Speaking about poverty comes off a little more genuine in Francis, as he doesn't wrap himself in as much gold lame, when talking about it.

Francis is considerably more humble, at least in appearance.

he is much better at PR than his predecessor.

I would add that I'm not sure how someone who was better on gay rights, women's rights, abortion, contraception, etc. would ever get anywhere close to being pope. As long as the hierarchy controls the appointment rather than the laity, and as long as that hierarchy is in bed with the conservative forces controlling the Republican party, there is little possibility of change, imo.

He was elected for pr purposes. Benedict was a lightning rod for critics of the Church and was directly involved in the cover up of pedophile priests.

Francis dazzles people, especially the young. He makes people feel good about going back to church; good enough to forget that when it comes to Catholic doctrine, he's really just another company guy.

My bf's niece emphatically believes Francis has changed Church policy on all of the above mentioned issues.

Every time Francis says something progressive sounding, they endlessly blame the media for taking him out of context. They would agree with you that there is complete continuity between Francis and Benedict (and also between those two, John Paul II, and John XXIII. Paul VI doesn't get a shout out for some reason). Again, they say, it's the fault of the media for wanting to make Benedict the bad guy, and Francis the good guy.

But he'll never be prosecuted for ordering bishops to keep child abuse allegations secret, among other things.

Since he wouldn't die they had to replace him so that people would forget about the scandal.

It's about the sex abuse crisis, and I keep meaning to read it. I haven't followed the story nearly as much as I should. If you've read it, is it good?

I posted a lot of information on DU2 when the Benedict's letter was made public.

Benedict's not the only one who protected criminals, John Paul II rewarded Boston's Cardinal Law by appointing him Archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome.

That said, being very very passionate about social issues like gay rights, women's rights, etc. does NOT endear me to the new pope.

Though, another thing that really irks me, is not the pope himself, but rather some of the people on the left who embrace of him. Obama is 1000x better on the issues than the pope and yet Obama can do no right in their eyes. YET, they love and defend the pope no matter what.

I am not saying everyone does that. Some are just as critical of both, some embracing of both, but there are those to whom Obama can do no right, and the pope can do no wrong.

Seems like an unfair double standard to me, and it drives me up the wall.

is exactly what religion does to people. It makes them go to almost any lengths to defend the indefensible, to others and to themselves.

I would like to see examples of those who "love and defend the pope no matter what" and also say "Obama can do no right".

I think this is entirely off the mark. Those that tend to be strong Obama critics are usually "lefties than thous" - those who consider themselves very far left. It seems highly unlikely to me that those same people would be pope supporters.

What I think you are describing is just a diversity of opinions one see on DU.

And here is a couple of threads from General in which several people who normally make it a habit to "hold Obama's feet tot the fire" fawn over the pope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024044063
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024003860

Again, I can not understand how people who eviscerate Obama over every single action he takes that might be the slightest bit centrist can praise the Pope. The fact that they are far leftist, and yet praising the pope just makes it more confusing.

The Pope's economics are straight-up socialist.

both social liberalism and economic progressivism.

for slightly over a year. In that time he has reorganized the Vatican bank, instituted much stricter oversight of its workings and set a personal standard designed to reduce the hierarchy from princes of the church to servants of the church and its people. That's a remarkable achievement.

This fall's council will tell us more about where he's going with family and gender issues. I think married priests and returning divorced and remarried Catholics to full status are going to be slam-dunks. Given the trial balloons some of the bishops have been floating, I expect some movement on LGBT issues. Women clergy-- not yet.

When you're the head of an organisation that's as fundamentally wrong about as much as the Catholic Church is, you either adopt a complete volte-face on day one, or you don't deserve credit.

He and the organization he leads do have actual policies they enact and enforce that are fundamentally sexist and homophobic.

and voicing support for some of the positions the pope takes on certain issues reaches the point of embracing everything about the pope and saying Obama can do no right.

It's very different issues for one thing. Obama is elected to serve and represent us, and people here have had some responsibility for making that happen. The pope selection is completely out of control of the people here, but I think we all hope that a person in his position might be able to make some changes we support.

You yourself noted that this pope is an improvement

Comparing the two and how people voice support or criticism makes no sense.

And if you are only speaking of the member that posted these two threads, I think that the way she explains her position in the second link is pretty good. Plus she is not one of the strident Obama bashers, she would just like to see the party move left.

A former Nazi who helped cover up the abuse scandal is not hard to beat.

That said, till he ACTUALLY makes liberal changes to the church all he can be described as is as the PR Pope in my opinion. Tells people what they want to hear, continues business as normal.

But the very reasons you mention make it all the more pronounced. Obama is a politician trying to convince people to vote for his party. If he wants to get elected (or now that hes a 2 term president...get more dems elected) he has to walk a tight line. Yet he and his administration (by which I mean mainly Biden) were the first to stand up for gay marriage. He risked losing a 2nd term doing so. And unlike the pope he has a pro-LGBT history as well.

This new Pope can come out in favor of Gay right and still be pope. Still get to elect new Cardinals.

If anything I would say that means Obama deserves more leeway. That said, this is not a criticism of those who are hard on both, or are forgiving of both.

*Note: I am not talking about just Cali. I picked her two posts because that one OP stuck out in my mind and was easy to search for. I remember several people who normally are attacking Obama praising the pope in it. I know that cali will defend Obama when she believes he is in the right. BUT there is far far more to criticize the pope on than Obama and yet it seems the Criticism/Praise ratio on the two is incredibly skewed.

I just hope that they re-evaluate and change some of their positions and continue to pursue policies that help the poorest and most marginalized.

In no way to I share the view that one has to be hard on both or forgiving of both. Both should be evaluated in context and judged/treated accordingly.

And each individual doing the judging/praising/condemning should be evaluated on their own merits.

When Pope Paul VI's commission on contraception reported favorably on approving the pill, given the stress that the rhythm method was placing on families (and the fact that contraceptive purpose had already been approved when the rhythm method was), the Pope chose the dissenting report by four theologians, which basically said, "if you approve this, we'll have to admit we were wrong about something."

And when it comes to sex, the church has been pursuing that path ever since.

You are correct, certainly, that it would be very hard to back down from this, but I believe it could be done and am very interested to see what happens in the upcoming conference.

If it seemed that way I apologize for the poor word choice and sentence structure.

I was just posting about the unfair double standard many people seem to have when it comes to the pope and Obama.

That doesn't mean that I have a double standard. It just means that I have different expectations of different things and base my assessment of them on those expectations.

But sushi is an exception. I like my fish cooked!!!

I would still call the example you give a double standard. The thing is, if I have a double standard in the way I eat my food, the only parties that would matter to would be myself and my food.

particularly when it comes to sushi.

Can we end this discussion with an agreement on Chicken? I find it delicious especially in a nice dijon sauce.

/yum

Note: we need a yum emote!

and a number of other social issues, I think he has made some squeaky noises that may indicate a willingness to reconsider.

The upcoming conference to look at family issues has the potential to lead to some change and I, for one, am willing to wait and see before closing that door.

So, I don't agree there is a black and white line here and think he is a clear improvement over Benedict.

Francis talks a good game that is more palatable to people these days. Yet, he has had not moved to change the policy of the RCC with respect to his comments.