General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe should perhaps temper our enthusiasm about Pope Francis a bit. . .
. . . Yes, the things he has said and written regarding social and economic justice seem like a breath of fresh air, but in reality, the principles he articulates in Evangeli Gaudiam stand solidly in the same line of thought as Rerum Novarum, the encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th C., 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 and traditional commitments to social and economic justice.
But It is a mistake to expect a great deal of movement on those vexing cultural questions (e.g., abortion, birth control, homosexuality, ordination of women, etc.), 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. And just to bring everybody back to Earth a bit, here is another passage from Evangeli Gaudiam, which I think most folks here will agree sounds like the same old Catholic same old:
That is pretty clearly a shot at, or an attempt to trivialize, the issue of marriage equality.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)I have a hetero, but intentionally childless marriage. I'm sure he doesn't approve of that either. And he's still against female clergy for some reason. Seriously, if the RC Church can read Genesis in the context of its time and accept evolution, why not women priests?
Happy to have a powerful ally against capitalism, but all that economic injustice will not be solved unless women can control their own reproduction.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)Revanchist
(1,375 posts)He's bringing a humbleness and humility to the position that has not been seen in a very long time. I feel that the wheels of change are starting to roll but when they are that big and heavy it takes time for them to gain momentum.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . the doctrine of papal infallibility, which renders it virtually impossible for one pope to overrule the teaching of any prior pope.
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)http://www.catholicbible101.com/papalinfallibility.htm
It's not something that's used lightly and I don't see anything in those three instances that would prohibit changes. Although I do find it amusing that infallibility was used to confirm infallibility.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . .but it doesn't have to be formally invoked in order to be operative, so long as the statement in question meets the various criteria for an 'infallible' statement.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...is only a few hundred years old. Before that, it simply did not occur to anyone that being a homosexual (noun) could exist as sex was something one did rather than what one was. Before the 13th c. it was seen as a sexual indiscretion similar to fornication--a minor sin that was nowhere near as bad as adultery. Starting in the 13th c., sodomy was viewed as a major sin similar to witchcraft or heresy with occasional efforts to eradicate it. Still, it was not the preoccupation it is now until modern times.
ancianita
(36,060 posts)Glad someone here promotes the more obvious shortcomings of this 'leader.'
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)then we'll see what has changed.
My phone number is BR-549