place.

Sid

[mhatrw]

32. Thank Jesus that non-progressives can dismiss the Pope's economic justice message.

We wouldn't want anybody taking that message seriously. Now would we?

[Bluenorthwest]

40. That's the problem right there. You want to define 'justice' to mean 'anti gay and anti choice

policy'. The Pope's message is not of economic justice. It is about opposing birth control and the rights of LGBT persons. Obviously conservatives like yourself want to promote that anti gay and anti choice message with abandon.

If you had actual respect for issues of economic justice or the climate you would not in fact seek to tie those issues to atavistic theology and bigoted views of others There can be no justice when some people are not treated equally. What the Pope wants in not justice but control. There can be no justice without reproductive freedom of choice.

You are just furious that women and LGBT have a voice in today's world and that we are free and able to object to the intolerant bigotry of the status quo.

[mhatrw]

46. You are the one tying the views together. I am being a good cafeteria Catholic. n/t

[SidDithers]

56. Cafeteria Catholic. LOL...

The RCC will never change as long as Cafeteria Catholics like you continue to provide cover for the homphobia, bigotry and mysoginy inherent in the Church. The Church will never change as long as Cafeteria Catholics like you continue filling the collection plate.

Why are you even a Catholic if you don't agree (I'm assuming you don't agree) with the Church's position on LGBT, women, and abortion?



Sid

[Fix The Stupid]

63. it's always crickets when you ask this question. Always. n/t

[alarimer]

89. This is exactly my point.

I don't get it. There are so many things wrong with the church and its doctrines that I cannot understand why people still support it. It is certainly not allowed, according to the doctrine, to pick and choose the beliefs you adhere to, while not adhering to others. Kind of an all or none proposition, it seems to me.

[SidDithers]

90. Being Catholic is a choice....

Wouldn't it make more sense to choose to belong to an organization more in line with your beliefs?

It's like being a pro-LGBT, pro-choice, pro-equality Republican. It doesn't make sense.



Sid

[mhatrw]

137. Right. Or like being a lower or middle class Clinton supporter. n/t

[mhatrw]

109. If you disagree with one doctrine, why can't you disagree with the all or none doctrine?

There are so many things wrong the Democratic party and DNC. How are you still a Democrat?

[PeaceNikki]

117. Democrats don't have Canon Law which forbids such a thing.

According to canon law, Catholics cannot pick and choose from the tenets of their religion. If you consider yourself a Catholic, you owe it to yourself take a hard look at the beliefs required by your Church’s religious law. Arguably the most repellent precept in canon law is also the most important for people claiming to be Catholic:

“. . . religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals . . . therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.” Canon 752.

According to that law, there is no such thing as a “cafeteria Catholic.”

[mhatrw]

129. Again, I am not a Catholic. But if a self-identified Catholic disagrees

the Church's doctrines on abortion and gay rights, what is stopping this same individual from disagreeing with the Church on its all-or-nothing doctrine? There are a lot of Catholics working from within the Church to try to change its doctrines for the better. Not my cup of tea, but I commend them for doing so.

You know, like the way Clinton takes hundreds of millions in corporate $ while promising to reform campaign finance.

[PeaceNikki]

130. .

[mhatrw]

133. You are preaching to the choir on this one.

I'm not sure who else you expect your message to resonate with, though.

[mhatrw]

108. I'm not. I am pointing out that Catholics (such as RFK, JFK and Biden)

generally take what they accept about Catholic doctrine (faith and good works) and dismiss what they do not accept (sex divorced from procreation is sinful).

Most practicing Catholics in the US appreciate the community and service aspects of their religion, but disagree with the Church is on sexual proscriptions.

It's like how most Hillary Clinton supporters manage to look past her bankster allegiances, dismissal of single payer healthcare, and support of welfare reform.

Why are you even a Clinton supporter if you don't agree with her on these issues?

[Arugula Latte]

116. It's amazing, isn't it Sid?

I just shake my head at the disconnect of these "progressive" Catholics who continue to support a virulently patriarchal, homophobic, women-hating institution.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. A buffet bullshitter? That's a term of art meaning 'hypocrite'. Look, if you can't deal with

people assuming you believe the faith you claim then do not claim that faith but being offended that people think you believe what you say you believe is daft assholery. I do not tie those views together, those are the views of the RCC and Francis, you just want to ignore the parts you don't like so you can belch out devotions to a bigot.

A religion that is not devoutly followed quickly becomes nothing but a series of excuses for bad behavior toward others.

[mhatrw]

110. I'm not a Catholic. I was just born that way.

If you were a recovering Catholic, you would understand why the current Pope feels like a breath of fresh air compared to the last Pope.

It's sort of like how Nixon looks good compared to all the Republican presidents who have followed after him.

[PeaceNikki]

43. Who exactly do you credit him with influencing? With whom is his message resonating?

The religious right? Ha! No.
The non-religious right? Nope.
The non- religious left? Maybe, a little, but these people already are on board with economic justice and many of us take serious issue with the hypocrisy of the message.
The religious left? Yes! He's literally "preaching to the choir". Yipee!

[mhatrw]

49. I think the message is important.

I am happy and grateful to have an important religious leader spreading the message, even though I strongly disagree with other views he espouses.

Yes, I set the bar really low for major religious leaders, but this is only because of my lifetime experiences with them. The fact that I strongly agree with a Pope on anything is refreshing to me.

[PeaceNikki]

54. With whom is that message resonating?

[mhatrw]

112. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

How would either of us presume to know? Are you an expert in every culture in the world?

[PeaceNikki]

113. rofl

follow the subthread, ffs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027198010#post32

[mhatrw]

127. I followed the subthread. You don't have a single clue

whom the Pope's economic injustice message is resonating with or whom it is not resonating with.

First, the Pope is not an American politician. He is a global figure. Do you even understand that?

[PeaceNikki]

128. lol

[mhatrw]

131. LOL.

The religious right?
The non-religious right?
The non- religious left?
The religious left?

Do you have any idea what these labels even mean in Central Africa?

[PeaceNikki]

132. Weird, I thought all of this week's hubub is because he's speaking to the US Congress.

[mhatrw]

134. In the USA, hopefully his message will reach some Republican Catholics.

I doubt anything moral would resonate among those fuckers, but it may just get a few of them to reconsider their values.

[Brickbat]

36. Who knew progressives would go to pieces over a religious leader who happened to say something they

agree with?

[treestar]

47. Yes, and I'll take agreement where I can get it

His views are helpful to the poor and the planet.

We have to build bridges with people. We won't convince them with vitriol. Shunning and insulting right wingers has done what to convince them to be pro-choice and pro-gay?

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Your views are well known.

" There is nothing bigoted about the fact

There there is only one right you do not have. And people who give no credit to Obama for what he did already while making as if it is the only issue that matters are just wrong. There's always going to be some new demand. I am a woman and we don't have all our rights all the time, or some are threatened, but this is the US where we can talk about it, protest and I don't go around saying I have no rights. Not when looking at women in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for instance.

If I am a bigot for caring about other issues, then fine. I don't think gay marriage is the only civil rights issue there is. Or the only issue that matters. And there is free speech. And the rest of the bill of rights. You should be ashamed for not caring about anyone or anything else."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022947372#post283

It's from the thread 'DU opposes all disruptive activists' which is also ironic as fuck. Everyone should read that thread and all you say in it, as it demonstrates why this religionism is so toxic.

[treestar]

68. zzzzzzz

you will never forgive anyone anything, even if they agree with you. Your definition of a homophobe includes everyone, even all other gay people.

The poor or the planet don't matter, and no one is to be convinced, because even if they are it is not good enough, wasn't soon enough. Every human who lived in the middle ages is to be condemned forever, because they certainly weren't in favor of gay marriage.

You will be granted your wish to always be the victim of homophobia. Because everyone else besides yourself is homophobic. Your views that nothing else matters are well known. The poor, those discriminated against for other reasons, or indeed the planet can go hang - they don't matter because they are all homophobes.

You couldn't even sympathize with that kid in Texas. You had to make a thread about him and what he suffered about DUers who you falsely accused of not caring about gay rights as much as they seemed to care about this kid. That's right, you didn't give a shit about that kid.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. And you who never asked for forgiveness just attack again. You who claim to be bridge building

I'm not going to apologize for pointing out your consistent dismissal of LGBT rights. You are not neutral on the issues and your statements have never been retracted. You never apologized, not even for the factually incorrect parts such as saying we have all but one right when we can be fired, evicted, all sorts of things.
And you lie again, I made no thread about that kid, nor did I comment on the kid. I commented on those complaining about comics being critical of religion and in that case, the poster was making false claims about what was said. My comment had nothing to do with the kid, an innocent bystander in that rhetorical wave of bullshit.
I post what you said, you rant on about what you falsely claim I said. I quote, you characterize. That's because I am right and you are full of crap.

[yellowcanine]

52. The abortion position of the Catholic Church has not been a constant, however.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

And even on contraception, where there has been more consistency since the second century, the Catholic Church as winked a bit at the notion that sex is only for procreation by promoting the rhythm method and also by having no problem with non fertile married couples engaging in sex.

As for gayness, this Pope is on the record as saying "Who am I to judge?"

This Pope has raised expectations of a more socially progressive outlook. People have a right to hold him accountable for it.

[LostOne4Ever]

61. The "who am I to judge" comment was about priest who remain celebate!

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It was not an endorsment of gays, gay right, or same sex marriage.

It was the churches position that they have had for DECADES now, and still just as bigoted.

This double speech of the pope is why he is the PR pope. No real change but just enough vague wording to fool the gullible.

His actual position is that being gay is a sin, ssm is from the devil, and allowing gays to adopt is tantamount to child abuse.[/font]

[SidDithers]

64. Yup...

I cringe every time someone throws out "Who am I to judge".

Good post.

Sid

[mhatrw]

120. Got Hypocrisy?

Hillary Clinton recently insisted to NPR's Terry Gross that her former opposition to marriage equality came from deeply held moral beliefs rather than any kind of political calculation.

How could anyone you ever support her with such bigoted "moral" beliefs?

[SidDithers]

121. She changed...

has Pope Photo-Op?

Sid

[mhatrw]

126. Why has she changed? Did her deeply held moral beliefs change?

Or just her focus group results?

[SidDithers]

135. You'd have to ask her...

and why are you asking about Hillary? Can't defend the bigot in the funny hat? Need distraction?



Sid

[mhatrw]

138. I'm suggesting that people can support, say, Obama's views on gay marriage,

while disputing, say, Obama's views on the NSA spying.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. They do not mind the dishonesty of that claim at all.

That quote comes from a rant that is actually very nasty toward LGBT and says we should not have any community or relationships of any kind, not just sexual but nothing. 'It's bad, the gay lobby' he says. It's bad.

[mhatrw]

119. "Who am I to judge?" is a BIG step forward

Hillary Clinton recently insisted to NPR's Terry Gross that her former opposition to marriage equality came from deeply held moral beliefs rather than any kind of political calculation.

So who knows? There may be hope for the Pope yet.

[NCTraveler]

60. His views are based in inequality, not equality as you are trying to say.

Your inability to grasp the vitriol directed at someone fighting for inequality says a lot. He is not fighting for equality as you are attempting to say. His platform can be defined as unequal. The bigot can stuff it.

[LostOne4Ever]

65. Who knew that Pat Robertson was a Southern Baptist?

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I find the vitriol toward him for opposing abortion, gay rights and full equality for women a bit puzzling. It's as if people are infuriated to discover that Robertson supports centuries old Baptist doctrine. The Baptist Church has held for over 400 years that the only legitimate sexual act is one that culminates in attempted procreation. The Church still teaches that masturbaton is a mortal sin, for Christ's sake.

It's about as easy for him to overtum that doctrine as it is for a US president to overturn the second amendment. I'm not defending the doctrine. It is demeaning and absurd, as well as woefully outdated. But castigating Roberts for being anti-abortion and anti-gay is much like castigating an atheist for being anti-God.

I also find it bizarre how many mouthpieces of the top 1% try to dismiss the Robertson's refreshingly progressive message of economic and social justice by lambasting his adherence to 400+ year old Baptist doctrine. It is possible to embrace a certain message fully while still denouncing other beliefs of the messenger.


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Oh btw:

[Deadshot]

76. Gee, maybe I should be more tolerant of someone who is against LGBT rights

and against abortion. I know, maybe I should support Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz for President. That's what you're essentially insinuating I should do.

[gateley]

77. I don't expect him to embrace abortion, gay rights or women as priests,

But he isn't judging or condemning those who've had abortions or LGBT folks -- that's HUGE.

I agree with your post wholeheartedly -- unrealistic expectations. He's really shaken up the Church already. We'll see where he goes from here.

And the top 1% (and just a lot of Republicans) have made money and profit their God, but we've known that for a long time.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Of course he's judging us. He opposes our equal rights. It is not possible to determine that some

minority is unworthy of rights without judging them. His quote 'who am I to judge' is misrepresented by persons who want to promote Francis, but it is taken from a very anti gay speech he made about the 'gay lobby'. It's not a good speech. It's not about gay people but about priests.
It is available to read, and LGBT people can read.

[gateley]

85. I understand your point, but perhaps you could try to understand mine, too.

If not, we're cool. Carry on.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Your point is that he's not judging, but he is.

I can understand saying 'I agree with him on this, but not on that'. I do not understand the claim that he is not judging people he calls disordered and influenced by Satan. He judges us. It is not possible to declare others to be disordered and unworthy of family without judging them. To suggest he is not judging us suggests that his statements are simply factual.

[gateley]

100. Thank you for your response. nt

[alarimer]

87. The deal is to accept ANY of it, you have to accept ALL of it, even the nasty parts.

This is a horrific organizations and has always been. Just because the new guy gives people the warm and fuzzies doesn't mean you can dismiss the evil that the Catholic Church fundamentally is.

I hate ALL of it. I can dismiss everything he says about poverty because, without full equality under the law everywhere, LGBT folks will still face it, especially in places where discrimination is allowed because of the church.

Women have absolutely the right to their own bodies and in places where all health care is controlled by Catholic organizations, this is a severe problem for them. There is a very long history of treating women like they are nothing more than incubators, which is also an economic issue.

But you know, women aren't really people to the Catholic Church, so it's easy to dismiss their concerns.

[mhatrw]

122. That's only the deal if you make it the deal.

Last edited Sun Sep 27, 2015, 06:25 AM - Edit history (1)

If you disagree with any single Church doctrine and you still identify as a Catholic, then you obviously do not accept the all or nothing doctrine, either.

On the abortion issue, if you actually believe that human life begins at conception and thus that fetuses have a right to life equal with that of humans, then it follows that abortion is murder. That is why abortion rights are and have been so controversial. While I personally believe that women must have the final say on their own reproductive systems, I can also see how that view can be disputed by someone whose belief system characterizes abortion as the murder of an innocent human being.

[Codeine]

96. He's the bigoted mouthpiece of a global child abuse ring.

DU needs to quit lickspittling over the man and realize he's a backwards despot who buys support for his medieval bullshit by carefully crafting a few soundbites to get the easily-fooled all atwitter over his "progressiveness."

[BlueIndyBlue]

97. So much conflicting imagery from this Pope.

As an African-American female member of the Episcopal Church and a "B" member of the LGBTQ family, I have been experiencing widely varying feelings about this Pope. The best way for me to describe where I am right now with this comes from Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, a gay man, on the controversy surrounding his being invited to the White House yesterday.

"We disagree in our understandings about sexuality and the diverse and wonderful ways God has made us. But as far as I am concerned, that does not keep me from admiring you and praying for you and your ministry."

and this.....

"We have so much that binds us together, and so little that separates us. We are probably never going to settle those differences. As for me, I am willing to acknowledge the saintly integrity with which you hold your views, even if I disagree with them, as I hope you might acknowledge my striving for integrity in mine. It seems that in these times, the greatest sin would be to write one another off and to stop caring about one another."

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/19/a-gay-episcopal-bishop-s-open-letter-to-the-pope.html

My own church is still kicking and screaming regarding gay marriage and the Anglican Communion itself is going to probably become a loose federation over it. But I just can't see writing off anyone when forceful dialogue in the face of disagreement is the most effect way to change hearts and minds.

[underpants]

102. A bear in the woods told me

That and something about forest fires. Very informative. Had on a hat, but not like a Pope hat or anything.

[Arugula Latte]

103. Who knew so-called progressives would slobber over the head of a

misogynistic, homophobic, oppressive, corrupt, secretive institution with a centuries-old history of repression, child rape, plunder, and worse?

[mhatrw]

124. Who knew that progressives would salute the flag of

misogynistic, homophobic, oppressive, corrupt, secretive country with a centuries-old history of repression, genocide, plunder, and worse?

[Arugula Latte]

136. At least here women are now entitled to vote and hold power, abortion is (somewhat) legal,

and gay marriage was legalized.

[Myrina]

104. Off Topic - sorta - but when I was growing up in N.E. Wisconsin ...

... one of the sayings of exclamation used to be " ...is the Pope Polish?"
we had to stop that one John Paul was selected.

[Humanist_Activist]

107. His message isn't refreshing or new, in addition you are arguing that Catholic beliefs are bigoted..

I would agree, the difference is I don't give them a pass because they spring from a religion, why do you?

[mhatrw]

125. I don't give him a pass. I appreciate that he's good for a Pope.

Sort of like the way I appreciate Obama as being good for a corporatist politician.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

111. People need to realize that the Pope's not anyone's trained monkey.

He's not going to go out there and say just whatever any liberals want him to say or conservatives want him to say.

He's going to speak on behalf of his church, for better or worse, whether you happen to agree with what he's saying or not.

He's not a Democrat, a Republican, an American political liberal or an American political conservative. He's not even a US Citizen. He's the freaking Pope. So take him for what he's worth, applaud what you want to hear, and discard anything you don't want to hear.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

[Rex]

118. People do what they've done since the first BBS...they vent their pent up anger and

frustration that they cannot release in RL. So they come here to vent and feel better.