Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

markpkessinger

(8,401 posts)
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 01:54 AM Dec 2013

We 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:

Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will.


That is pretty clearly a shot at, or an attempt to trivialize, the issue of marriage equality.
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Deep13

(39,154 posts)
1. Also directed at divorce, serial marriage, and couples who use contraception.
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 02:20 AM
Dec 2013

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.

Revanchist

(1,375 posts)
3. It's not easy trying to change 2,000 years of doctrine
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 02:48 AM
Dec 2013

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)
7. The Church cannot substantively change its doctrine until it gets rid of . . .
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 01:54 PM
Dec 2013

. . . 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)
8. Papal infallibility has only been invoke three times:
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 02:23 PM
Dec 2013
There have been 3 instances of an officially declared Papal Infallible doctrine. The first was in 1854, when Pope Pius IX declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (The blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in St. Anne's womb free from original sin), then in 1870 at the first Vatican Council when the doctrine of Papal Infalliblity was officially declared to be true, and then in 1950 by Pope Pius XII when he declared the doctrine of the Assumption (the blessed Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven).


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)
11. It may have only been formally invoked three times . . .
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 10:00 PM
Dec 2013

. . .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)
10. The active persecution of homosexuals...
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 09:39 PM
Dec 2013

...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)
4. Yes. After Ratzinger, the bar was definitely set at reactionary,so yeah, this one's got a way to go.
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 02:48 AM
Dec 2013

Glad someone here promotes the more obvious shortcomings of this 'leader.'

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We should perhaps temper ...