The Pope is dope

[Forostar]

... or isn't he?

I realize this new one (or any Pope at all) isn't popular out here (e.g. because he is against gay marriage), but I still thought it would be good to have a topic about him. To give room for sceptics, to post negative or positive issues about him.

I'll start with something that affirms my ideas I have about him. From a BBC article:

Pope Francis appointed a group of top churchmen to advise him on how to reform the Vatican's often arcane bureaucracy.

He chose eight cardinals and a bishop who between them represent nearly every continent, and only one of whom is currently a Vatican official.

The bureaucracy, or Curia, has been blamed for the Church's hesitant response to sex abuse and other crises. It is nearly 50 years since the Vatican's last major reforms.

- - - -

Excellent news. I wish they started earlier than in October, but I like that only one out of eight is a Vatican official. Many cardinals complain a lot about the Curia's response to scandals so this action should start something, finally.

 

[Night Prowler]

(For some reason, I can't use "rich format text" in this post, the button disappeared Anyone else with the same problem?)

-In the debate leading up to the successful passage of same-sex-marriage legislation in his home country, then-Cardinal Bergoglio was a strong and vocal opponent, most famously saying, in a private letter to nuns that became public:

Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.

When Argentina adopted same-sex marriage three years ago, Bergoglio said “everyone loses” and “children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother.”

-Pope Francis has referred to adoption by gay parents as a form of “discrimination against children”.

-He warned Catholics who support abortion:

We should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence,’ that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. The responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors and health professionals.

That's enough for me to say that he sucks.

 

[Perun]

The bureaucracy, or Curia, has been blamed for the Church's hesitant response to sex abuse and other crises. It is nearly 50 years since the Vatican's last major reforms.

Reforms sound good, but I'm in doubt that unless they get rid of papacy, the church and any institution stemming from antiquity that tells people how to live, have sex and raise their children, it's not going to be good enough for me.

 

[Forostar]

If we can, we can try to follow such developments along the way even though it's complex. Lots of these things are also cultural and political phenomenons. The Vatican can want lots of things, but it depends on a government or even the people of a nation themselves, how these wishes are dealt with.

If reforming improves how to deal with scandals, I certainly approve that.

@Night Prowler, I agree that this subject doesn't look much better than the previous Popes. I disagree strongly with him, here. But I'm afraid it will take very long before such issues will change.


So, reforming something comes in steps. Some will never be taken, but some others may lead to better things. If Benedict would have continued for some years, all would stay the same, and we will have anti-gay ravings every month or so, and the Muslim world will continue to be annoyed by dumb blunders in speeches.

 

[Mosh]

I think they should get rid of the papacy; I don't like that it still exists. That said, I think Francis is a great improvement over Benedict who I didn't like at all. There are definitely issues I disagree strongly with, mostly in the gay rights departments, but that goes back to my belief that the papacy shouldn't exist anyway; it'll be decades before the Church bends on that issue.

I could go really in depth into why I like the new pope more than Benny, but instead I'll just comment one thing: his presentation. I like that he doesn't treat himself like royalty with the outrageous garb and gold cross. The pope should act as a priest, not a king. Here's a picture of what I mean:

Easter 2007 and Easter 2013

 

[Black Wizard]

Decades before the Roman Catholic Church starts considering getting rid the papacy? Please...

 

[Mosh]

I meant considering a different stance on gay rights. I worded that weirdly, I don't they will ever abolish the papacy.

 

[Natalie]

I think most people here are aware on my position on the new pope. I might go into a bit more detail later but here are some pro's and con's.

Pro's: He presents himself a lot better than recent popes. No outrageous garb, simple, slick, all smiles, very good with a crowd. He's popular with the youth, probably for this reason. So he's a good PR man. Which makes him more dangerous in my opinion.

Con's: He's a figurehead of the most corrupt and probably closest to purely evil organization in history. The responsibility for millions of lives ruined or prematurely ended lies on the shoulders of the Church. Then of course, he's a hypocrite. He says he's a champion of the poor but you can't do that if you don't stand for the rights of women (this has been shown to be the one most powerful way to fight poverty, empower the women of poor societies). And by rights I mean that he's against women's right to choose (i.e. against abortion). And then of course, that he's against gay marriage. Or gays in general really. And my issue here is less with him being against gay marriage per se but more the way in which he phrases it. A 'machination of the father of lies'? Really? We're Satan's spawn now? Not only is it absurd and antiquated, its also an affront to our basic rights as human beings. In effect, we're demons, aliens, something other than human, and this leaves us very vulnerable to discrimination of the worst kind. It's when we fail to see other humans as humans that the greatest atrocities are committed.

So yeah, I don't like this guy any more than the last. But in contrast to the last, I view him as a whole lot more dangerous, precisely because he knows his PR stuff and is way more popular than the last guy. Do I want to watch the Church burn? Basically yes.

 

[Forostar]

Actually, the burning of churches happens pretty often: Islamic fundamentalists (worse representatives for religion) are mostly responsible for that. E.g. now in Indonesia there are major problems.

But I guess we'll never watch the Church burn, as a whole, at least not in our lifetimes. Especially not if it becomes more tolerant instead of more intolerant.

He's a figurehead of the most corrupt and probably closest to purely evil organization in history. The responsibility for millions of lives ruined or prematurely ended lies on the shoulders of the Church.

I find certain governments in this world more evil and corrupted and I'd say lots of other forms of religion are also way more evil these days. I stress these days, (certainly when you look at rules and punishment). There are other (more) fundamentalist groups which are more life threatening for people who live today.

That said, let's follow how dangerous this Pope continues to be.

 

[Night Prowler]

Islamic fundamentalists (worse representatives for religion) are mostly responsible for that.

And Varg Vikernes

 

[Perun]

He presents himself a lot better than recent popes. No outrageous garb, simple, slick, all smiles, very good with a crowd. He's popular with the youth, probably for this reason. So he's a good PR man. Which makes him more dangerous in my opinion.

That's the key here. No offense to you, Foro, but I've always thought gay rights and equality were a subject that is not only very important to you, but that you are also very passionate about. There have been quite a few heated discussions on this board that ended up uncivil and with hurt feelings - but I always thought you would never back one inch from that position, and think of everybody who opposes it as spreading fairy tales and delusions. And now all it takes is an old man with a humble step and a charming smile for you to shrug the issue off as not so important?

Okay, so he promised reforms. What does that mean? A dismantling of bureaucracy? Is that really the key problem here? I consider the self-impairment (is that even a word?) of the Catholic Church a good thing, because it prevents it from doing more harm than it already does. Sure, molesting a few kids in European boarding schools isn't exactly the cream of moral behaviour, but what the church would do if it could is much more harmful to so many more people. Think outside the box (Europe and North America) for a moment, and consider that the Catholic Church is a rapidly growing institution in Africa. Here, it aims to impose moral values written down 2000 years ago on a population that has not been educated to evaluate this critically, and does not have the chance to draw their own conclusions by consulting other sources; simply because the Catholics educated them, and told them only the things they wanted to. So the morals millions of people in Africa have no choice but to live by are, "One of you might have AIDS? Play it safe and don't fuck. The pregnancy is threatening the mother's life? Let the bitch die! That guy thinks God doesn't exist? Stone the fucker! A book by Karl Marx? Burn it!"

Behind his kind face, that is what Bergoglio stands for (as you can see from the quotes posted in this thread), and that's why I'm not giving him a 'fair chance'. I hate papacy and everything it stands for. Nobody should ever impose their set of ideas on anyone else, no matter how many 'reforms' they promise.

 

[Forostar]

You make a good point there Perun. Perhaps I am so happy with a Pope who is not as terrible as Benedict (and who follows a different path) that the gay right issue went a bit to the background. I see differences between these Popes and perhaps you guys find that this is wrong, because it obscures other issues. What also plays a part, is that I was brought up in a tolerant Catholic family. I know that it can be good. And how I wish that the person at the top would spread the same words as my parents and other tolerant priests that I have known.

I hope he addresses the gay rights issues. The difference with you guys might be that I don't see something like this happen out of a sudden.

I have trouble with blaming someone for the entire history of the Catholic church. Especially not at the start of his task. The way this guy is attacked comes across as people blaming Obama for things that others caused in the past. It's different, but still, I feel I am more tolerant. Look, I am concerned. And that's why I am happy that something at least will change. Still, the man has said certain things (not all that is shared by atheist sites though) and I should not ignore that. But as a counter point I am not willing to ignore other stuff he does.

By the way, I want to know more about the things you say about Africa and Catholicism (current developments). Will get into it when I have more time.

 

[mtmccox]

I don't have the knowledge base as you guys, to form solid and fiery opinions, but basically the whole politic-ness and bureaucracy of catholic church and papacy is wrong on so many levels.

The pure idea of christianity and belief is that everyone should have a god on his own, on the personal intimate level, and this god should not be represented by some guy(s) who tell us how to think and to live. More importantly when there's a huge question of money and power involved.
It's good to learn from the wise and experienced, but then again, everything you need is inside you and it's very sad that the biggest "part of believers" mostly ignores that and finds "playing by the rules" more important.

Interesting note: My mother digs this stuff and often passes some info to me (usefullness of the info is often volatile), but from some parts of bible or something like that, this pope could be the "antichrist" Of course huge detective stuff and play with numbers (imagine DaVinci Code) is involved. But just saying..

 

[Perun]

The pure idea of christianity and belief is that everyone should have a god on his own, on the personal intimate level, and this god should not be represented by some guy(s) who tell us how to think and to live.

That is the message of Protestantism. In other words, that's what Protestants believe to be the idea of Christianity, whereas what Catholics believe to be the idea of Christianity is a bit different.

 

[mtmccox]

Then I must be Protestant, even though I don't put myself into a "box".

 

[Perun]

Ideally, Protestantism is the opening of the box. That's why there is only one Roman Catholic Church, but myriads of Protestant churches. By the Protestant creed, anyone who has their interpretation of Christianity can open their own church - which is pretty much what is happening in the US, the Protestant country par excellence.

The original idea of Protestantism was that the clerical systems of the existing churches in general, and the Roman Catholic church in particular, were too much about the ritual and power structures, and that what Christianity was really about was obscured. So, originally, Protestantism simply meant being not Catholic or Orthodox. Protestantism intended to move belief in the foreground of religion. To us nowadays, religion and belief are all the same thing, but it was really only the Protestants who made that point. Without wanting to delve too much into history, the Catholics had to adopt that idea for themselves in order to keep their influence and stop Christians from converting to Protestantism. Some historians believe that Europe became only fundamentally Christian after 1500, and kept much of its Pagan ways, thinly veiled, up until then.

Of course, many Protestants, like every religion that started out as a social and spiritual revolution, soon went the same way as all their predecessors.

 

[Perun]

I have trouble with blaming someone for the entire history of the Catholic church

This isn't about history, but about the present. What need is there for an institution such as papacy in the 21st century? Note that I'm not targeting the individual Bergoglio, but the entire institution of papacy and the Catholic Church that he is part of. What difference is there, in principle, not in practice, between the Pope and a Televangelist? Both claim to possess knowledge of absolute Truth, and promise to pass it on to the people. Moreso even, they claim that all it takes is simple acts to have the gates of Heaven open for you. The only difference is that one commands entire continents, and the other a local TV station.

 

[Forostar]

Of course, many Protestants, like every religion that started out as a social and spiritual revolution, soon went the same way as all their predecessors.

In fact, I find lots of branches of Protestantism more strict than Catholicism, at least in my country, although I realize that this situation isn't so representative. Out here, Protestants tend to take the bible more serious and literally than Catholics. They judge hard on non believers and threaten with hell. The Bible has a lot of rules. Also, because of these threats (live well, or else..), I think Protestants are more afraid to die.

This isn't about history, but about the present. What need is there for an institution such as papacy in the 21st century?

Well, I certainly have no need of a papacy institution led by Benny. I am curious for someone who tries to change things. If he has the power to make the church more tolerant and modern, fitting better to this era, then that would have a positive effect on the church communities he "rules" (even Poland needs to bow down one day). But these changes go slow.

To get the changes we really want; the apparatus, the bureaucracy needs to be changed first. It all goes in stages.

So, what is more realistic? The Pope should first openly say that homosexuality is perfectly OK, and sometime later (probably another Pope), might say that they can also raise children, and then again later, someone else needs to say: they can marry.

Expecting a Pope to do all at once is as realistic as expecting China to abolish the Communist party, Russia to get full freedom at once, Iran to give full access to nuclear inspections and Iran to get rid of their ridiculously powerful Ayatollahs. Not a fucking chance.

Note that I'm not targeting the individual Bergoglio, but the entire institution of papacy and the Catholic Church that he is part of.

I just hope that individuals can make a difference in this moloch of an institution.

 

[LooseCannon]

Yes, but this Pope has already said, in absolutely no unclear terms, that gays shouldn't get married and that women shouldn't be priests. He might be more moderate than Benedict. Do not confuse that to mean he is moderate.

I'm with Natalie 100%. The Catholic Church is an evil empire, and in the end, does it matter who the figurehead is?

 

[Forostar]

"The Catholic Church is an evil empire".
I find this so exaggerated. This is how Wilders and other fanatics shout at Islam.

But yes, I think it does matter. Stalin was the head of an evil empire. After him came a couple of leaders, but in Gorbachev's time, things changed for the better. Changes need to come from within and leaders can make that happen. They can also make it worse again.