Oppressing gays and women; sheltering tens of thousands of child rapists, torturers, and mutilators from justice; contributing to the deaths of millions by working to block access to contraception in the second and third worlds; but other than that unimportant stuff he's super swell. He even owns an old car, parks it right outside one of his million square foot gold plated palaces.

gay rights, women's rights and children's rights because someone saw the light on four other issues.

He needs to understand that his improvements now are just where many progressives have
been for decades.

He would make a better leader if he followed those who are there already.


Tikki

I read part of his paper that my daughter had printed out to read on our long Thanksgiving/Hannukah trip. (This daughter studied world religions at Holy Cross (a Jesuit college) and then at the University of London so it was fun reading it with her.) His comments on the economy are incredibly well stated and very strong - better than the famous Elizabeth Warren comments that went viral.

As economic statements, they were as clear and as well backed up as anything I have read from any politician or any "progressive" pundit. Where he can go further than they is in making this a moral issue. He weaves his moral guidelines and his religious leadership in with his economic observations that really boiled down to income inequality.

As to others "already there", it is enormous chutzpah to think that he is taking a new position. In Latin America, the Catholic Church has had many leaders who have fought for the poor and the disposed - and they have done that for decades.

Not to mention, this is not a race. His position, his genuine eloquence and almost poetic way of speaking about these issues while tying them to the heart of what it means to be human as well as religious is very very powerful. What is clear to me is that he may be able to reach people who "progressives" simply alienated.

It might be better to see him - on some very important issues - is working towards the same goals and who has a position and a style that could increase the number of people who agree with your position.

your eyes.

The issue like women's reproductive rights does have a real economic component and other issues
should not be bought off or slowed down by saying…'just be nice'.




Tikki

paper stating his views.

Your comment is similar to me saying that you see everyone only through a lens of women's reproductive rights. I doubt the Catholic Church will ever take a position on that that will satisfy you. That does not mean that they can not - or do not - do good in other ways.

Have you ever read anything about what Dorothy Day did?

or trivial. We come into this world as a whole person...


Tikki

No one EVER speaks in complete detail on every single issue. He wrote an 84 page document and he chose the focus. It is mostly about the church and its pastoral role.

I assume that if I look through your posts, there are likely subjects that you never opt to focus on. Does that make you less a full person? (I certainly have neither the time or interest to figure out what you opt not to address.)

Here, his focus is primarily the church that he now leads - and his message is to get out into the streets to help those wounded by life.

of those who do not accept church doctrine as a lifestyle choice.

Do you know someone void of all religion? The way we see the World..be all you can be..


Tikki

- including some very beloved close relatives! Obviously this was not intended to reach everyone.

Sometimes the truth looks ugly, because it reflects an ugly truth.

truth. Nuance is in short supply here these days. This pope is nuanced, striking at the heart of the fundamentalism and insisting that Christians act like Christ for a change, not just use his name.

He certainly got all the 'right' people very upset, so we know he's doing something right.

Benedict was much more hard-right on other social issues, but this is not new. People getting excited over this didn't pay any attention, apparently, to the last two popes.

The only difference I can see is, the previous pope said these things while wrapped in gold and velvet and gaudy riches, while this one makes a much better, less hypocritical PR show, when he says the same things.


it's still the same material, they've just changed the packaging.

Did you support him for that?

People absolutely paid attention to the pope, particularly Right Wing fundies here in the US who voted Republican and attacked Democratic Catholics like Kerry on the same issues they have always used in the past and succeeded. Now they cannot do this anymore, and that is the big difference this pope has made in just a few months.

Seems to me that those who constantly attack people who try to take some steps in the right direction, are not interested in any kind of change and are doing it under cover of 'caring' about something they really don't care about at all. What they really want is to protect the status quo for some reason.

I can't wait to talk to some Right Wing fundies again who I know will repeat their old talking points about how Christian they are, and how evil Democrats are, but now I have a powerful weapon to slam these hypocrites with, thanks to this pope.

"That Guy Looks Familiar:"

Maybe they finally got the answer to their whining question about OWS 'but they have no LEADER'.

I am not attacking, I am highlighting the core problem with this church and it's foundational dogma, and where it intersects with US law. (Particularly in the lawmaking process, via lobbying)

"are doing it under cover of 'caring' about something they really don't care about at all."

Fuck that bullshit. My father suffered for 6 months until his body finally gave out, because of the systemic spending, lobbying, and voting of this particular religious sect, opposing physician assisted suicide.

'don't care about at all' is FUCKING BULLSHIT thank you very much.

The difference is that he is calling for an expansion of the church's pastoral efforts to engage and help the poor. While it is true that there are times that he agrees with Benedict, there are others where his comments are very much the opposite. The biggest is that Benedict saw that a smaller "purer" church would be better - while Francis said he would prefer a church wounded for having been in the streets. He also speaks against groups (not named, but such as Opus Dei)

To put it in political terms, this might be as big the difference between what Rick Santorum
and John Kerry got out of Catholicism.

You are the one missing the changes in SUBSTANCE to focus on the accompanying changes in grandeur.

That means getting OUT of various political arenas. Till then, I consider the church hostile to my beliefs, political and personal, and no amount of work with the poor will excuse the church's other lobbying efforts.

He's got the gays and many women upset because of his views.

He's really doing something right there.

One might think that such a thing would never need be said anywhere, let alone here on DU, but there it is.

If you are unfamiliar with the Catholic Church's ongoing child rape and torture activities -- and just how VAST these activities actually were -- then you really have no business commenting about the church or this pope.

one of those who believe, like some Swedish politicians do, that all men are guilty of rape because men commit rape and should pay a rape tax. It is an extreme, in fact nutty position, but some actually do ascribe to it.

You introduced something that has nothing to do with this pope, to my knowledge he is not a child rapist, out of the blue so yes, I AM AT A LOSS.

Or do you ascribe blanket guilt to all people who happen to belong to organizations or are citizens of countries, where a minority are criminals??

Enlighten us as to your beliefs on this. To me you appear to be ascribing blanket guilt to every member of a nearly one billion member organization. Because otherwise your comment has no relevance to this thread.

Let me put the question more clearly, are you saying that because the pope is a Catholic priest, he is a child rapist?

Well done.

Only time will tell ====== His underlings and "flock" are still in the same old mold when it comes to women and the whole GLBT debate

Yeah, I know, he owns an old car they drag out for photo ops.

and I guess I see now why there is a protected group for Catholics on DU.

On the inside...not so much.

and am very grateful that he is now pope.

Do you think he would have pushed Bush down our throats?

Are you unaware that he is taking on many holy cows such as trickle down economics?

Jesus Christ as pope and the same crowd would be doing the same with the same issues.

Not like this church doesn't spend millions per year, lobbying on shit that IMPACTS ME AND MY FAMILY DIRECTLY.

IF ONLY not believing in it got its fucking dogma out of my life, out of my legislature, out of my laws, off my ballot.

What an empty load of nonsense.

It's a regressive, misogynist, bigoted from the core of their dogma, organization. I won't stand by and allow this greenwashing on ONE issue to absolve them of their CONTINUED aggression toward any number of progressive causes. Sorry if that bothers you.

My jugulars are working just fine, whatever the pressure level.

so it had little impact.

Plus he was using his position to get kooks like Bush selected again and again.

but he still pretty backward on "social" issues. At least he says he is. I genuinely like him, but I'm well aware of how his theology limits his thinking, or at least his speech. But I'll never see another politician as a hero ever again.

but the positions he holds are not any different than the guy with the fancy shoes.

But, even if it's just window dressing, I'm glad that he's able to get people to talk about economic inequality in a way that makes it difficult for right wing Catholics to justify their support for Republican policies - esp. when the Republicans are the politicians.

It's not just window dressing. It's entirely in keeping with his life as a Bishop and Cardinal, where he worked directly with the poor.

Benedict said the same shit.

Benedict gave lip service, nothing more.


This pope is putting his words into action.

Ok, so he's not wearing the fancy shoes and sitting on a golden throne. Big deal. Both items are sitting on standby in a room nearby you can bet. Not like he's auctioning that shit off and helping the poor with the proceeds.

We MIGHT see an audit of the Vatican bank. Maybe.

And what is being done to implement it.

If you want things to change overnight in an institution that has a massive and entrenched hierarchy as the RCC does, you are in for some disappointment.


I don't see any of his detractors auctioning off all their possessions to help the poor, either.

the church's lobbying on same sex marriage? On abortion? On family planning? On contraception? On physician assisted suicide?

He's not going to change any of those issues. He CAN'T and he has actually actively upheld all of them.

Until ALL of those budge, my opinion of the church does not change, and I will continue to highlight that the church opposes these things (and more), regardless of whatever economic charm offensive is afoot.

is very different from any recent predecessor.

It's not just window dressing. It's entirely in keeping with his life as a Bishop and Cardinal, where he worked directly with the poor.

...is very much like that of Paul VI.

Although I am an Anglican, not a Roman Catholic, I have found Pope Francis to be a breath of fresh air after the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. But it is important to remember that while Pope Francis has certainly struck a different tone than his two predecessors, he has not really staked out any new ground for the Roman Catholic Church. His concern for the poor and marginalized, and his critique of unfettered capitalism, stands in the same line of theological reasoning as the encyclical, "Rerum Novarum," issued in the late 19th C. by Pope Leo XIII, and of "Populorum Progressio," the 1967 encyclical issued by Pope Paul VI. If anything was a theological innovation (and arguably not one for the better), it was the conflation of the Church's long-standing institutional and social conservatism with political and economic conservatism, of which the Church had traditionally kept a wary (and wise) distance. Thus, Pope Francis should be seen as guiding the Church back to its long-standing commitments to social and economic justice.

It is thus a mistake to expect a great deal of movement on those vexing cultural questions, at least not anytime in the near future. The Pope cannot act alone. He needs the support of at least a plurality of the College of Cardinals. Unfortunately, both of Francis' predecessors made a point of packing that body by appointing relatively young cardinals who shared their theological-cum-political outlook.

He's not trying to define the Church based mostly on social issues, as the other Popes have been doing.

Tis true that much of what he is saying has been fairly basic Catholic doctrine for sometime - but there was always the impression that promoting a conservative social agenda took precedence over a progressive economic agenda - With Pope Francis there has been a distinct change in priorities. It is almost hard to overstate the significance of this priority shift.



/

Anything that makes O'liely blow a fuse is fine with me. He is such a grumpy old man who appears to be very unhappy.

So we should all look forward to a progressive position of some kind to come out soon, and watch with glee as Billo loses it on air.

He is concerned abou the Pope's economic views - specifically this Pope isn't falling all over with delight over the republican's (sic) one true god - ronald reagan (sic) "trickle down" economics.

non-rightwing extremist as moral reprobates. I don't think it is possible to overstate the significance of this shift in emphasis coming from the Vatican

Very well said.

Do you want the old one back?

while its great that he emphasized economic issues, that is not the be all and end all of the influence of the catholic church

the church also influences other policies, in which this pope does not differ at all from his predecessors.

this does not make me a "hater".

The Rat was making many people start really questioning their religion. I can't see that as anything but good, regardless of whether they decide to keep their faith or not.

the man dripping ignorant bigotry and saying some families are products of the devil? You seem to be saying that Francis has a right to slander us and also that we have no right to so much as defend our own households. Francis says gay couples are 'an attack on God's plan'. I say that's a vile lie told for his own empowerment, just as he pushed bigoted views about minorities in his home nation, he continues that message as Pope.
I will never stop objecting to those who attack my family as Francis does. If you want to call that 'hate' that's precious as all fuck. Up is down, love is hate and bigotry is tolerance!!!!!
What I'd like is for the religious folks to show their ethics and stop posting about their dogmatic opposition to choice and equality in GD, where religious subjects are not allowed, and if they want to post them here, they need to speak of these issues as political issues, for his is not your Church, this is a political website for all, not just for straights who are just like you.
If the 'religious' folks followed the rules of DU, life would be better here. If you all want to adore a bigot, do so in the religious forums designated for such discussions. If you want to do it in GD, then behave like adults discussing politics. Stop with the name calling. Just stop the full tilt war on gay people launched here in the name of some clown in robes.

The new guy's positions on economic and social issues are the SAME as the last one's.

.....got flamed to a degree I had never seen on DU.

I think he is the real deal - and I am a 30 year lapsed Catholic.

Absolute Atheist... but I recognize his position of power.

when he took over for the guy with the Prada shoes, everyone assumed it was because the then current Pope was removing himself because of the Vatican bank scandal and his cover up of pedophiles over the course of his career within the church.

I don't know if he's the real deal or not - well, I'm not a part of any religious group, so he's the head of his religious group, as was the guy before him - both "the real deal" for their job.

It's like any other public figure - when they emphasize issues I think are worth the emphasis - in this case economic inequality and debunking right wing economic talking points - I'm happy to hear it.

when he continues the social conservative positions of the church, however, I disagree with his position.

I'm glad there's a pope that's making the poor a focus of his career, because the poor can use all the help they can get right now, and with a Republican House, the U.S. is going to have a hard time getting past their obstruction of legislature to help overcome some of the economic inequality that is tearing democracies around the world apart.

So, it's good this pope is speaking out against fascism - which is what happens when nations refuse to address economic inequality and crises.

...............what better could you ask for after Ratzinger the Nazi?

I think his liberal agenda has just begun.....

Maybe an economic liberal. But socially? Far right conservative.

there's more glitz now than before only now it's in the form of material and PR. What's changed are some physical elements and some words neither of which make any difference to me.

Call me up in a year or two and we'll see if he's up to the talk. I'd say that about any politician.

effort to do, this is a leader and not one which follows those before him. We have to start somewhere and this is where he has shown he is willing to be compassionate.

...yet, too often, all you would hear was a focus on abortion and gays even though the New Testament discusses how Jesus preached to the poor and disenfranchised and how Jesus repeatedly slammed on the rich. In the book of Luke, almost every third parable is a story of how the poor enter the kingdom of god while the rich oppressors face damnation in the end.

and Pope Francis has been at its head for nine months. I'm surprised at everyone that thinks that he can just snap his fingers and everything will instantly change. All organized religions are run by people and people do not like to give up power easily. There are centuries of doctrine embedded in the organization that will not be undone overnight, after all the last pope who was thought to impose (by some) radical changes in the church and get rid of corruption died 33 days after assuming the title.

meant nothing cause potus didnt instantly get rid of gitmo, dadt and doma. he didnt chng everything fast enough for my liking so fuck it all.

I am more concerned about the current PR Offensive by this church right here on DU, while it maintains (and Francis did before he even became pope) staunch political opposition to Same Sex Marriage, Abortion/Family Planning, and a host of other issues.

They spend millions every year on these issues, lobbying here in the US. They bring millions of votes to bear, with a religious mandate.

I don't care if the church eats itself tail first with corruption, only that they get the bloody hell out of our legislatures, off our ballots, and out of politics entirely. Whether the church reforms itself, or lives/dies, I don't care. It's not my concern.



For some reason his manner of dress, and speech has garnered some positive press, even though he's saying the same stuff as the former pope. Whatever. I don't care, overmuch, except that it keeps getting traction here, while the church remains our single largest, most organized opponent for many social issues. Protestants sometimes have stronger trends here, away from anything we would recognize as a progressive or democratic position, especially on physician-assisted suicide, but there is not the organized lobbying, and spending on the issue from that sector. When that law came up for a vote in my state, the entire top-ten opposition donors list was catholic organizations. The whole list. No exceptions.

That is a problem, and I feel the need to shine a light on it when these PR charm offensives bubble up. Perspective is important. I bet the pope is a pretty decent guy, certainly doesn't creep me out like the former pope, and he has said some nice platitudes about issues like homosexuality (don't judge), but in his other hand is millions in lobbying to prevent the enactment of same-sex marriage laws at the national and state level, to say nothing of worldwide.

The difference between this Pope and others who have said similar things on the economic front is that this Pope is being purposely in your face towards US Republicans/Conservatives on economics.

I talk about this in my show this week.

That does not preclude the fact that he and the Catholic church need a lot of work when it comes to women and LGBT and we need to keep pressing for that.

vaguely imply such a difference exists. I can show you, or you could find yourself, pages of materials about poverty and greed from Benedict, JP2, Paul 6, basically any and all modern Popes. They all say that stuff. Benedict issued entire papers on the economic inequality coming from globalization, folks called him a nazi. Francis and the others also share virtually identical anti choice and anti gay materials, except that Francis was a full time anti gay crusader in Argentina, where he said this:
"At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God's law engraved in our hearts.

Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just its form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."


What specifically do you claim is the definite difference between the two? Costume and prop choices?

Sid

I'm not Catholic but I mostly like this new Pope. I feel his compassion for the poor is genuine. I also think part of the reason he was selected was because the church knew it needed a major image overhaul. One could argue that the sincerity of this new message is, in some ways, beside the point. If the Vatican is presenting a message we agree with and spreading that message and those values to others, isn't that inherently a good thing? If people act differently and perhaps vote more progressively because they see it as the right thing to do, how can that be a scam?

On a lighter note, I don't care for ALL this pope's design decisions. That throne looks like the backboard on a basketball hoop. He should wear light colored pants under that white robe or else get a robe of thicker, more opaque fabric. And a carpet under that throne would balance things out better visually.

Here is what you are defending, Francis quote about marriage rights for minorities he does not like, this is what you say is so wonderful. I think of that Golden Rule thing, and wonder if you would feel the same if Francis said this about YOUR family and rights:
"At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God's law engraved in our hearts.

Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just its form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

He says equality in marriage is a 'move by the father of lies' that's Satan. He says it is destructive and discriminatory to not discriminate. He says love is a total rejection of God's laws.

If I said that about your family, would you post praise of my taste in furniture and costumes? Do the outfits and props really mean more to you than human beings?

be the top of everyone's list but still very important on living in the world today. I am not sure he is receiving open arms from all and this is an issue those who thinks he should be answering their pet projects but he is showing compassion.

still no word on why he resigned...

I would think Francis is more than superficially different if he would:

1. Stop discriminating against hoosexuals.
   
2. End celibacy among the clergy.
   
3. Elevate women to equal status in the church.
   
4. Allow birth control.

Seems like we can do the same with the Catholic church.

If some people don't like them, that's their prerogative, but I couldn't care less.

Is Pope Francis Leaving Vatican At Night To Minister To Homeless?

A recent interview with Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, the "Almoner of His Holiness," raised speculation that the Pope joins him on his nightly trips into Rome to give alms to the poor, and it turns out that the rumors are probably true.

A knowledgable source in Rome told The Huffington Post that "Swiss guards confirmed that the pope has ventured out at night, dressed as a regular priest, to meet with homeless men and women."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/pope-francis-homeless_n_4373884.html