The Pope is dope
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
Yes, I agree with that statement, but that's got little to do with that the Pope ain't gay friendly.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I am not sure why anyone ever thought he was .. the Catholic Church is not going to become best friends with the gay rights movement anytime soon. Francis might be less hostile than previous Pope's ... and some may see that as a first step .. but I think some were trying to project their beliefs onto the Pope without a factual basis
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Words can mean so much.
Not only has the Pope been awarded with Time person of the year,
The Advocate, the oldest gay rights magazine in the US has also chosen him as person of the year:
http://www.advocate.com/year-review/2013/12/16/advocates-person-year-pope-francis
... The most influential person of 2013 doesn't come from our ongoing legal conflict but instead from our spiritual one — successes from which are harder to define. There has not been any vote cast or ruling issued, and still a significant and unprecedented shift took place this year in how LGBT people are considered by one of the world's largest faith communities.
Pope Francis is leader of 1.2 billion Roman Catholics all over the world. There are three times as many Catholics in the world than there are citizens in the United States. Like it or not, what he says makes a difference. Sure, we all know Catholics who fudge on the religion's rules about morality. There's a lot of disagreement, about the role of women, about contraception, and more. But none of that should lead us to underestimate any pope's capacity for persuading hearts and minds in opening to LGBT people, and not only in the U.S. but globally.
The remaining holdouts for LGBT acceptance in religion, the ones who block progress in the work left to do, will more likely be persuaded by a figure they know. In the same way that President Obama transformed politics with his evolution on LGBT civil rights, a change from the pope could have a lasting effect on religion. ...
... As Argentina's archbishop, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio opposed marriage equality's eventual passage there, saying in 2010 that it's a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” When Bergoglio became pope, GLAAD was quick to point out that he'd once called adoption by same-sex couples a form of discrimination against children.
But it's actually during Pope Francis's time as cardinal that his difference from Benedict and hard-liners in the church became apparent. As same-sex marriage looked on track to be legalized in Argentina, Bergoglio argued privately that the church should come out for civil unions as the "lesser of two evils." That's all according to Pope Francis's authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin. Argentine gay activist Marcelo Márquez backed up the story, telling The New York Times in March that Bergoglio "listened to my views with a great deal of respect. He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage."
As pope, he has not yet said the Catholic Church supports civil unions. But what Francis does say about LGBT people has already caused reflection and consternation within his church. The moment that grabbed headlines was during a flight from Brazil to Rome. When asked about gay priests, Pope Francis told reporters, according to a translation from Italian, "If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?"
The brevity of that statement and the outsized attention it got immediately are evidence of the pope's sway. His posing a simple question with very Christian roots, when uttered in this context by this man, "Who am I to judge?" became a signal to Catholics and the world that the new pope is not like the old pope ...
... LGBT Catholics who remain in the church now have more reason to hope that change is coming. Listen to the reaction to the pope's "Who am I to judge?" comment.
"Pope Francis today uttered some of the most encouraging words a pontiff has ever spoken about gay and lesbian people," read a statement from the LGBT Catholic organization Equally Blessed. "In doing so, he has set a great example for Catholics everywhere." It went on with even greater anticipation, "Catholic leaders who continue to belittle gays and lesbians can no longer claim that their inflammatory remarks represent the sentiments of the pope. Bishops who oppose the expansion of basic civil rights — such as an end to discrimination in the work place — can no longer claim that the pope approves of their discriminatory agenda. Pope Francis did not articulate a change in the church’s teaching today, but he spoke compassionately, and in doing so, he has encouraged an already lively conversation that may one day make it possible for the church to fully embrace gay and lesbian Catholics."
Not only has the Pope been awarded with Time person of the year,
The Advocate, the oldest gay rights magazine in the US has also chosen him as person of the year:
http://www.advocate.com/year-review/2013/12/16/advocates-person-year-pope-francis
... The most influential person of 2013 doesn't come from our ongoing legal conflict but instead from our spiritual one — successes from which are harder to define. There has not been any vote cast or ruling issued, and still a significant and unprecedented shift took place this year in how LGBT people are considered by one of the world's largest faith communities.
Pope Francis is leader of 1.2 billion Roman Catholics all over the world. There are three times as many Catholics in the world than there are citizens in the United States. Like it or not, what he says makes a difference. Sure, we all know Catholics who fudge on the religion's rules about morality. There's a lot of disagreement, about the role of women, about contraception, and more. But none of that should lead us to underestimate any pope's capacity for persuading hearts and minds in opening to LGBT people, and not only in the U.S. but globally.
The remaining holdouts for LGBT acceptance in religion, the ones who block progress in the work left to do, will more likely be persuaded by a figure they know. In the same way that President Obama transformed politics with his evolution on LGBT civil rights, a change from the pope could have a lasting effect on religion. ...
... As Argentina's archbishop, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio opposed marriage equality's eventual passage there, saying in 2010 that it's a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” When Bergoglio became pope, GLAAD was quick to point out that he'd once called adoption by same-sex couples a form of discrimination against children.
But it's actually during Pope Francis's time as cardinal that his difference from Benedict and hard-liners in the church became apparent. As same-sex marriage looked on track to be legalized in Argentina, Bergoglio argued privately that the church should come out for civil unions as the "lesser of two evils." That's all according to Pope Francis's authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin. Argentine gay activist Marcelo Márquez backed up the story, telling The New York Times in March that Bergoglio "listened to my views with a great deal of respect. He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage."
As pope, he has not yet said the Catholic Church supports civil unions. But what Francis does say about LGBT people has already caused reflection and consternation within his church. The moment that grabbed headlines was during a flight from Brazil to Rome. When asked about gay priests, Pope Francis told reporters, according to a translation from Italian, "If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?"
The brevity of that statement and the outsized attention it got immediately are evidence of the pope's sway. His posing a simple question with very Christian roots, when uttered in this context by this man, "Who am I to judge?" became a signal to Catholics and the world that the new pope is not like the old pope ...
... LGBT Catholics who remain in the church now have more reason to hope that change is coming. Listen to the reaction to the pope's "Who am I to judge?" comment.
"Pope Francis today uttered some of the most encouraging words a pontiff has ever spoken about gay and lesbian people," read a statement from the LGBT Catholic organization Equally Blessed. "In doing so, he has set a great example for Catholics everywhere." It went on with even greater anticipation, "Catholic leaders who continue to belittle gays and lesbians can no longer claim that their inflammatory remarks represent the sentiments of the pope. Bishops who oppose the expansion of basic civil rights — such as an end to discrimination in the work place — can no longer claim that the pope approves of their discriminatory agenda. Pope Francis did not articulate a change in the church’s teaching today, but he spoke compassionately, and in doing so, he has encouraged an already lively conversation that may one day make it possible for the church to fully embrace gay and lesbian Catholics."
Last edited:
Finally! Some eloquent theologian put into words what it is exactly about pope Francis and his popularity that disturbs me. What's even more fantastic is that this opinion piece comes from a practicing catholic who presumably wants whats best for the church. So no, this isn't coming from someone who (like me) would rather see the church cease to exist altogether.
The full link follows below, but I would like to highlight some points.
1) "All of the enthusiasm about Francis’ style does not change the fact that the institutional Roman Catholic Church is a rigid hierarchy led by a pope—the warm feelings in response to Francis shore up that model of church by making the papacy itself look good. To my mind, this is a serious danger."
YES. The author goes on to point out that this is bad because it is essentially a monarchy and that catholics should work to de-centralize the church. I'd like to point out that while I agree that yes a monarchy (or dictatorship really) of this kind is not good, I also think its bad for the papacy to look good because it makes the church look good and this masks what the church really is all about. Namely that it is a force for patriarchy, heteronormativity, and oppression in the world. Yes, harsh words, and I know many of you will probably disagree and/or be insulted but you know what...someone has to say it. And this isn't even about faith or theology. This is about the institution of the church and the very real consequences its actions and policies have on the lives of ordinary people. So I'm not attacking anybody's 'faith'. But yes, I am attacking your (technically our as according to papers I am also catholic) institution.
2) "A second difficulty flows from the first, in that nothing has changed for women or LGBTIQ people with regard to Catholicism during the early months of this papacy. Nor is there much prospect on either issue given what the pope has said publicly."
This is the most important piece. Words are nice. But actions say a lot more than words. Granted there's still time. But I get the feeling that the pope will just talk the talk instead of walking the walk. And walking the walk is what counts. So no, no praise from me for saying what lots of other people have been saying for years. You have the power to change things. So do.
3) She responds fantastically to the over-reaction that LGBTQ people (probably of faith) had to the famous line: 'who am I to judge?':
"So my response to this question is to say, “You must judge, not because you are the pope, but because you are a human being whose support for what is good is useful and expected.”"
Her point being that the word 'judge' isn't necessarily negative. It is simply that, judge. The pope does need to judge, i.e. have an opinion on the subject. I think the reason LGBTQ people over-reacted is because they're so used to getting shit from the church that this sentence seemed like a golden ray of sunshine and unicorns and rainbows in comparison. But some perspective is needed. What did he really actually say? He said: I'm deferring responsibility on this to someone else. Not: Well if two people love each other, whats the problem? Which is how, I think, many people interpreted that sentence. Mostly because that's what they wanted to read. But it's not actually what he said. And then you just look at his track record of actions on LGBTQ issues and yeah...its not pretty.
4) She really highlights how there is a huge difference between PR (public relations) and substance:
"substantive structural and doctrinal issues do not evaporate just because the pope does not wear Prada."
and furthermore:
"Where are the women theologians called in to consult, the young people invited to discuss their lives and choices? Where are the lay people who might preach at the pope’s daily mass so he would listen instead of speak sometimes? Where are the lesbian and gay seminarians to explain the facts of life to an old Jesuit who entered the Society of Jesus before gay was gay? Where are the survivors of sexual abuse by priests and cover-ups by bishops to whom the institutional church, beginning in Rome, owes reparations?"
So here follows the full link: http://www.religiondispatches.org/a...ble_with_francis__three_things_that_worry_me/
The full link follows below, but I would like to highlight some points.
1) "All of the enthusiasm about Francis’ style does not change the fact that the institutional Roman Catholic Church is a rigid hierarchy led by a pope—the warm feelings in response to Francis shore up that model of church by making the papacy itself look good. To my mind, this is a serious danger."
YES. The author goes on to point out that this is bad because it is essentially a monarchy and that catholics should work to de-centralize the church. I'd like to point out that while I agree that yes a monarchy (or dictatorship really) of this kind is not good, I also think its bad for the papacy to look good because it makes the church look good and this masks what the church really is all about. Namely that it is a force for patriarchy, heteronormativity, and oppression in the world. Yes, harsh words, and I know many of you will probably disagree and/or be insulted but you know what...someone has to say it. And this isn't even about faith or theology. This is about the institution of the church and the very real consequences its actions and policies have on the lives of ordinary people. So I'm not attacking anybody's 'faith'. But yes, I am attacking your (technically our as according to papers I am also catholic) institution.
2) "A second difficulty flows from the first, in that nothing has changed for women or LGBTIQ people with regard to Catholicism during the early months of this papacy. Nor is there much prospect on either issue given what the pope has said publicly."
This is the most important piece. Words are nice. But actions say a lot more than words. Granted there's still time. But I get the feeling that the pope will just talk the talk instead of walking the walk. And walking the walk is what counts. So no, no praise from me for saying what lots of other people have been saying for years. You have the power to change things. So do.
3) She responds fantastically to the over-reaction that LGBTQ people (probably of faith) had to the famous line: 'who am I to judge?':
"So my response to this question is to say, “You must judge, not because you are the pope, but because you are a human being whose support for what is good is useful and expected.”"
Her point being that the word 'judge' isn't necessarily negative. It is simply that, judge. The pope does need to judge, i.e. have an opinion on the subject. I think the reason LGBTQ people over-reacted is because they're so used to getting shit from the church that this sentence seemed like a golden ray of sunshine and unicorns and rainbows in comparison. But some perspective is needed. What did he really actually say? He said: I'm deferring responsibility on this to someone else. Not: Well if two people love each other, whats the problem? Which is how, I think, many people interpreted that sentence. Mostly because that's what they wanted to read. But it's not actually what he said. And then you just look at his track record of actions on LGBTQ issues and yeah...its not pretty.
4) She really highlights how there is a huge difference between PR (public relations) and substance:
"substantive structural and doctrinal issues do not evaporate just because the pope does not wear Prada."
and furthermore:
"Where are the women theologians called in to consult, the young people invited to discuss their lives and choices? Where are the lay people who might preach at the pope’s daily mass so he would listen instead of speak sometimes? Where are the lesbian and gay seminarians to explain the facts of life to an old Jesuit who entered the Society of Jesus before gay was gay? Where are the survivors of sexual abuse by priests and cover-ups by bishops to whom the institutional church, beginning in Rome, owes reparations?"
So here follows the full link: http://www.religiondispatches.org/a...ble_with_francis__three_things_that_worry_me/
Bravo!
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Great piece! I agree with it to a point. I see nothing wrong with the Papacy in itself. Monarchies/dictatorships are good to enact QUICK changes. In the 60's during the civil rights movements, Catholics basically desegregated over night while it took Protestants years to accept the change... all because of papal edicts.
I agree nothing's changed during this papacy. What did people expect? Reminds me a lot of Obama's first election. People treated him like the second coming of Jesus forgetting he had a Republican congress and we live in a democracy in which by nature change is slow and painful. It will definitely take more than just a "fatherly" pope to change the core issues the church is facing today.
As for forcing patriarchy... I don't know about that. every time I go to church all the "alter boys" are actually girls, the people doing the readings, passing out the collection baskets, handing out communion, etc. are women. The church is ran by women for the exception of the priest who is basically there to perform the 'magic trick" of transmutation.
Women will not be ordained in my lifetime, but it will happen eventually.
I agree nothing's changed during this papacy. What did people expect? Reminds me a lot of Obama's first election. People treated him like the second coming of Jesus forgetting he had a Republican congress and we live in a democracy in which by nature change is slow and painful. It will definitely take more than just a "fatherly" pope to change the core issues the church is facing today.
As for forcing patriarchy... I don't know about that. every time I go to church all the "alter boys" are actually girls, the people doing the readings, passing out the collection baskets, handing out communion, etc. are women. The church is ran by women for the exception of the priest who is basically there to perform the 'magic trick" of transmutation.
Women will not be ordained in my lifetime, but it will happen eventually.
If the church isn't about patriarchy then it's really odd that all the positions of power in the church are occupied by men. It's also lovely that women get to participate and 'run' churches...yet it is the priest who wields spiritual power and holds the homily. I'm being sarcastic here. It sounds like women are being used as slaves, grateful for the 'reward' of getting to work for a master that is 'kind' enough not to whip them.
Dude, you contradict yourself.
So which is it? Is the Pope capable of quick change or not? The Catholic Church is a theocratic organization, and the Pope COULD change things quickly. He's chosen not to do so. It's little to do with his "congress", his cardinals and organization, and everything to do with the fact that he's a hypocrite trying to save face, preaching reconciliation to the cameras and whispering encouraging word to bishops who preach hate.
Also, who runs the church again? Who picks doctrine? Women are participants in the church, but they don't run it. Men used to say the exact same thing about women before suffrage. "Women don't need to vote, they run the family and they help the man pick how the family should vote."
The Church is a fucking monarchy, and women will only run the Church when there is a female pope.
So which is it? Is the Pope capable of quick change or not? The Catholic Church is a theocratic organization, and the Pope COULD change things quickly. He's chosen not to do so. It's little to do with his "congress", his cardinals and organization, and everything to do with the fact that he's a hypocrite trying to save face, preaching reconciliation to the cameras and whispering encouraging word to bishops who preach hate.
Also, who runs the church again? Who picks doctrine? Women are participants in the church, but they don't run it. Men used to say the exact same thing about women before suffrage. "Women don't need to vote, they run the family and they help the man pick how the family should vote."
The Church is a fucking monarchy, and women will only run the Church when there is a female pope.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Support. That's the vital thing that's needed.
Why? Please explain to me why the Pope, who's power is as great as any Emperor's that's ever lived amongst his people, needs support?
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Sorry Nat, I am going to repeat some stuff here that's on Facebook.
We're not living in medieval times anymore. A Pope is chosen by the remainder of the leadership. This Pope has only initiated a start of change. Other Popes need to continue his work. They need to be chosen as well. So, support is needed. Change doesn't happen if the remainder of church leadership doesn't support him. Even though he was elected Pope, he must continually win the support of the leadership in the Church.
This is -unfortunately for people who wish to see the end of the church soon- a popular Pope. I think that a popular Pope fits with a popular desire to change things. I don't think it is possible to have a highly unpopular Pope changing the things that many people (you and me included) want. Unpopular Popes say unpopular things and will make the church more strict. So, I think that it's only possible to take popular measurements under the leadership of a popular Pope. Of course this Pope is not popular among conservative Catholics. What he needs to do is changing them too. It will be a terribly slow process.
The people who really do not wish to change, they'll eventually start their own new church.
My point is:
If people hope for changes, I'm afraid they need to bear (the idea of) a popular Pope.
Of course we can always mistrust a Pope, but I don't think positive changes can be made by someone being unpopular to people with ideas he will preach against. What about a Pope who does not say anything. You think he could be popular? Probably not? And he'd be mistrusted even more.
We're not living in medieval times anymore. A Pope is chosen by the remainder of the leadership. This Pope has only initiated a start of change. Other Popes need to continue his work. They need to be chosen as well. So, support is needed. Change doesn't happen if the remainder of church leadership doesn't support him. Even though he was elected Pope, he must continually win the support of the leadership in the Church.
This is -unfortunately for people who wish to see the end of the church soon- a popular Pope. I think that a popular Pope fits with a popular desire to change things. I don't think it is possible to have a highly unpopular Pope changing the things that many people (you and me included) want. Unpopular Popes say unpopular things and will make the church more strict. So, I think that it's only possible to take popular measurements under the leadership of a popular Pope. Of course this Pope is not popular among conservative Catholics. What he needs to do is changing them too. It will be a terribly slow process.
The people who really do not wish to change, they'll eventually start their own new church.
My point is:
If people hope for changes, I'm afraid they need to bear (the idea of) a popular Pope.
Of course we can always mistrust a Pope, but I don't think positive changes can be made by someone being unpopular to people with ideas he will preach against. What about a Pope who does not say anything. You think he could be popular? Probably not? And he'd be mistrusted even more.
Last edited:
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I agree with this to a point (though Obama had some of the largest Democratic majorities in history when he was first elected)
The Pope is different and more modern than Benedict, he is making an effort to connect to the world and any policy things aside, he comes across as a friendly person .. a Pope you might actually want to hang out with. That certainly helps his image.
Precisely. That is why we do not need a pope, and we do not need a church that tells millions of people how to live and what to believe in.
What changes has he made, other than to speak with a theme? He's all talk and no action.
Eric Wright
Nomad
Even if this Pope appears more "opened minded and progressive", the Catholic church can only get so progressive for people's liking. There's a huge list of dogmas that they can never change, no matter how good the new Pope is with PR. This 85 year old virgin man is telling people how they should have sex on the grounds of his religious delusions.
Catholic Church will never change. That's the nature of it. This Pope is a fad who's good with public relations, I'm not gonna buy the bullshit.
Catholic Church will never change. That's the nature of it. This Pope is a fad who's good with public relations, I'm not gonna buy the bullshit.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Found a fitting reaction to that in one of the article's comments:
. . .
Did you really believe that something would change at the grassroots levels of the Catholic hierarchy in nine months? It took four+ centuries between the Reformation and Vatican II. Change doesn't come over night, and for institutions as old as the Roman Catholic Church overnight means decades. Perhaps our expectations for change are just a little too high?
. . .
Still, I wonder what would happen earlier. One of these actions that we are waiting for in the Catholic Church or one of these matters in younger "institutions":
A. End of free weapon possession in the States:
B. Ayatollahs become unimportant to Iranian politics
C. Israel stops building settlements
D. Freedom of press, opposition, speech and demonstration in Russia
Place your bets.
A, B, C, and D have no relation to the premise. None of those are ruled by monarchs with ultimate power who have promised the outcome with no change. Stop changing the subject.