Pope Francis’ new clothes: Why his progressive image is white smoke and mirrors
(I find it fascinating that the carefully crafted image is the product of a former fox news person)
Pope Francis’ new clothes: Why his progressive image is white smoke and mirrors
THE IMAGE OF Pope Francis is that he is a breath of fresh air, more progressive on social issues than his predecessor and a kinder, gentler pope. But when the facts are examined, you see that he is none of these things. There is an enormous disconnect between who the pope really is in terms of his policies and his public relations image, as crafted by the Vatican’s PR man, previously with Fox News. The current PR mission is all about reversing the incredible decline in fundraising under the last pope from the U.S. Catholic Church in particular. Pope Francis has made any number of statements that seem to indicate change and progress that are not reflected in policy. In fact, in the wake of such comments from Pope Francis, the Vatican often makes a point to explicitly state that no church policy has changed.
While the pope transmits a populist vibe—particularly about the economy— he is an old-school conservative who, despite his great PR, maintains nearly all of the socialpolicies of his predecessors and keeps up a hardline Vatican “cabinet.” He has done virtually nothing to change the policies of the church to match his more compassionate rhetoric. People excuse the pope, claiming that he doesn’t have much power to make changes, but this simply isn’t true. Further, it is ludicrous to suggest that a man who denies comprehensive reproductive health care (including all forms of birth control including condoms and abortion) and comprehensive family planning is a man who cares about the poor of this world. The bigotry of homophobia and sexism cloaked in religion are still bigotry and sexism. By giving to the church, American Catholics aren’t supporting “progress,” they are supporting oppression and in this way are complicit in the bigotry, sexism, and oppression of the church.
.. . . .
The wheels were set in motion to change the perception of the church before Pope Francis was elected. In March of 2010, Pope Benedict XVI had only a 40 percent favorable rating in the United States. By June of that year, the U.S. Bishops were planning a PR campaign to soften their image and attract the younger generation. Shortly thereafter, the Vatican hired Greg Burke, a former Fox News correspondent, as a senior communications adviser reporting directly to the Vatican’s third-ranking official, Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu. The New York Times points out that Mr. Burke had previously met Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, and “did not rule out that being known by the cardinal might have helped him get hired.” Clearly, the American cardinals have a great deal of influence over Vatican PR, given how much Vatican funding comes from the U.S. Burke is a traditionalist, a celibate, a member of the conservative catholic alliance Opus-Dei, and his spiritual practices reportedly include self-flagellation, in keeping with Opus Dei traditionalists.
In addition to Burke, the Vatican has also hired the consulting firm of McKinsey & Company. The consulting firm was engaged to “study the Holy See’s communications, with an eye to creating a more effective media operation.” The goal was that this hire, along with that of Burke the year before, would reverse the declining view of the Church caused, in part, by public relations miscues.
. . .
Greg Burke told reporters when he was hired that he “know[s] what journalists are looking for and what they need,” and “I know how things will play out in the media.” Pope Francis has played the part nearly perfectly and Burke’s strategies have certainly paid dividends for the Church. By going on the offensive and promoting positive stories instead of waiting to react to negative ones, Burke helped to turn around the Catholic Church’s image in the United States. And improving American’s image of the Catholic Church is of critical importance. According to The Economist, “The American church may account for as much as 60 percent of the global institution’s wealth. Little surprise, then, that it is the biggest contributor to head office (ahead of Germany, Italy and France). Everything from renovations to St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome to the Pontifical Gregorian University, the church’s version of West Point, is largely paid for with American money.” The National Catholic Reporter points out that American Catholics put more than $150 million a week into the collection plate, totaling $8 billion annually. Even if, as they assert, ninety percent of those donations never leave their parish, that means that about $800 million a year donated by American Catholics is being used to fund the Catholic Church around the world.
. . . .
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/pope_franciss_liberal_reformer_image_is_all_smoke_and_mirrors_partner/
= new reply since forum marked as read
the positions "evolved." First, it was that homosexuals were an abomination to God. Which, of course, begged the question, "Then why does God create homosexuals?"
Rather than take the risk that the science might indeed prove that homosexuals are born, not made, the message switched to "Being a homosexual is not a sin, but having sex with members of the same gender is a sin." (The punchier, but equally awful, evangelical slogan being, "Love the sinner; hate the sin."
And we recently heard a variant of this from Governor "Oops" Perry. Something alone the lines of "I can be born with a tendency to alcoholism, but I don't have to act on it. I don't have to drink."
Of course, all that was back before the right found it easier simply to deny scientific findings, no matter how definitive they were.
BTW, in various religious groups, especially those that were really turned inward by rejection, lying and otherwise being deceitful to protect the religion/sect/cult is considered a religious duty, not a sin. And that fact is never to be admitted to an outsider. I have encountered that first hand in a group smaller than Mormons or Catholics.
Wow, no bias THERE.
===============================
This pretty much summed it up: 
However, I think it is wrong to say that "any shift in the policies of the RCC to the left are to be welcomed", as this implies there has been a shift in policy. While the pope has said things that may on the surface be a slight shift to the left, as the article states there has been little if any significant change in policy. That is a big difference.
That said, you are absolutely correct that it is difficult to put things back the way they were once change has been initiated, and I would agree that for many it will change what they expect for the church.
Unfortunately, for many others (perhaps even more, though we will see) it will be something that they can point to and say, "Look, the RCC is liberal now. You don't need to continue trying to change more". It also gives ammunition to those defending the church, which is not a good thing, imho. You can see that here on DU; there are some that cite the current pope as a reason not to continue attacking the RCC over its bigoted and harmful policies, or at least as a reason to lessen the attacks. While I don't believe these people are bigots, they end up supporting (if indirectly) bigoted policies as they aren't aware of the lack of real change. Now, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to DUers, but I know there are people using the new pope to do more harm on the right.
That's my take, anyways 
