General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoly Cow! WHATS UP WITH THIS POPE?!
52. In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history, as we can see from the advances being made in so many fields. We can only praise the steps being taken to improve people’s welfare in areas such as health care, education and communications. At the same time we have to remember that the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day, with dire consequences. A number of diseases are spreading. The hearts of many people are gripped by fear and desperation, even in the so-called rich countries. The joy of living frequently fades, lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is increasingly evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little dignity. This epochal change has been set in motion by the enormous qualitative, quantitative, rapid and cumulative advances occuring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant application in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge and information, which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power.
No to an economy of exclusion
53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.
The rest: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html#SOME_CHALLENGES_OF_TODAY%92S_WORLD
Rejoice! Pope Francis, the anti-rightwing nut job.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We have come to expect religious leaders to be money grubbing assholes.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)It gets funnier, to me, because I'm pretty sure the red words are found only in the King James editions and their like.
Either way, your intended meaning was excellent.
Redford
(373 posts)You might want to read one before ASSuming anything.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)as the evangelical movement progressed, RCC became more and more conservative. What is this holding hands during the Lord's Prayer? The constant hammering on gays and abortion was not the Church of my youth. They had other matters to attend to.
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts). . . and I say that as an Anglican!
dotymed
(5,610 posts)As a previous Warden of the Episcopal Church it was the only church that I feel really comfortable in.
Their Progressive ideas combined with the ancient Catholic traditions have always made me feel like this is the way it has always meant to be.
I love their "get out of purgatory free card"...
The Pope is the first among EQUALS.
All men/women are equal.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)He is a breath of fresh air. We will see long term how he does. Right now I like what he is doing, but we need some results too at some point. He is still early in his section so we will see.
GoCubsGo
(32,082 posts)Most of 'em are like that. Not perfect, but a far sight better than most (if not all) of the rest of the Catholic orders.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)
Nay
(12,051 posts)get murdered in the middle of the night in 3rd-world countries because they are real agitators.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)We should have a free public use only, internet grid across America.
JesterCS
(1,827 posts)into the Catholic church or whatever they have to say, but I DO like this pope for the things he is doing. Granted not EVERYTHING, but alot of things are a long time coming.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)One one hand, it's good to hear a pope talking like this. And yet, it's depressing to know that our leadership will never express ideas like this.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Now if only we can get this institution to budge on social issues.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)or lose our vote.
Economic justice is the most important issue of our times. Without economic justice the other kinds of justice will not mean much.
If your Democratic representatives are not speaking about these issues you need to ask, "Why not?"
yodermon
(6,143 posts)AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)...which are issues he's abandoned by his silence.
Fuck that! Still, let the Pope Francis bashing begin in 3..2..1...
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)We set the bar low. If someone supports the poor, that's when we gotta pretend they aren't bigots.
Sure, such knuckle dragging bigotry will poison every other position a person makes, but just pretend it doesn't.
ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)AmBlue
(3,110 posts)I'm not at all religious, but I'm loving this Pope. He is a breath of fresh air.... and talk about a bully pulpit!!
watoos
(7,142 posts)and the Catholic members of the SC.
Really would be a good idea. Naturally none of the talking heads would ever confront Lyan about this. But he and others like him should be challenged with it.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)My point was Republicons (Catholics) preach religious doctrine that suits their narrative. Well let them choke on this papal narrative.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I just meant it would be nice of Obama and all democratic politicians who believe what the Pope says, should be saying the same thing. yelling i9t from the rooftops.
glinda
(14,807 posts)Now the extreme religious Right will really hate the Church!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,957 posts)Wonder what he thinks about this?
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)it to every ReThug. Problem is...they will ignore it and it wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)He did not live very long.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Even Bill Maher made a throw away comment about the poison being mixed now as he speaks.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)a relatives brother is a priest he is quite taken with the church dogma.
3catwoman3
(23,975 posts)... book written about the death of Pope John Paul I. if I remember correctly, the title was In God's Name.
locks
(2,012 posts)Now if he'd just decree that all the billions in money and property the Vatican holds be sold and the profits given to the poor.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Just as we demand executive orders, here is someone with ultimate authority as I understand it. He could decree by papal order to start liquidating the assets and distributing them to the poor. He could demand his bishops and cardinals, hell every person in the organization, renew their vows of poverty. That would be something to cheer about.
I'm glad he has this philosophy. I'm interested in how it gets put into practice. I do believe the corruption and entrenchment is so deep, as with most governments and ruling bodies of the world, that it will take a wrecking ball or Teddy's very big stick to pull it down.
Funny thing is, I do believe that if he called on the world's 99% to do it, he would have a crew of millions ready and waiting the next morning.
rocktivity
(44,576 posts)in sexually abusing their followers.
rocktivity
tomp
(9,512 posts)
bullsnarfle
(254 posts)"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."
treestar
(82,383 posts)It could help influence others. Even if he has other opinions we don't agree with.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)suicide.
He only seems anti-right wing, because he's a centrist, and Ratzinger was hyper-right-wing.
It's a matter of perspective.
I will grant, he is a significant improvement over the former pope, from my perspective.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...he is still 100% against a woman's right to choose...
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)214. Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations”. It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?
Pope Photo-Op still wants women to be brood mares.
Sid
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)The church absolutely should be expected to change her position on abortion. Maybe Pope Photo-Op just needs more of his flock holding his feet to the fire.
Sid
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)The Catholic Church is not going to change its position on abortion. And I don't think there's a significant enough percentage of abortion rights supporting Catholics that is going to "hold the feet to the fire" on that matter.
So if you are expecting that, you'll be disappointed. If you want to see that, you'll be disappointed.
Nor do I expect to see gay marriages performed within the walls of a Catholic church in my lifetime.
What we could see, however, is a lessening of the emphasis on those issues in the political sphere. While we might not see gay Catholic weddings, we may see the Catholic Church soften its opposition to gay marriage in the secular realm. And in terms of abortion, we may see a change in perspective, from simply advocating a purely political legislative approach to abortion to addressing issues such as hunger and poverty that often play a key factor into many women getting abortions. I think there will still be some legislative/political advocacy on the issue there, but it might not be as myopic and prevalent. And frankly, it may be a welcome change that both anti-abortion advocates and abortion rights supporters would be happy to see. Or at least they should be.
I do think we'll eventually see some change in terms of positions on contraception and eligibility for the priesthood (although we'll probably see consideration of married clergy before the question of female clergy gets seriously entertained.)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and it's why I don't think the Pope or the Catholic Church should be viewed as leaders in any respect. They need go the way of the dodo, not held up as paragons of progressivism.
Same goes with LGBT rights. He's quoting from the US Bishops' 2006 Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination.
Sid
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Churches are the institutions that would be expected to be anti-abortion. Sanctity of life and all of that stuff.
Nothing wrong with being anti-abortion, I am and I suspect I am much more liberal than you are.
I'm also a former Catholic and now an agnostic.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)See pre-1978 Mormon Church, with regards to black people.
In '78 they got the church elders together and received a celestial fax about how people of dark skin were in fact, normal humans, not the cursed losers of some old war in heaven, plus the 'less than valiant' combatants on the winning side. That they could be included in rites, and the church functions, etc.
These things do change. On that grounds, I have 'hope' for the church, but I still question its relevance...
Paulie
(8,462 posts)It just takes a few hundred years.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)with the Roman conquest
OPINIONS OF JULIUS PAULUS. BOOK V. TITLE XXIII.
ON THE LEX CORNELIA HAVING REFERENCE TO ASSASSINS AND POISONERS
... (15) Persons who celebrate, or cause to be celebrated impious or nocturnal rites, so as to enchant, bewitch, or bind anyone, shall be crucified, or thrown to wild beasts.
(16) Anyone who sacrifices a man, or attempts to obtain auspices by means of his blood, or pollutes a shrine or a temple, shall be thrown to wild beasts, or, if he is of superior rank, shall be punished with death.
(17) It has been decided that persons who are addicted to the art of magic, shall suffer extreme punishment; that is to say they shall be thrown to wild beasts, or crucified. Magicians themselves shall be burned alive.
(18) No one shall be permitted to have books on the art of magic in his possession, and when they are found with anyone, they shall be publicly burnt, and those who have them, after being deprived of their property, if they are of superior rank shall be deported to an island, and if they are of inferior station shall be put to death; for not only is the practice of this art prohibited, but also the knowledge of the same ...
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_4-5.htm
I might guess the Lex Cornelia here probably refers to law promulgated by Sulla Cornelius during his dictatorship c. 80 BCE, though I'm not certain. Julius Paulus was a Roman jurist in the late 2nd and early 3rd century CE, about a century before Galerius issued his edict of toleration in the early 4th century, ending the recent efforts under Diocletian to force Christian to conform to the official state religion
trotsky
(49,533 posts)In what Roman text does that appear, s4p?
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)I just documented that burning "witches" was actually the Roman punishment
In the old Judaic texts, the first mention of burning as a punishment is Genesis 38: 15-19, 24-26, in the story of Judah and Tamar, where the penalty is rapidly revealed to be entirely unjust. It is later prescribed in Leviticus 20: 14 as the punishment for a man marrying both a woman and her daughter, and in Leviticus 21: 9 as the punishment for a priest’s daughter who becomes a prostitute, which seems consistent with the story of Judah and Tamar
The passage that you cite doesn't mention burning; Leviticus 20: 27 suggests the penalty was stoning. Not being an expert on the place or time, I do not know how commonly "witchcraft" might have been punished in ancient Judaism
The early Catholic church took the practice of witchcraft seriously, as reversion to paganism, but did not punish it according to the old Levitical law:
... The Council of Elvira (306), Canon 6, refused the holy Viaticum to those who had killed a man by a spell ... Irish canons in the far West treated sorcery as a crime to be visited with excommunication until adequate penance had been performed ... In these earlier centuries a few individual prosecutions for witchcraft took place, and in some of these torture (permitted by the Roman civil law) apparently took place. Pope Nicholas I, indeed (A.D. 866), prohibited the use of torture ... Gregory VII in 1080 wrote to King Harold of Denmark forbidding witches to be put to death upon presumption of their having caused storms or failure of crops or pestilence ... It was at any rate at Toulouse, the hot-bed of Catharan infection, that we meet in 1275 the earliest example of a witch burned to death after judicial sentence of an inquisitor, who was in this case a certain Hugues de Baniol (Cauzons, "La Magic", II, 217) ... On the other hand, after the middle of the thirteenth century, the then recently-constituted Papal Inquisition began to concern itself with charges of witchcraft ... link
Saint Augustine of Hippo, an influential theologian in the early Christian Church, argued in the early 400s that ... neither Satan nor witches had supernatural powers or were capable of effectively invoking magic of any sort. It was the "error of the pagans" to believe in "some other divine power than the one God" ... The late medieval Church accepted St. Augustine's view, and hence felt little need to bother itself with tracking down witches or investigating allegations of witchcraft. link
The persecution of "witches," including "witch"-burning and other executions, is largely concentrated in a few locales, mostly French and German, and mostly in the early modern era, over a thousand years after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. These activities were not the result of some continuing Judaic or Christian practice
trotsky
(49,533 posts)according to Christian dogma, you are simply disputing who invented which punishments for it. Because hey, you're always right there to try and eliminate any responsibility religious beliefs may have played in harmful acts.
That's just a little harder to do in this case, so you have to use more quotes and links to sidetrack the discussion to a particular punishment and hope no one notices the bait-n-switch.
zazen
(2,978 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)There's an interesting history of the changes in their stance here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm
Sanctity of life and all that stuff, yeah right!
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)there is no question he is progressive.
Socially, there is no question he is conservative.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)For instance, being unwilling to lose state funding for an adoption program in Boston, because state law requires them to adopt out to same-sex couples without discrimination. They closed the whole program, rather than lose the funding, OR perform the adoptions.
I'll get excited for the pope when I see changes across the board. Until then, these are minor hotfixes to an enormous social problem.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)What a difference. This institution went from living in the 15th century to living in the 20th century. Now if only we could get them to live in the 21st century.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I was beginning to get worried that he wasn't going to get his fair share of PR this week.
Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)globe?
Do you think he should have been praising the Wall St Criminals and their 'Austerity Policies'?
As Liberal Democrat, I think it's wonderful to have a pope who dares to take on the Criminal Global Corporations.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...even the case of rape or incest...
Not so wonderful in my book...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of the Church using its power to back Right Wing Fundies. He has launched several attacks on the Far Right in this country. People like Paul Ryan eg, and, as Christ did to those attacking 'sinners', told them to mind their own 'sins' and stop obsessing over women and gays. If you can't see what a blow that is to the Republican Fundy Catholics' who have been able to get away with slamming Democratic Catholics up to now, I can't help you.
And don't forget that half of the US Catholic community ARE Democrats.
I'd love to see our own Democratic Leadership eg, make similar statements about Global Capitalism and Austerity but the only consistent voice I here in our Congress on this issue which is in accord with the Pope's position, is Bernie Sanders who is an Independent.
The ridiculous demands that one man should overturn centuries of backwards religious beliefs in a few months demonstrate exactly what he has spoken about.
Thankfully for Democrats who are Catholics, he has given them a powerful tool finally against the hypocrites in the Republican Party.
Wow, he cares about the poor and considers this issue to one of the most important, he has said when he lectured the Right Wingers here on their 'obsession' with women and gays.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)platform in place, would that 'warm' you to him/the organization?
I am incapable of separating a few issues from the vast bulk of public policy this church spends millions per year to influence, in decidedly right-wing directions.
Perhaps the relationship is different, but I see a Democrat or Progressive within the Catholic church as an extremely uncomfortable position to be in, akin to a 'Log Cabin Republican', a conservative of any stripe, inside a party that loathes Gay people. That must really suck. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I were in that position, I'd be re-evaluating a few of my premises to see if I'm in the right place, either with party affiliation, or faith affiliation.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)I do appreciate this pope's more progressive positions on certain social issue but still am quite disgusted with the Catholic Church on other positions. I say bravo but keep going because you aren't there yet. If I want to congratulate a Christian denomination then there are better ones than the Catholic Church for that. See: United Church of Christ and Presbyterian (USA).
So...good on this pope for his steps. Keep going and drop the ridiculous 11th century attitudes about other issues such as marriage for ministers (priests), full acceptance and celebration of GLBT members, and end the war on reproductive rights. Then I will get giddy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)there isn't a chance in hell of that happening because most Liberal Catholics find no conflict in following CHRIST's teachings, you know, the founder of the Church, and being Liberal Democrat. It is THEY who are true Christians. Just a reminder, Jesus said NOTHING about Gays and Abortion. Not a single word.
What he DID talk about was the evil of greed, the 'money changers' the poor.
The ONLY time he was ever known to get angry was at what would be the equivalent of Wall St criminals whose 'God' is money.
So why you see Democratic Catholics as the ones with a conflict is beyond me.
I see Republican Catholics as the ones who need to wonder about where they are in terms of even calling themselves Catholics.
And that is the message finally delivered to them by this Pope.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And no, the conflict would not, in my guess, lead to them leaving this party, but rather leaving the church.
On same-sex marriage
In response to same-sex marriage legislation in Argentina: “In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family. At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts. Let us not be naive: This is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."- then-Archbishop of Buenos Aries.
On abortion:
"“The abortion is never a solution. We listen, support and understanding from our place to save two lives: respect the human being small and helpless, they can take steps to preserve your life, allow birth and then be creative in the search for ways to bring it to its full development, “"
He opposes contraceptives, in line with church doctrine.
He opposes doctor-assisted suicide.
“In Argentina there is clandestine euthanasia. Social services pay up to a certain point; if you pass it, ‘die, you are very old’. Today, elderly people are discarded when, in reality, they are the seat of wisdom of the society,” he said “The right to life means allowing people to live and not killing, allowing them to grow, to eat, to be educated, to be healed, and to be permitted to die with dignity.”
There is nothing 'progressive' about this man, or this church. Yeah, he's criticized the IMF. Yeah, he's spoken out against the abuses of unregulated capitalism. So what. Are you a woman? No right to choose. Are you old? No right to die on your own terms. Want to marry a same-sex partner? Tough shit.
No, I don't encourage catholics who are democrats to leave the party. I encourage them to weigh the two mutually exclusive ideologies, and pick one. (Hopefully the party, rather than the church.)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Always.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)
Tigress DEM
(7,887 posts)IF he can help address a lot of these other big ticket items, then there will be more energy and time to do the rest that needs to be done.
SOME people are against abortion because they value the idea of life and children so much they can't see a world where abortion exists as a positive thing. Doesn't mean he's going to go blow up an abortion clinic.
We also have vegans who don't want to see any animals slaughtered for food, but we don't evict them from our ranks. We ARE able to have different opinions and still move forward in areas we can agree upon.
He's on the opposite side of the isle for some issues, but he's looking good on these others.
Diplomacy is finding areas of agreement and getting those things settled then working our way up to the harder issues.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)...while treating women and gays as sub-human.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)what you just said, the Pope has spoken harshly to Right Wing Catholics for their own obsession with women and gays and told them they need to focus on issues that affect all human beings.
Incredible steps forward for an institution that for centuries had forgotten its founders teaching.
Huge applause for him.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)One good thing doesn't erase millenia of bigotry.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)this Pope as the first steps out of the darkness and towards the light. Every step taken in the right direction, should be encouraged and applauded. I do NOT expect, as a woman, that ANY pope could possibly overturn centuries of ignorance in just a few months. What I hope for in any leader is to see them turn around, stop heading deeper into the pit and begin the journey into the present. That is what this pope has done.
As a woman, when he told the Republican Fundy Catholics to drop their obsession with abortion and stop being hypocrites and start focusing on the huge issues that face people all over the globe, I was astonished.
Everything is relative. In the context of this institution, this was a step in the right direction.
Sounds to me as if you would prefer that the had NOT slammed the hypocrites at all, done the opposite and continued to praise them.
Why would you want that?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Should I applaud every person who does his/her job the way they're supposed to do it?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And there is no doubt that when they do, they will be hounded by those who do not benefit from their attempts to do what is right. So they need all the support they can get to let them know that the right wing really IS a minority and that they have support to keep on doing what is right.
It takes courage to go against the established tenets of any religion even IF you are right. If you don't believe that, see what happens to those who take a stand. Vested interests do not want an organization as big as the Catholic Church to move one inch from the Right Wing Fundy positions they have held. Politically it gives an edge to Republicans making it way more difficult for voters who are Catholics to vote FOR equality. What this pope is doing is to give permission to many Catholics who were not really comfortable voting for Republicans, to finally feel free to ignore the 'obsessions' with abortion and Gay Rights, as he has told them to do and vote for Democrats.
Whether you see it or not, it is a huge step against the use of these issues to get the huge Catholic vote in this country.
The tide IS turning, there is a momentum happening, and he has added fuel to keep it moving in the right direction. He cannot come out FOR issues that the church has not yet embraced, but he can and has come out AGAINST the persecution of any human being. He has done what is possible at this point in time and in doing so has moved things forward just a little bit rather than keep the status quo in place.
Sort of like a good chess move. I won't win the game all on its own, but it is moving in the right direction.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)He's doing what he's supposed to be doing.
Ratz was a bigoted creep, but at least he was open and honest about it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That is what I'm getting from your comments, you can correct me if I'm wrong.
How do we know when someone is doing the right thing, Sarah Palin and all those who benefited from the old status quo, are a good gauge.
He has managed to seriously upset all of them, while giving hope to those who have had no hope, and that's a good enough beginning for millions of people who understand how change begins and who want to see that beginning.
840high
(17,196 posts)a good Pope.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)on his denying women full control of their reproductive rights, on his position denying full and equal human rights to LGBTs, or on his position that secularism leads to moral relativism and is the cause of what he sees as "cultural challenges".
His decidedly non-liberal positions give me reason, as a liberal, to criticize him as much as I want to.
Funny that you choose to completely ignore his very conservative social positions because you happen to agree with some of his economic opinions. Me? I'd rather get economic opinions from someone like Krugman, whose positions don't come with centuries worth of bigotry, misogyny and homophobia attached.
As I've said over and over. Pope Photo-Op has a great PR team that has got millions around the globe fooled into believing that he's some sort of progressive messiah. He might be the most progressive Pope ever, but that's not saying much.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-wolf-in-popes-clothing-francis-is-not-the-progressive-man-he-has-been-made-out-to-be-8851316.html
Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Republicans here about their obsession with women and gays. That was a huge slap in the face to them. Centuries of dogma can't be wiped away in a few months. Look how long it took our President to finally admit that Gays should be given the same rights regarding marriage equality as everyone else. He deserves great credit for coming finally to that realization.
Half of America's Catholics are Democrats who are thrilled that this Pope has presented them with a weapon they did NOT have when Republican Catholics went after John Kerry, who is a Catholic for his statements regarding his own personal beliefs on abortion as opposed to what his duty would be as an elected president.
Btw, how do you feel about John Kerry's statements on Abortion? He doesn't personally support it, but recognizes it is not his business to impose his beliefs on others?
And now we finally have a Pope who has slammed the hypocrites on the Right and their Employers.
But you didn't say whether or not you agree with him regarding Global Predatory Capitalism and the Poor, you changed the subject. So I suppose that means you do not agree with him.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Strange, all I saw was you trying to put words in my mouth. Usually, when someone is genuinely asking a question, they don't start it with "So you..."
"So I suppose that means you do not agree with him."
And there you go, doing it again. So bloody transparent, sabrina. 
Here's my reply. I choose not to answer your question, and don't give a flying fadoo what assumptions you make based on my unwillingness to play your games. 
Sid
rug
(82,333 posts)Imagine that.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)shocked, shocked I am.
Sid
rug
(82,333 posts) 
irisblue
(32,973 posts)statements, policies, not the DUer.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
cordelia
(2,174 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)trying to figure out where some DUers actually stand on important Democratic issues such as the poor. Since you had nothing good to say about the Pope's eviscerating Austerity imposed by the Predatory Global Capitalists, which brings joy to Democrats all over this country, I DO assume, unless you decide to contradict me, that you do not agree with him.
rug
(82,333 posts)The only thing that would move him would be if Francis read The List from the pulpit of St. Peter's on Sunday.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)until then, as far as I'm concerned, he's just another religious bigot.
Sid
rug
(82,333 posts)After all, bigots rarely change their minds.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"bigots rarely change their minds." as you just said.
rug
(82,333 posts)Wait, never mind, unnecessary.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I will let you pick, out of my entire collection of hats, one for me to dine upon. And I will film it for you.
Edit: And contraceptives.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)progressive civil law.
The doctrine must be reformed, or discarded, IMO.
rug
(82,333 posts)Because if the civil law does not reflect that doctrine, or has been enacted for other, non-doctrinal, reasons, you are going after something that you consider to be, essentially, a mind crime.
Personally, I prefer to focus efforts on progressive civil law which does, after all, have the power of the state to enforce it. Doctrine does not so glibly convert to votes or money as you suggest.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Don't pretend tithing doesn't funnel up and then back down with a political mandate on issues. Don't pretend the church doesn't preach from the pulpit, holding people's 'immortal souls' in jeopardy over issues. I have catholics in my family. I know what goes on in many if not all of those churches.
I don't need to outlaw it. Not sure why you asked me that in response to what I just said. Discarded involves a voluntary act by adherents to the church, not an outside legal prohibition.
There's nothing 'mind crime' about opposing an organization and its dogma that lobbies and spends millions on right-wing social issues, and berates members into voting certain ways.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm not pretending anything. The evidence doesn't support your overreaching conclusion.
What it boils down to is straightforward: you simply object to religious beliefs.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Whether couched under a protective veil of 'religious' or not.
It took us 16 years to pass that bill in Washington State. ALL top 10 hostile donors: members/wings/groups within the Catholic church. I've shown you the numbers before.
Data doesn't support it my ass.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)They are keeping up the fight in other states, and I hope they are overruled nationwide, and what the church has done is unforgiveable, and should therefore be relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I don't think there is tithing is a thing in the RCC. I was a Catholic for the first 35 or so years of my life and even went to Catholic school, there was never tithing. Just an FYI.
Julie
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's not a requirement, more of a recommendation. The guideline is 10%. But again, it is voluntary within the RCC, not an audited, interviewed, spread-sheeted thing like it is within the Mormon church.
When Catholics pass around a basket at Mass, that's what's happening.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Passing the basket, never heard of guidelines of what to give. It was just a give-what-you-can thing and some just pass the basket on without putting anything in & no one seemed to care. When in Catholic school, attending church with students, they didn't even pass the basket. (As an aside; interestingly enough my ex was a Lutheran and always made snide remarks about the Catholic church and money. At one point his mom gave us a bunch of his childhood stuff including report cards from his Lutheran school. They actually graded him on how much money he gave at the services students attended. I found that interesting.)
Disclaimer (of sorts): I grew up in southeast MI and have spent my adulthood in northwest MI so my experience is limited to parishes in those regions. Additionally, I've been an atheist for some years now so if they've since implemented giving guidelines, I wouldn't know.
Julie
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)or people dying of malnutrition?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)They can't do both?
Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)instead of giving it to the poor?
And while we're at it... Did you hate Obama before he "evolved" on gay marriage?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Or are you under the impression that the Church has been giving it away to the poor?
Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Do you?
And what about pre-evolved Obama? Did you hate him?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine many people feel the visceral desire to equate the approval of a statement with glorifying someone to better validate one's own biases.
I was beginning to get get worried that they wouldn't project fictitious sentiments onto other posters this week.
(Six of one, half a dozen of the other and all that. Insert distinction without a difference here...)
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You're cute when you whimper about not getting your way. I personally don't miss the Nazi pedophile pope.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)mysoginist, just because he says some pretty words about income inequality.
Pope Photo-Op is an evangel who thinks rising secularism is the cause of the world's problems. He's basically Pat Robertson with a giant hat.
Sid
yodermon
(6,143 posts)I pretty much agree with everything John Edwards has said, politically, but i still think he's a fucking asshole.
See? separating issues from personality.
Holding multiple complex thoughts simultaneously.
Adult, non-black & white thinking.
Look into it.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I bet Francis is, all in all, a pretty nice guy, but I disagree with almost all of his political positions.
And, I think his political positions are far more important than his personality.
Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)world's economies, who use slave labor while taking tax breaks and subsidies from the very people whose livelihoods they are destroying?
You should have just said that.
I totally support his stand on poverty and totally agree with him placing the blame where it belongs.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This is a matter of an organization that spends MILLIONS per year, influencing ballots. Ordering people, browbeating them to vote certain ways. Buying ads that oppose civil rights. Buying ads that oppose a Woman's right to choose.
Don't pretend the church merely has an opinion, on these issues. A mere, harmless, take it or leave it if you want to, no problem sort of fluffy commentary in the background.
No, they are front and center leading a political fight on these issues, spending millions doing it, giving marching orders to a captive audience of millions.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)For the record, I'm a progressive. No allegation is required, because I'm stating it straight-out. If you have a view to the contrary, have the courage of your convictions and say what you mean. Snap, snap, let's go. You made an accusation, let's see what you've got behind it. May I assume that a non-answer to my question means you have no fucking idea what you're talking about? Good, I'm glad we've agreed on that.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)So you don't find his latest message worthwhile?
I doubt even the stodgy RC Church would consider the mere act of disagreeing with them politically a mortal sin. It would appear that canon is reserved for the church of SidDithers
rpannier
(24,329 posts)If you're not interested in them why make yourself annoyed and read them?
I'm sure you can find something that interests you that you like.
As to your snide comments made later about economics, I'm one who is perfectly happy with arguably the most powerful/influential person on the planet talking about the need to help the poor, that criticizes crony capitalism, etc
I like Krugman too. But honestly, how many people around the world give a damn about what he says. It is easy to demean and brush aside Krugman, more difficult to do the same to the Pope. Look how quickly Palin 'qualified' her remarks the day after making them.
Guy ain't perfect, disagree on some things, agree on others. But he's a far more valuable ally than an adversary.
If you can't see that, or choose not to, have at you. The world is more interested in what he has to say and what he thinks than what you or I do.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Where did they find this guy?
" some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. "
EEEEEEEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIiiiii He's a Socialist, a Communist, a liberal. a left wing wacko... He's Obama's father, he's from ohhhh. that's it..South America, somewhere.... must love Cuba...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)hypocrites.
He has already chastised them for their 'obsession' with women and gays and told them to start focusing on the poor.
That is going to make it very difficult for them to attack Democratic Catholics, like Kerry, as they have been doing now for far too long and getting away with it. He has taken that weapon out of their hands.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)IF the ones who actually believe it would all decide to stop the crap, call press conferences one by one and tell the truth. the repubs would be finished in 1 week... I think.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It wouldn't hurt them to speak up on our behalf. I won't cast a vote for any more of these silent fucks.
And you're right, Republicans could be crushed in a week. Every Democrat interviewed on TV should be prepared to say, "And I want to point out that supply side economics has been a complete failure." They could work it in there, kind of like Republicans do with, "Benghazi!"
Zambero
(8,964 posts)You have no doubt heard this message or soon will, Mr. Ryan. So as one who claims to be a practicing Catholic and is in a position to act on the principles espoused by Pope Francis, what will be your response? Adherence? Avoidance or mere annoyance? Your Pope, or Ayn Rand?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
snooper2
(30,151 posts)holy dude says what you like to hear...
More More More!!!!
I hope somebody is doing a study...
How leaders religious views impact attendance and commitment to the catholic church based on political leanings.
randome
(34,845 posts)If Glenn Beck said something similar, I'd applaud him for it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)After all, he said "I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security".
He didn't?
What do you call someone who says something and doesn't do it...hmmmmm...oh yeah, a hypocrite.
I wouldn't call someone who is anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, and anti-woman as an "anti-rightwing nutjob". In fact, he'd fit right in with the republicans in congress.
devils chaplain
(602 posts)Catholic positions on abortion and other birth control exacerbate these problems.
polly7
(20,582 posts)He really does get it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)used more often to attack minorities and the rights of women than to feed the hungry or to create justice where there is no justice. The actual actions of this man are often horrific and always very conservative. He is against equality for LGBT people and against a woman's right to reproductive choice so he is in his actions as right wing and nut jobby as Pat Robertson.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)That is one thick document!
There is a turning, friends. Wind is moving as the pendulum swings at the Vatican. I an't remember this ever happening in my life. And I've been around a pret-tey long time.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)There's always been an underlying call for social justice in Catholic teachings. In some Catholic religious orders, such as Jesuits (of which Francis is one), that never really went away.
However, that teaching has been obscured over the years. In part due to the Vatican's regal largesse that harkens back to the Middle Ages and never fully went away.
In part due to the bureaucratic mess that is the Church's hierarchy and their horrid mismanagement of scandals such as the child abuse scandals over the past couple of decades, and the resulting public relations debacle.
And, specifically to the United States Catholic Church, the focus on taking strong socially conservative positions on issues such as abortion, contraception and gay marriage. Free market economic conservatives of the Ayn Rand ilk, knowing that their positions lacked great public appeal since they almost exclusively benefited the top 1%, chose within the construct of the Republican Party to "marry" their cause with the social conservative cause, which had significantly stronger support. This, in turn, resulted in those social conservatives choosing to adopt those stauch economically conservative views, even though they were almost diametrically against their own best interests, because they are viewed to be "on the same side." So you had poor but socially conservative people essentially hating the poor.
But if you put those matters aside, Catholic teaching has always taught a great responsibility towards the poor and less fortunate. It's a damn shame that that message is too often lost for reasons that are the Church's own fault. But a good local pastor will help orient his parishioners back to that primal focus. Thankfully, as a Catholic, I've never lost sight of that message, although it is easy to do so.
It's one of the main reasons I haven't given up on the Church despite my constant misgivings with much of its leadership.
glinda
(14,807 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)While openly working to oppress gays and women, and promote the deaths of millions in Africa through the banning of contraception. He also talks a fantastic game about other people giving to the poor. Not him of course, but you.
Other than that he's a swell guy. Just don't allow him to be alone with any children.
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)until he makes bold and aggressive moves to root out and assist in the prosecution of the pedo-priests than run rampant in his church....then, meh.
paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)What a contrast to Ratso. Yow!
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)... "Some people continue to defend trickle down theories...self-serving tax evasion...inequality...we can no longer trust in unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market..not to share one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and take away their livelihood." LOL.
Wotta commie. Sure, he's still not bringing the church back from the Iron Age with his views on sexual mores and empowerment, but I like the idea of conservative heads blowing up. The Catholic vote is important to Democrats in this country. Anything that slants it to the left has got to be good.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)This is the one progressive issue that the RCC gives plenty of lip service to, but does little to support. In fact, it CAUSES poverty with its medieval anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-women rules--rules it is much more active in enforcing among its flock (and lobbying to impose on non-Catholics as well) than its proscriptions against greed.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)There is some deep desire on the part of DU'ers to toss their support in the ring with anti-gay, anti-women people and organizations. I really can't fathom it.
Yes, it's fantastic that they wan't a better lot for the poor, but that does not excuse their dark-age positions when it comes to this other fantastically important issues.
graywarrior
(59,440 posts)I despise the Catlick church. Being a recovering catlick, it's difficult to trust anything coming from that organization. But I'm starting to listen. Big step--doesn't mean I'd ever become one of them again, tho.
t
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)...a little more...
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Then again, who will pay attention to him most is Catholics, and Catholics tend to be more liberal compared to conservatives who in the U.S., tend to be Protestants (John Calvin, Protestant hero, endorsed pro-capitalist ideologies centuries ago.) However, he can help fight against capitalism in Catholic countries.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
alfredo
(60,071 posts)they said. The plan was redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class.
colbertforpresident
(241 posts)How long before they call him a commie? This is going to be troubling for people such as Hannity, O'Reilly and Bill Donahue.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)One cannot truly hold the Popes social and economic views at the same time. Social inequality and economic inequality are completely intertwined. You cannot in reality be for economic equality while fighting against social equality. He cannot have "greater justice and inclusiveness in the world" through economic justice alone. His own thoughts are contradictory.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)This ought to be good; right-wing catholics I know must be experiencing some major cognitive dissonance.
calimary
(81,238 posts)I LOVE the specific reference to trickle-down. YES!!!!!!!!! Fucking PIRACY!!!! And THEFT!!!! Which, is a sin and one of the Ten Commandments before the Catholic Church was even around to start talking about sin.
Pope Francis in some ways feels like a breath of fresh air. I hope he's well protected. And I hope maybe, just maybe... he'll become as forward-thinking about women in the priesthood. Maybe that's too much to ask. Sigh - we've only been at it for at least two thousand years that I know of. But this Papal letter is extraordinary! He is the leader of more than a BILLION Catholics worldwide. One of the most successful religious franchises ever known. This is the kind of thing Catholics should be loud 'n' proud about. THIS is what we should be out there making a big stink and a big noise about. THIS accursed, toxic, and downright SINFUL, repeat, SINFUL trickle-down BS. This shit that started 30 years ago with reagan. He's the devil who brought that curse into the house. That became something good and desirable and damn near sanctified. Selfishness became okay. Cool, even. Certainly the underlying motivation behind too many laws and legislative campaigns that have born fruit in the last few years. They started building this with the rise of ronald reagan.
We HAVE TO reverse the reagan curse!
I guess I kinda overdo it sometimes, in my disgust with ronald reagan. But I kinda feel compelled. Somebody's gotta speak the truth about him. He's NO saint. He's not even close. Maybe he did some nice things on a personal individual level, and maybe close-up and close-in, he was a kindly, harmless, amiable old man. But put him in any sort of position of overlordship, if you will, whether it was the Screen Actors Guild or the White House, and he begins to wreak havoc. His ideas, having been allowed to be implemented on his watch and beyond, have led directly to the mess we're in today.
Mainly:
1) The distrust of government. His inaugural declaration (one of 'em anyway) was that "government is not the solution, government is the problem," and that nauseating "the nine most terrifying words in the English language" BS: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." ronald reagan's political sons and daughters have gained enough of a foothold in positions of power both at the state level and nationally that they can seriously threaten to shut down the United States government and throw the entire national economy into a tailspin. Nationally, their deliberate obstruction has led to a widespread public distrust of government. These assholes have gotten into office in the House and Senate and proceeded to prove the need for that distrust. "Government BAAAD. Let's show you how and why!" They've been hellbent on fucking things up. Putting impediments and blocks and holds in the way, every way they can think of, slowing things down, stopping things outright. Stalling and shelving ideas that had a chance at one point. The election of - GASP!!! - an African American to the Presidency just gave 'em an excuse to boil over. They're hellbent on proving that government is bad, by MAKING IT BAD with their own actions and statements and strategies. They're not interested in figuring out how to fix it or improve it. Improvement to them is a big fat fetid void. Fixing it means getting rid of it altogether.
They have enough clout and electoral wins at the state level to adversely affect state laws. Just ask women who like their doctor's office AND the real estate between their necks and their knees kept off limits to Big Brother in Washington (and yeah, it's mostly male, too). Just ask anyone, black, white, brown, wrinkled, or whatever, who had to stand in line for almost the whole damn day just to exercise his/her LEGAL right to vote. Just ask any teacher or parent who would rather see their precious child taught science in science class, and keep the creation story where it belongs: in credible and comprehensive religious studies, theology, philosophy, or even ancient history class.
2) Nobody tells me what to do. I'm sorry, but sometimes somebody has to. If you wish to live in a civilized society in which we ALL try to get along peaceably even while acknowledging that we're not all alike, you have to have some sort of internal or external hierarchy telling you what to do. In other words - governing you. Internally it's your conscience that hopefully has been developed by someone other than a selfish bunch of sociopaths. Externally it's the authority figures around you, ranging from teachers to bosses to police to - yes, government employees. "Getting the government off yer back" is unworkable - particularly the way the reaganistas did it. Their idea of "getting the government off yer back" was getting the government out of big business and industry and big banking. Damn those pollution laws anyway! Get rid of 'em! Free market! Free market! reagan underscored that internationally by turning his nose up at the World Court. His various declarations that the U.S. is exempt from any of your steeenking laws. American exceptionalism, dontchaknow. That one certainly has been handed down, most recently, to bush/cheney. Look at their track record for lawlessness that they've demonstrated overseas during those miserable years! That could explain why many people in other countries view the U.S. as almost a rogue nation - if not as one, flat-out.
And that's another thing -
3) The sanctity of the free market. Oh yeah, that'll help. That'll fix everything! Nobody should tell business how to do business. No rules! No regulations! Too restrictive. Freedom is what we need. Well, okay, but only within reason! We have to consider what one considers "freedom." Freedom to price-gouge? Freedom to cheat? Why can't I play fast 'n' loose with other people's hard-earned retirement money? Freedom to pollute? Why shouldn't I just dump it where I want to? None o' yer business. Why can't I pay whatever salaries I want to - regardless how low and unsustainable? Oh it'll cost too much. Well, with the biggest of 'em, doing the literal right thing in the public interest for the greater good, they can afford to spend a little more, with their obscene and still growing profit margins. THIS freedom isn't free, either. You're NOT free to shit on your neighbor or cheat your customers or maneuver yourself into having an edge at their expense. I realize it's commonly done. But you shouldn't have the "freedom" to do that! SHEESH - we now have a Pope who seems to feel that way...
4) IGMFU.Stands for "I Got Mine, F-U." Screw the poor. They're just lazy moochers and they deserve it. Doesn't God want you to be rich? That's how you know you're Blessed of Him. Me for me. ayn rand says I'm entitled to keep the whole thing and that I don't have to share. I'm hailed as a "job creator" even though I'm mostly just hoarding my resources and whining about "uncertainty". You're on your own. That's how it's supposed to be. John Wayne. (And reagan was certainly the poor-man's-John-Wayne, schtick-wise.) Rugged individual! Get a job. Start a business (Oh sure! Magic cure! Like everyone everywhere is equipped to do that. As if!). And the always-popular "God will provide." It was suddenly a good thing to be selfish, to not want to pay taxes toward the greater good - because nobody called it that. They blasted it as "Communism" and made it smell bad.
Reagan made a LOT of genuinely stinky things smell like the finest Parisian perfume. He made crime and cheating honorable and even all-American. He made shit seem to taste like chocolate pie. And 30 years later, all we have is indigestion and acid reflux of the worst political, cultural, and societal kind. He lulled much of America to sleep and let the velociraptors in. MUCH of what ails us now can be traced directly to the rise of ronald reagan.
We need some POWERFUL personalities on a global scale, whose voices reach across all the boundary lines, to start rolling back the damaging advances of the reagan juggernaut. Thirty years is enough, I think. Maybe Pope Francis is what's needed. SOMETHING certainly is!
We HAVE TO reverse the reagan curse! It's VITAL!!!!
NCarolinawoman
(2,825 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Do REAL Christians work to make sure women cannot control their own bodies?
Just wanted to see if those were included in the definition of what a REAL Christian is. Let me know - thanks!
VA_Jill
(9,966 posts)God's apology for Benedict XVI, aka Pope Palpatine.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)but so I did. Amazing. Will wonders never cease? Almost enough to make you believe in miracles - just the words - we simply never hear "the Market" questioned.
crim son
(27,464 posts)and wants to make a good impression before the Second Coming. Or something.
lark
(23,099 posts)Finally a pope who actually cares about the preaching of Christ. The last one was horrible, made me sick with his pedofile tolerance and homosexual, poor people & women hatred.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)
PATRICK
(12,228 posts)before they can turn off the usual bully pulpit accorded to a traditional prop of traditional power- inside the Church especially and in the media pre-emptively. Very very committed and wise. The conservative Catholic press seems to be slack jawed about how to show enthusiam and obeisance to things they would never otherwise imagine or support- and all are more consistent with actual teachings and the Gospels than the usual tedium, even hypocrisy of past "official" Church communications.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)hopefully people can connect the dots as to how the Right Wing has hijacked Christianity.
Jesus was a liberal, and conservative so called christians have distorted his teachings for centuries.
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)And yes, I understand the church is still anti-gay and anti-choice, which is against my views of course. But to see this new pope focus so strongly on the issue of economic inequality is just awesome. I don't feel it's wrong to applaud the stance he's taking in that area. Progress happens incrementally and this is definitely progress in the right direction.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)in the context of the problems we are facing in the world today.
For example, what he says about trickle down theory is undeniable.
We should expect the pope to be a good man. And this Pope, by all appearances, is a good man.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)I may become a believer and join the Catholic Church.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)Christians have been hypocrites for so damn long!
madisongrace
(63 posts)on these issues, at least...
Thanks for posting.
Tigress DEM
(7,887 posts)He could be a DUer!
How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion.
GO POPE FRANCIS!!
Gman
(24,780 posts)Not the hijacked version the conservatives want Catholicism to be and that we've seen for so many years.
Francis is the result of buyers remorse from the cardinals for electing Ratzinger pope.
SDjack
(1,448 posts)Now, he needs to return a large amount of the Vatican's wealth back into the poor sector of the world's economies.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)He can't sell other people's stuff, but he can and has set an example by doing it himself.
As a result of the example he has set, other priests have taken his message to heart and done the same thing.
He doesn't own the Vatican's property, but it looks like he is influencing people all over the world who ARE Catholics to follow his own example. This is the best possible way to make sure that those who supposed to be serving the poor, rather than, as he pointed out, 'living in luxury' will be shamed into to doing what they are supposed to do. Or have their eyes opened and think about what they, up to now, had not thought about. All around this will benefit the poor.
Colombian Priest Sells Mercedes Inspired By Pope Francis Message. Rev. Hernando Fayid Heeds Pontiff Call To Humility
Fayid told RCN television Tuesday evening that he got the car as a gift from his four brothers last year, but will still give it up and it won't bother him.
He said he's ridden a burro, a horse, a bicycle and a bus, to say nothing of walking on foot around his town of Santa Marta. In his words, "I have no problem with that."
He isn't going to be very popular with the filthy rich who believe the exact opposite of what this pope believes, but I don't think it's going to bother him.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I assume Francis wrote the document in another language first-- Latin, or maybe his native Spanish-- and then it was translated into many languages, including English. But the use of the phrase "trickle-down" in English is very interesting. This is a particularly American phrase and in this context has to be a direct reference to American conservative economics.
In other words, it's not just a uniform, vague, call to address poverty and inequality (though that would be fine), but a specific criticism of the right wing in the United States.
Dang.
NCarolinawoman
(2,825 posts)I've gone to several links regarding this document, and scholars say this term was deliberate. I think he must be very well-read (like most Jesuits) and I'd be interested to know who he confers with. Particularly what American he considers as a close adviser.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)not that I've ever heard or expected anything encouraging out of the vatican, or even that this pope's own history is encouraging, but I suppose I'm naive enough to think that leadership can make a difference. Even from the least expected source. It may not make much of a difference here. but elsewhere around the world I think many are listening.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)It's enlightening, pretty thorough on his thinking
I'd wait for the response from the Santorums of the world, but it has no pictures, has almost 290 points he covers and he uses polysyllabic words. I doubt they'd be able to read it much less understand it.
geomon666
(7,512 posts)I'm actually quite stunned.
ancianita
(36,053 posts)He's trying to clear out the temple so that religion may speak with spiritual integrity to secular institutions. He's got a way to go, in my book, but he's at least trying.
appleannie1
(5,067 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)I gave up on God
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)mathematic
(1,439 posts)Isn't it the constant refrain here at DU that poor white conservatives vote "against their interests"? What is meant is that they vote against their economic interests. Nobody doubts that they are, in fact, voting for their religious interests. That's the power of religion.
The pope is not stupid. He knows that if people turn away from the material world, from economic power, then they will turn towards religion. The world won't suddenly be filled with atheistic communists, tearing down the structures of capitalism. They will turn towards the iron age Church with its iron age social values. And they will hold those values with an iron conviction.
MRDAWG
(501 posts)!
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)this guy is amazing.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)It's hard to understand how he rose so far in the ranks of what seems to me to be a rotten to the core religion. I'm not dissing Catholics and their individual churches but how can one look at Vatican City and see anything but wrong.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)But nobody here fawned over him because he didn't do cute photo-ops.
The pope said economic models that seek maximum profit and consumption and encourage competition at all costs had failed to look after the basic needs of many and could sow social unrest.
"It is alarming to see hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor, by the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism."
The pope said people, groups and institutions were needed to foster human creativity, to draw lessons from the crisis and to create a new economic model.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/01-4
The pope lamented the great inequalities in health care around the globe. While people in many parts of the world aren’t able to receive essential medications or even the most basic care, in industrialized countries there is a risk of “pharmacological, medical and surgical consumerism” that leads to “a cult of the body,” the pope said.
“The care of man, his transcendent dignity and his inalienable rights” are issues that should concern Christians, the pope said.
Because an individual’s health is a “precious asset” to society as well as to himself, governments and other agencies should seek to protect it by “dedicating the equipment, resources and energy so that the greatest number of people can have access.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/11/19/131348/pope-universal-healthcare/
moondust
(19,979 posts)and Wall Street banks.
