of the clique of papal apologists here outweighs any of this. As long as they like him, as long as they can find one fuzzy-wuzzy thing to cling to, as long as there are staged photo-ops for them to gush over, he deserves all of the slack they can cut him, and anyone who claims otherwise is just an anti-catholic crank and a bigot.

Nevertheless, I think this is a Great Read (r) and an Excellent Post (r), despite what the usual suspects will no doubt be lining up to spew.

the people. Once again proving that conservative ideology is of benefit to only a few, and generally only those willing to be despicable, selfish individuals.

Pope Francis started out with some very refreshing talk about economic justice. But at some point, the talk has to turn into action or it's nothing but hot air. If this article is accurate, apparently the "economics" they are so concerned with is their own. The bitter taste of disappointment this leaves is all too familiar and unfortunately not all that surprising.

That he's "running to progressive liberal ideas" to get support for the policies he *really* believes in.

His beliefs are unrelated to American political ideologies. Arguably, they're only tangentially related to Argentine political ideologies.

The problem is that we assume that traits come in nice, neat predetermined packages or sets, and that if you have a trait that belongs to one set you must obligatorily have the rest of the set. We manufacture our own blinkers and then blinker ourselves, only to accuse others of blinkering us.

This is easy, sloppy thinking. We assume that the only way to package traits is into the sets that we've seen among our friends and enemies. This isn't something thought through; it's something we assume as a property of nature. When our implicit, easy assumptions don't turn out to be true, it's easier to blame somebody else than the sloppiness of our thinking and the mutability of our assumptions. If we make bad predictions, it's not the reasoning behind our predictions that is wrong but inconsistency on the part of the other person that's the problem. The only thing that we really get out of that kind of game is a renewed commitment to mental sloth--we can rest content that we really do have the right set of assumptions about how others are put together and we can go back to just being snarking and criticizing those we don't like (and don't understand). With a bonus--now we can be contemptuous of the other person for being inconsistent and slighting us.

Flip it around. Assume that Francis is being consistent, that all those alleged surface inconsistencies reflect an deeper, underlying consistency. Then work out what that has to mean for his belief system and values. As you do that, however, be aware of what linked choices you're assuming: Can you be in favor or X and still be against Y?

It's a good exercise in open-mindedness and critical thinking. Once you've done it a few times it becomes second nature and eliminates a lot of perceived inconsistencies. And you can turn the analytical tool on yourself. (Some inconsistencies still probably remain, but usually if you pose them the right way you can get the person involved to make sense of it or to say, "Yeah, that's not really consistent, is it?)

has to do with anything?

Catholic Charities. They provide shelter for homeless persons, three squares a day for the hungry, help low-income folks with rent and utilities, provide legal counsel for immigrants, run safe houses for battered women and their children, and that's just for starters. Yes, there's a good argument to be made that government should provide these services. Hard fact is that it doesn't.

I thought libertarians were the guys who wanted government to stay out of everything but war.

Or maybe you're just confused about spelling. It's L-I-B-E-R-A-L.

You said it was a "hard fact" that the RCC helps the poor when the government doesn't, ,which is so blatantly not true you'd have to be a L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N to even think of promoting such a bald faced lie. (hint, look down thread for suggestions about how you may be wrong, like tax subsidies and the "hard fact" that the government does help the poor, not enough, but then the catholic church really doesn't step up to the plate in that regard either)

Are you also suggesting that we just ignore the crimes listed above because they kinda help the poor to retain their government subsidies? Not that I'd want an organization that is embroiled in a massive pedophilia cover-up conspiracy anywhere near children. I mean is a L-I-B-E-R-A-L group did one of the listed things (heck, if they were accused of it) they would be raided by the FBI.

When we discussed secular organizations who don't have a wrap sheet as long as your arm you accused them of preying on the poor, so you're really no one to talk about this subject as your clearly biased.

I said it was a hard fact that the government doesn't fund a list of desperately needed social services in my community, and it's a stone fact that they don't.

It's also a stone fact that local government in my area--and, unfortunately it's Democratic residue of the patron system--is deeply, endemically corrupt. That means that resources allocated to the poor go to supporters of City Councilmen and County Commissioners. And it's not just my city. It's a problem throughout South Texas, where the county poverty rate runs as high as 35%.

And by the way, L-I-B-E-R-A-L religious orgs do in fact carry out similar programs to help the poor where they have the financial base to do so.

Maybe if our government stopping pouring 57% of the national budget down the military black hole, funds for more adequate social services would become available.

Don't let facts get in the way of making a point.

our society would collapse! Our government is totally worthless and thank GOD the religious pick up the slack!

62% of their revenue comes from the US government.

If we add together community support and diocesan support, that is only 12% of their funds. The rest comes from program fees, United Way, investments, and in-kind contributions.

Media Matters made this clear when O'Reilly made a big deal about Catholic Charities kind of like you are.

So, what, exactly is the point you are making about the good that "religion" does in this case because I don't see it. Seems like a taxpayer funded charity. We could get rid of the religious aspect and only lose 3% of the money they get each year. 3%. YEAH FOR RELIGION.

They are publicly bid contracts to provide social services.

YEAH FOR SECULAR CHARITIES.

62% of their revenue. Yet they state that 98% of that federal funding goes to direct services, either provided by catholic charities directly or through subcontracts with other community based non-profits.

I'm taking it at face value given that the feds have an oversight process to track usage of federal grants. How thorough that is may be debatable.



Some info -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA

Charity Navigator - Catholic Charities USA

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10656#.U7HS741OXIU

Safeguards on faith-based organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships

<snip>

I once wrote a law-enforcement grant for my county for improvements of the county section of the local firing range. The RFP explicitly stated that funds were not to be used for construction. I wrote that proposal verrrry carefully. Twice before the grant was funded, I had to explain to a DOJ lady in DC why what we were proposing wasn't construction.

So the money came in , and I transferred to another department. ( Escaping from a boss who was a horrible sexist, homophobic crook.) When the grant administrator submitted a quarterly report six monhs later declaring that "construction was almost complete," the shit hit the fan, the administrator showed up at my new office wailing that the DOJ was wanting the money back, and she was going to lose her job, etc. etc.. So I called the DOJ lady and swore on my mother's grave that no construction had been done, that the ga was an idiot who usually handled housing projects and couldn't find her own backside with both hands, went out to the site, took pictures, sent them to the DOJ lady--
and my new boss said "Gee, I see why you wanted out of there."

And considering it's a bigoted, homophobic, sexist, hateful organization that caused misery and death around the world by promoting such wonderful ideas as contraception being bad, it's well worth any progressive's time to give to other charities.

and seen the flea-market furniture, and knowing how low the ED's salary is, I call bullshit.

beats invective, every time.

allows anyone to believe whatever they want.

"cognitive dissonance" and "delusion. "

After all, progressives identifying with a bigoted institution require it, along with loads and loads of privilege.

Probably due to your haste to type "bigoted" and "fuck".

And the Catholic Church is bigoted as fuck.

And 62% of that 2.7%? From taxpayers. Fuck this bigoted organization, and fuck trying to act like big charitable givers when they spend so little on charity and most of what they spend is tax payer money.

Due to difficulties in analyzing data, anyone who thinks anyone who thinks it's bigoted as fuck to condemn a bigoted religion for being bigoted is either stupid as fuck or bigoted as fuck, or both.

Care to clarify? Is your issue with the religion, as you state, or with the RC Church as an institution? Or is it with both and all catholics?

When you call an organization bigoted OK, but when you call an entire religion bigoted, then that is being bigoted, because it broad brushes all who subscribe to that religion. Catholics have enough on their hands, right now, dealing with the stigma of pedophile priests and trying to bring the Vatican into the 21st century. They are struggling with many issues, and kicking them while they are down is not helping anyone.
I used to detest the Catholic Church, but I have gotten to know many fine Catholics, several of them priests, who are fighting to liberalize the church. These are sincerely devout believers who are opposed to traditional Vatican teaching.
I spent a few days staying very close to the Vatican and I engaged in conversations with several Italians and a few priests. There is a very positive buzz in the air at present. This pope has given new hope to many who lapsed in their faith over the years. I will never be a believer, but it is a very refreshing time to be in Rome.

"an organization" and an "entire religion". Not in this context. That is not inclusive of the individuals that adhere to the religion. Religion is an idea, it is not people.

Catholic doctrine is bigoted. We've gone over that. Does that make all members bigots? No. Catholic doctrine forbids contraceptives, yet Catholic PEOPLE score higher than the average US population on approval of the use of contraceptives.
This has to be repeated entirely too often.

That poster didn't say word one about people, and as a bystander, I enthusiastically reject the association.

Edit: See post 32. MellowDem has a very solid grasp on the difference between the org/doctrine, and the followers who are members, yet don't necessarily reflect the values of the doctrine knowingly, or willfully unknowingly.

The organization, in this case the Vatican, is the government which sets forth policy, just as the government of any country does. The religion is way bigger than any interim government, just as the US, as a nation, is far bigger than any one administration, or series of administrations.

An interesting assertion.

Catholicism has always been larger. The word means universal. But even in the context of Roman Catholicism, the religion is bigger than the Vatican, or even the Holy See. There are many devout catholics who disagree with the Vatican on a multitude of issues that have nothing, or little to do with the basic tenets of catholicism.
The Vatican does not own the religion, anymore than the government owns the peope.

They are 'communities'.

The RCC (entity headquartered in the Holy See) holds itself forth as the single and ONLY source of fullness of sanctification and truth.
(2007 "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.&quot

I don't see the RCC pressing trademark lawsuits anywhere (perhaps they do and I am not aware) but they refuse to recognize other 'catholic' churches. They partially recognize orthodox churches due to certain rites they still perform that overlap.

"This Church [the Church of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him . . . "

Do you see the arrogance of the RCC there? Again, it holds itself forward as the single, true, and only church of Christ.


An aside, but for those holding out that it will change on certain issues. Lawl.

""What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?" The answer is not surprising to those who understand the Latin meaning of subsist or know that the Church cannot change fundamental doctrine: ""

Granted that was the opinion of the previous magical mammal at the apex of that org.

But I have a lot of empathy for Catholics and many other people of faith.
Everyone here in Italy is trying to be positive about Pope Francis, even those who never attend church, which is most people.

I can't tell if it's your facts or your syntax that's more confused.

comes from parishioners. Charitable giving makes up 2.7% of the American Catholic Church spending.

The Catholic Church is bigoted as fuck. And my money goes to them through taxes.

And don't pay taxes. You don't want to be complicit in misogyny and homophobia.

Paying taxes is the same as voluntarily identifying with a bigoted organization?

Resist!

Your logic is terrible.

Apologizing for a bigoted organization requires it.

I was in the minority then, not believing or trusting George Bush or his troop that war in Iraq was necessary, or that we'd be "greeted as liberators."

Oh the names we were called. Oh the viciousness and the attacks. But we were right.

Deja vu all over again, only this time it's liberals defending a sexist, homophobic leader who opposes multiple planks in our party platform - some of the core ones like reproductive choice and equal rights. I've been reviled before, for opposing a "leader" doing the wrong things. I can handle it.

I'm sorry I didn't vote for you the first time around. You do so much to raise the level of discourse in the group. Your compassion and understanding of those with differing viewpoints is to be commended. Reading your posts makes me think this is what it would be like if Ghandi and Mother Theresa combined were posting on DU. You are a true ambassador between believers and non-believers alike. Your fair-handed way of dealing with those who have different beliefs is just...I don't even know the words. Every post of yours makes me shake my head at the loss of your divining hand as a host in this forum. IF anyone could wield that power fairly and evenly, I know it would be you.

How crushed you must be that you weren't chosen, and how chided we should be for not choosing you. Keep up the good work..you may get a second shot soon, and make this forum the absolute best it can be

It would be reduced to discussing religion instead of people.

Or the two of you were discussing issues while mocking Trotsky, right?

Pluck the beam in your own eye, etc

You should ask me for an invite

not interested in hate speech.

Cognitive dissonance.

You wouldn't have enjoyed it.

Nothing like professed liberal atheists here, in this group, whom you pal around with, who happily compare gay marriage with marriage to a bicycle, vole, or dead grandmother. That's kind of hate speechey, right? I guess that's the anti-gblt bigotry you accuse atheists of all the time, right? I was looking for the posts where you called that poster out on his repeatedly made hurtful comments about gay marriage, but I can't seem to find them. The search function must not be working properly because you surely would have called out someone who made those comments, right?

That one was particularly tasteful and heartwarming. I see it still hasn't been addressed.