Although it's too early to take the full measure of Pope Francis, it's quite possible that he's a talkative, impulsive, intellectual bantamweight who's in way over his head.
No doubt the papacy has had many incompetent pontiffs over the centuries, but that was before the electronic media age. It was easier to keep them out of the public eye while handlers ran the show. Not so now.
It's kinda like the keynote speaker who shows up drunk at the main event. As he begins to ramble and make indiscreet comments, there's a sense of collective embarrassment in the auditorium. How to wrest the microphone from his clutches before he does more damage to himself and to the event.
We've all seen movies and TV dramas with that scene.
Although it's too early to take the full measure of Pope Francis, it's quite possible that he's a talkative, impulsive, intellectual bantamweight who's in way over his head.
ReplyDeleteSo far, the possibly talkative, impulsive, intellectual bantamweight is commanding respect and attention from normally hostile or even ambivalent groups - all while maintaining orthodoxy on all the hot-button moral/social issues that usually give people fits.
He's correctly ascertained that social conservatives have made missteps and mistakes in how they communicate their issues, and in their focus - again, all without giving even a sliver of a hint that their positions are wrong. This is hard for social conservatives to swallow - and I'm a social conservative myself. It's also necessary to realize when mistakes have been made, and to react accordingly. Socons have needed this lesson for a while.
I think what's also 'quite possible' is that Pope Francis will expose various other Christians, including Christian leaders, to be talkative, impulsive, intellectual bantamweights who are in way over their heads. In fact, I think that's happening already.
Yes, that's your current schtick. But the glitterati will admire him the same way they admired the late Mother Teresa. Their admiration will constitute vicarious virtue. They will feel good about themselves by expressing admiration for the social justice homilies of Pope Francis. That admiration will have absolutely no impact on their beliefs, lifestyle, or policies.
DeletePope Francis can easily become a clownish figure in the media–a la Chauncey Gardiner in Being There. Someone who's humored, much like the Dalai Lama. Reminds me of Tom Wolfe lampooning Leonard Bernstein's parties, where he hosted the Black Panthers.
Yes, that's your current schtick.
DeleteIt's not a schtick, Steve. I oppose gay marriage. I oppose abortion. I see, in the former case, a dramatic loss of cultural ground in a decade or under. It forces me to look at the actions, attitude and behavior of not only a biased media, but also of other social conservatives, to see if mistakes are made. Lo and behold, there are.
It's to your detriment that you pathologically avoid this evaluation, or think that the answer to any perceived problem is 'we have to be even MORE belligerent!'
They will feel good about themselves by expressing admiration for the social justice homilies of Pope Francis. That admiration will have absolutely no impact on their beliefs, lifestyle, or policies.
First - why do you assume that it's only 'the glitterati' who need to change? Again, why is it that some social conservatives think they are themselves immune to having made a mistake, if only in terms of attitude, focus and approach?
Second, Pope Francis has given every indication that he will continue to speak out on these social issues, and maintain Catholic orthodoxy. Mother Theresa was, save for on the issue of abortion (where she did a world of good), largely a non-political figure, save for among atheists who hate and despise any seemingly positive act of Christians because they hate it when Christians get good press.
Third, there's more than the glitterati to speak of. There are simply people out there, who - honest to God, Steve - think that christian teaching is 'If you have same-sex sexual desire, you're going to hell'. That's not orthodox Christianity. When they see a major Christian figure who is pointing out we can love homosexuals, love people who have had abortions, but still regard abortion as murder, gay marriage as inane and same-sex sexual behavior as immoral, we will have shifted the debate where it needs to be.
Your methods have been tried. They backfired terribly. Let's change our approach, eh?
Someone who's humored, much like the Dalai Lama.
The Dalai Lama is in many quarters treated as a wise and respected figure by 'the glitterati', not 'someone who's humored'. And frankly, right now the Pope is getting more positive reactions and respect than the Dali Lama ever did - and again, without sacrificing a shred of orthodoxy.
I know that you have an innately hostile reaction to all things Catholic. Great - I'm not trying to convert you to Catholicism here.What I'm suggesting is that you holster the perpetual anti-Catholic hostility and ask for a moment if there's something in Francis' approach that you and other protestants could perhaps use when it comes to engaging a hostile culture. Note: I'm talking about approach, communication, how you conduct yourself. Not changing your views or your beliefs. It's beyond silly to look at a Pope getting cheered on in traditionally hostile areas without sacrificing any of the beliefs that would normally make them hostile, and just write it all off as a fluke or a big, terrible mistake.
Crude
Delete"It's to your detriment that you pathologically avoid this evaluation, or think that the answer to any perceived problem is 'we have to be even MORE belligerent!'"
There's no single "we." There's a division of labor among social conservatives. In general, politicians should avoid being "belligerent." However, pundits (e.g. Mark Levin) can be "belligerent."
Since I'm not running for public office, since I don't move in the Al Mohler/Rick Warren social circles, I don't have to be diplomatic. I can be impolitic.
I've never suggested there's a virtue in "belligerency." Rather, there's a virtue in being factual, accurate, truthful–even if that's "offensive." We should argue for our positions. And that's basically where our responsibility ends. If people reject reason and evidence, there's nothing more to say.
"First - why do you assume that it's only 'the glitterati' who need to change?"
That's the ruling class.
"Again, why is it that some social conservatives think they are themselves immune to having made a mistake…"
I don't think for one moment that Crude is immune to making mistakes. In fact, you're illustrating that capacity right now.
"Second, Pope Francis has given every indication that he will continue to speak out on these social issues, and maintain Catholic orthodoxy. Mother Theresa was, save for on the issue of abortion (where she did a world of good), largely a non-political figure, save for among atheists who hate and despise any seemingly positive act of Christians because they hate it when Christians get good press."
As I explained initially, I cited Mother Teresa because the glitterati was proud of itself for praising her work with the poor. It's a form of self-flattery. If they admire someone good, then–by extenuation–that must make them good. Take Jerry Brown going to India to do a token stint at her outfit, then adding that to his resume when he recently ran (a second time) for governor.
Cont. "Third, there's more than the glitterati to speak of. There are simply people out there, who - honest to God, Steve - think that christian teaching is 'If you have same-sex sexual desire, you're going to hell'. That's not orthodox Christianity. When they see a major Christian figure who is pointing out we can love homosexuals, love people who have had abortions, but still regard abortion as murder, gay marriage as inane and same-sex sexual behavior as immoral, we will have shifted the debate where it needs to be."
DeleteYou erected a straw man, then burned him. Next time remind me to bring marshmallows to toast.
"Your methods have been tried. They backfired terribly. Let's change our approach, eh?"
I've seen that movie. I know how it ends. I was 21 when Wojtyła became pope. Before he became incapacitated by Parkinson's and old age, he was a media darling just like Francis. His open-air masses were attended by hundreds of thousands. He was wildly popular among Catholic youth.
And what impact did his charisma, his charm offensive, have on social policies in Europe, the UN, and the US?
"The Dalai Lama is in many quarters treated as a wise and respected figure by 'the glitterati', not 'someone who's humored'."
He's a pet mascot of Hollywood celebs like Richard Gere and Harrison Ford. It gives them a chance to be worldly and "spiritual" all at once.
"And frankly, right now the Pope is getting more positive reactions and respect than the Dali Lama ever did…"
You have a knack for confabulation.
The glitterati will take his social justice homilies as an endorsement for Obamacare, and discard whatever they disagree with him about.
"- and again, without sacrificing a shred of orthodoxy."
Rahnerian orthodoxy. In modern Catholicism, yesterday's heresy is today's orthodoxy.
"It's beyond silly to look at a Pope getting cheered on in traditionally hostile areas without sacrificing any of the beliefs that would normally make them hostile, and just write it all off as a fluke or a big, terrible mistake."
You must either be too young or too forgetful to remember the early years of Wojtyła's papacy. Lots of cheering–followed by business as usual.
Since I'm not running for public office, since I don't move in the Al Mohler/Rick Warren social circles, I don't have to be diplomatic. I can be impolitic.
DeleteActually, Steve, you should really consider how you behave. All Christians should. 'I'm not a politician' doesn't exempt you from living up to a proper public standard. Or myself.
I've never suggested there's a virtue in "belligerency." Rather, there's a virtue in being factual, accurate, truthful–even if that's "offensive." We should argue for our positions. And that's basically where our responsibility ends. If people reject reason and evidence, there's nothing more to say.
Actually, there is. How you deliver your 'reason and evidence' matters quite a lot.
And what impact did his charisma, his charm offensive, have on social policies in Europe, the UN, and the US?
He emboldened Catholics living under atheist soviet regimes, he promoted a culture of life (notice that the pro-life movement has done far better than the anti-gay-marriage movement, which PJPII wasn't really present for), and more. Oh, by the way? PJPII was despised by the liberal Catholic intelligentia. You only have to compare the orthodox state of the Catholic Church since PJPII's time with the orthodox state of the Episcopalians to see the difference.
The glitterati will take his social justice homilies as an endorsement for Obamacare, and discard whatever they disagree with him about.
Diehard glitterati's minds won't change no matter what. They're not the concern.
I don't think for one moment that Crude is immune to making mistakes. In fact, you're illustrating that capacity right now.
I make mistakes, Steve. I don't think I'm making one now. But it's real telling that you make that comment without being able to admit *you* make mistakes. Perfect track record, eh?
Crude
Delete"Actually, Steve, you should really consider how you behave. All Christians should. 'I'm not a politician' doesn't exempt you from living up to a proper public standard. Or myself."
I don't concede that my behavior is "improper." And your claim is absurd. Like saying a football coach ought to have the same demeanor as a butler.
"Actually, there is. How you deliver your 'reason and evidence' matters quite a lot."
Which is why I said "arguing for our positions." Try to pay attention.
"He emboldened Catholics living under atheist soviet regimes."
And how is Polish Catholicism faring after the downfall of Communism?
"He promoted a culture of life (notice that the pro-life movement has done far better than the anti-gay-marriage movement…"
You mean, like the way West Germany liberalized its abortion laws after the downfall of Communism?
You mean, like all those Catholic Americans voting for Obama? You mean like all those pro-abortion Catholics in Congress?
"You only have to compare the orthodox state of the Catholic Church since PJPII's time with the orthodox state of the Episcopalians to see the difference."
Well, the Church of Rome houses both liberals and conservatives under the same roof whereas the Anglican Communion split after the ordination of Gene Robinson. And I prefer Anglican conservatives to Catholic conservatives any day of the week. So thanks for the comparison.
"Diehard glitterati's minds won't change no matter what. They're not the concern."
You mean like Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, Andrew Cuomo, Dick Durban, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, &c. Guess what their religious affliation is?
I don't concede that my behavior is "improper." And your claim is absurd. Like saying a football coach ought to have the same demeanor as a butler.
DeleteMore like saying a Christian ought to have the demeanor of a Christian, or at least strive to have it. I can accept that different venues may require different attitudes - you speak with family differently than you speak with strangers, and you speak with strangers face to face differently than you do when you're on stage. But your public attitude matters, simply because it's public. It doesn't stop mattering just because you're not as visible.
Which doesn't mean you treat everyone you meet with mewling respect. You know me enough, Steve, to know I have little tolerance for Cult of Gnu atheists, for example. I'm many things to those guys, but 'butler' isn't one.
Which is why I said "arguing for our positions." Try to pay attention.
Take your own medicine, doctor. There's more going on in any argument than the mere logical substance of what's being said. You can win an argument and lose a confrontation.
And how is Polish Catholicism faring after the downfall of Communism?
What a broad, abstract question. Vastly better than it was before the fall of communism, for one.
You mean, like the way West Germany liberalized its abortion laws after the downfall of Communism?
I'll take the German situation over the American any day of the week, and you would too.
You mean, like all those Catholic Americans voting for Obama? You mean like all those pro-abortion Catholics in Congress?
The Obama thing would have more sting if both Romney (who I vastly preferred) or McCain (meh) gave off sincere pro-life vibes. You confuse 'improving matters' with 'decisively having a victory and there are no more problems'.
Well, the Church of Rome houses both liberals and conservatives under the same roof whereas the Anglican Communion split after the ordination of Gene Robinson.
The Church of Rome stood united against Obamacare when push came to shove. Good luck finding a pro-choice Bishop nowadays. If there are any, they do a damn good job of hiding it.
There are social liberals in the Church. For instance, the nuns. You know, the groups under sanction (upheld by Francis) who are withering as we speak?
You mean like Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, Andrew Cuomo, Dick Durban, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, &c. Guess what their religious affliation is?
'Democrat' first and foremost. Kathleen Sebelius is about as Catholic as Obama is Protestant. Is Jimmy Swaggart a protestant, Steve? Or a transparent BSer?
How about Obama? Proudly representing Protestantism there? Or do you start to express some justified skepticism?
Again: the Glitterati are beyond help or hope. They are not the concern. Francis won't convert them with charity and sincerity, and you won't shame them out of their positions with ranting. Other people are more important.
Crude "More like saying a Christian ought to have the demeanor of a Christian, or at least strive to have it."
DeleteLike the demeanor of Jude talking about false teachers?
"Take your own medicine, doctor. There's more going on in any argument than the mere logical substance of what's being said. You can win an argument and lose a confrontation."
If I win on logical substance but lose a confrontation, that's not my responsibility.
"What a broad, abstract question. Vastly better than it was before the fall of communism, for one."
Really? I've read church attendance has plummeted in Poland since the end of Communism.
"I'll take the German situation over the American any day of the week, and you would too."
Now you're playing a bait-n-switch. The comparison isn't between Germany and America, but between Germany before and after the Iron Curtain came down. That's how you yourself implicitly framed the issue: "He emboldened Catholics living under atheist soviet regimes, he promoted a culture of life (notice that the pro-life movement has done far better than the anti-gay-marriage movement."
Okay, didn't West Germany have more restrictive abortion laws before reunion?
"The Obama thing would have more sting if both Romney (who I vastly preferred) or McCain (meh) gave off sincere pro-life vibes."
You mean, like the way Rick Santorum lost the Catholic vote in the presidential primaries? Was he not giving off enough prolife vibes?
"The Church of Rome stood united against Obamacare when push came to shove."
You mean like this?
"On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I want to express hope that the serious dialogue on health care now underway will bring true reform to the nation’s health care system. The Catholic bishops of the United States have been and continue to be consistent advocates for comprehensive health care reform leading to accessible and affordable health care for all (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, USCCB, 2007). In a nation with the resources we have, health care should be such that all our citizens receive the kind of health care that provides for the needs of all in a coherent and consistent way. Health care involves fundamental issues of human life and dignity, and is a critical component of the Catholic Church’s ministry."
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/health-care-statement-2009-05.pdf
"'Democrat' first and foremost. Kathleen Sebelius is about as Catholic as Obama is Protestant. Is Jimmy Swaggart a protestant, Steve? Or a transparent BSer?"
If they aren't real Catholics, why hasn't the church of Rome publicly excommunicated them to send a message–like the way it excommunicated Luther?
"How about Obama? Proudly representing Protestantism there? Or do you start to express some justified skepticism?"
But we expected better of the One True Church®, headquartered in Rome.
"Again: the Glitterati are beyond help or hope. They are not the concern. Francis won't convert them with charity and sincerity, and you won't shame them out of their positions with ranting. Other people are more important."
Since the glitterati comprise the ruling class, they are more important when it comes to setting public policy.
If I win on logical substance but lose a confrontation, that's not my responsibility.
DeleteYes! It is! It is when you lose because of things well within your control. You can't be faulted if you're arguing with a John Loftus sort who has a weird personal axe to grind and for whom logic and reason don't matter. You can be faulted if your approach pointlessly makes someone hostile to your argument.
Really? I've read church attendance has plummeted in Poland since the end of Communism.
So? Once again, your response seems to be 'Well if the world is anything short of perfect then clearly the Pope was terrible'.
Now you're playing a bait-n-switch.
No, I'm running with your own self-selected comparisons. Don't compare most European countries' abortion laws to the US. The US looks terrible on that front.
Okay, didn't West Germany have more restrictive abortion laws before reunion?
How were East Germany's laws before reunion? And it STILL is great compared to the US.
You mean, like the way Rick Santorum lost the Catholic vote in the presidential primaries?
You're making it sound as if the only way someone is pro-life is if they turn into a single-issue candidate over the whole thing. Santorum had problems as a candidate - for one thing, he was a hawk. For another, he never fully shook his 'dupe' label after his endorsement of a senatorial turncoat in PA.
You mean like this?
I meant more like this. The extent of the pro-life issues with that law didn't become apparent until later.
If they aren't real Catholics, why hasn't the church of Rome publicly excommunicated them to send a message–like the way it excommunicated Luther?
Topic switch. You're treating Nancy freaking Pelosi as if she were an arm of the Catholic Church by virtue of being Catholic. Play that game and protestantism looks worse than Catholicism by far.
But we expected better of the One True Church®, headquartered in Rome.
No, what you expect is utter perfection. The Church wasn't perfect even in the bible itself. The first Pope was a guy who denied Christ three times, and a full-blown God-killing traitor was in the original 12. If you want a Church whose members - even leaders - are all perfect, you're in the wrong religion.
Since the glitterati comprise the ruling class, they are more important when it comes to setting public policy.
Well you just let me know when you come up with a way to change Nancy Pelosi's mind on abortion, eh? So far your standard of 'If it doesn't change her mind, it's a failed policy.' damns more SoCons, more powerfully, than I ever did. Luckily your standard is insane so it doesn't matter much.
When I answer you on your own terms, you move the goalposts. Since you can't bring yourself to argue in good faith, don't come back.
DeleteCrude: He's correctly ascertained that social conservatives have made missteps and mistakes in how they communicate their issues
ReplyDeleteWhat he's saying is that John Paul II and Benedict XVI made missteps and mistakes in how they communicate their issues. For more through documentation see this link: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/09/pope-vs-popes.html
Crude: to look at the actions, attitude and behavior of not only a biased media, but also of other social conservatives, to see if mistakes are made. Lo and behold, there are.
ReplyDeleteIt's to your detriment that you pathologically avoid this evaluation, or think that the answer to any perceived problem is 'we have to be even MORE belligerent!
Have you considered that First Things editor R.R. Reno and Hadley Arkes have cautioned him for basically "giving comfort to the enemy"? It's more complicated than simply "conservatives have made mistakes". We are basically dealing with a crowd for whom nothing, as Steve said, "will have absolutely no impact on their beliefs, lifestyle, or policies."
It's incumbent upon Christians to stay on message with the Gospel.
Francis preaching "Jesus has saved you" to non-believers is ridiculous -- it is in no way what historic Chistianity has ever said that sort of thing. It's true that is an appropriate thing to say to a Christian audience, but he knows he is addressing the secular media and by extension, atheists.
When talking to atheists, there must de facto be a different message, because, if they are atheists, they have by extension rejected Christ. In that case, they certainly need to hear "repent" and certainly "why" they need to repent, before they hear anything like "Jesus has saved you".
Your methods have been tried. They backfired terribly. Let's change our approach, eh?
Time now to try "the Living Tradition" -- Jello nailed to the wall, eh?
Your methods have been tried. They backfired terribly. Let's change our approach, eh?
Francis's change is only getting accolades from those groups who are thinking they can get away with all the sins they used to be condemned for. All the while with (as Steve says) "absolutely no impact on their beliefs, lifestyle, or policies."
That's a bit defeating the purpose, isn't it?
What he's saying is that John Paul II and Benedict XVI made missteps and mistakes in how they communicate their issues.
ReplyDeleteNot really. He's handling those issues differently, but that is not in and of itself a criticism of either Pope. Neither Pope communicated in the ways, or had the overwhelmingly singular focus, that Francis is criticizing.
Have you considered that First Things editor R.R. Reno and Hadley Arkes have cautioned him for basically "giving comfort to the enemy"?
Have you considered that I read the First Things take on it, and think they're wrong?
Here's the problem, John: at this point, any criticism of social conservatives whatsoever 'gives comfort' to 'the enemy'. Likewise, any criticism of social liberals 'gives comfort' to their enemies. No one likes to be criticized, no one likes to be told that they've made mistakes, and when it's 'on our side', we want it to happen behind closed doors.
That's not possible here, because the mistakes are very public. Here's the problem: being told 'you made a mistake, you helped misrepresent Christian teaching' is demoralizing. /Even if it's true./ The fact that it may be tough to swallow does not mean it shouldn't be said.
We are basically dealing with a crowd for whom nothing, as Steve said, "will have absolutely no impact on their beliefs, lifestyle, or policies."
See, the funny thing is, we're NOT dealing with that crowd. There are more people out there than 'the loyal, orthodox social conservatives' and 'the diehard social liberals'. Thinking otherwise is one of the many mistakes that social conservatives have made.
Francis preaching "Jesus has saved you" to non-believers is ridiculous -- it is in no way what historic Chistianity has ever said that sort of thing.
That's not what he preached. Now, you can say 'well that's how the media portrayed his message in some areas' - but at that point your problem is with the media, not the Pope. (I mean on this topic. God knows you have your weird, personal axe to grind.)
In that case, they certainly need to hear "repent" and certainly "why" they need to repent, before they hear anything like "Jesus has saved you".
Actually, what they need to hear really depends on what they think. If they believe that Christians teach that no atheists can do morally good acts, etc, then they actually need to hear that that's not Christian teaching after all. Likewise, gays don't only need to hear 'you need to repent!' They also need to hear that, no, just having same-sex attraction is not a sin, it's not something you'll be damned for, you don't have to suddenly find the opposite sex attractive to be saved or be a good person or behave morally.
Time now to try "the Living Tradition" -- Jello nailed to the wall, eh?
Not what I said whatsoever. Didn't even imply it. You're apparently one of those people who think there are two options when dealing with people who disagree with you: furiously condemning wrongs, and being a complete sellout. There are more options available.
Francis's change is only getting accolades from those groups who are thinking they can get away with all the sins they used to be condemned for.
ReplyDeleteNo. He's also getting accolades from socially conservative Catholics and Christians who realize that we need to change how we present ourselves in this dialogue. He's getting accolades from people normally ambivalent or modestly hostile to the church, precisely because his message is different.
Here's news for you, John: atheists didn't need the Pope's blessing to 'get away with' sodomy, abortion, or premarital sex. They were engaging in those things anyway. (They don't really care what you think either.) Likewise, the Pope didn't say, or even imply, that any of those things were suddenly 'not sins'. I deal with Christians who believe that it should be totally acceptable to fire someone (even from an utterly banal job, like 'clerk at a bank') if it's discovered that they're homosexual. Those Christians should really consider the Pope's message.
But so long as I have your attention, I'd love to shot you a question. Here's another act on the part of the Church recently, apparently connected with Francis himself. Straight up answer, John: was it a good act? A liberal act? A bad act? Let's see how you size this one up.
Likewise, the Pope didn't say, or even imply, that any of those things were suddenly 'not sins'.
DeleteDuh, Crude, that's what they're taking away from it.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-097-3eStNkI/UkKtcLgzpNI/AAAAAAAADi0/uhd-nGNSgyo/s1600/NARAL-thanks-Pope-Francis.PNG
He's using words and concepts that aren't clear, and as a result, the communication is simply not taking place. Or rather, wrong conclusions are being drawn from the communications that are being offered. The net effect of that is just going to be more confusion.
He's communicating with the same unclear "take-away-from-it-what-you-want-to-take-away" communications that David Wells diagnosed at Vatican II --
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/09/romes-divided-mind.html
He says things like, "I'm a son of the church" -- and that means precisely nothing to someone who just thinks, "well, he dresses the way that all popes do. But he's not going to judge me for being gay". And then it's business as usual, except they're saying, "he dresses funny, but he's a nice guy". And THAT's what forgiveness means to that person. (Or the NARAL ad that I linked to earlier in this comment).
Regarding the excommunication -- it's a real stretch to say "Francis excommunicated" anyone. Those things take time, and it is pure speculation to say he even knew anything about it. In fact, if you can find some documentation that says "Francis signed this" or something more definite than "It was under Francis's watch, he must have approved it", then I'd like to see it.
Duh, Crude, that's what they're taking away from it.
DeleteOh gosh. Are you telling me socially liberal fanatics are daring to lie in the service of their cause? That they're willing to purposefully and maliciously misrepresent what someone said in a way that they hope advances their goals? Will wonders never cease.
There is no way to interpret the Pope's words as 'Hey abortion is moral and A-OK', or even 'Being pro-choice is totally acceptable'. Insofar as NARAL is doing that, NARAL is being flat out dishonest. Again, not a surprise. This isn't a failing on the part of the Pope - the moment you show an ounce of forgiveness to or compassion to the sincerely repentant woman who had an abortion, or the merely same-sex attracted Christian, you've opened the door for that kind of lying spin. And if the result is 'Well, then I'll never show an ounce of compassion', /you've played into their hands that way as well.'
He says things like, "I'm a son of the church" -- and that means precisely nothing to someone who just thinks, "well, he dresses the way that all popes do. But he's not going to judge me for being gay". And then it's business as usual, except they're saying, "he dresses funny, but he's a nice guy".
Yeah, and he also denounces abortion in public, encouraging Catholic doctors not to perform them, and decrying the culture surrounding them, hot on the heels of that interview. He's not exactly being cagey about his opposition to abortion, John. Exactly how much weight should the reactions of NARAL get when one is talking about how the Church should behave?
Regarding the excommunication -- it's a real stretch to say "Francis excommunicated" anyone. Those things take time, and it is pure speculation to say he even knew anything about it. In fact, if you can find some documentation that says "Francis signed this" or something more definite than "It was under Francis's watch, he must have approved it", then I'd like to see it.
Call it the Vatican then. Good move or bad, John? Did the Vatican do the right thing here?
Oh gosh. Are you telling me socially liberal fanatics are daring to lie in the service of their cause?
ReplyDeleteI'm telling you that these folks are taking "comfort" in the message of Francis precisely because his "message" is so imprecise.
There is no way to interpret the Pope's words as 'Hey abortion is moral and A-OK', or even 'Being pro-choice is totally acceptable'. Insofar as NARAL is doing that, NARAL is being flat out dishonest.
I don't deny that, but honesty is no longer important, it's appearances. It's appearances because Francis uses "wiggle words" and "wiggle words" have no meaning, and so the meaning that NARAL (and others) assign to his words are "the real meaning" to them.
It's a symptom of our postmodern cultural thinking, but Francis is a dupe who's playing right into their hand.
What's missing from his "Jesus" message is that Jesus wasn't kind to everyone. Jesus knew who was playing fast and loose with the rules, and he dared to call them on it.
For Francis, it's just simply a "head-in-the-sand" move.
He's not exactly being cagey about his opposition to abortion, John
Yes he is. Everyone makes a big deal that he spoke forcefully about abortion to the Physicians group.
But that's an evasion on his part -- Why doesn't he speak forcefully to the public in those terms -- directly to those poor young girls he claims to care about? No, he uses his wiggle words for the media audience, and he saves his tough talk for those times when "the base" is watching. So he pacifies guys like you, while being able adopt that second face (most naturally) for the presently-fawning media.
What was it Luther said, about not being present right at the moment of conflict?
There is a reason why Jesuits are not trusted, and "Francis" has it down pat.
Regarding that excommunication -- As you are aware, Roman Catholicism itself is fundamentally flawed, and so any house cleaning they do is really just rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.
I'm telling you that these folks are taking "comfort" in the message of Francis precisely because his "message" is so imprecise.
DeleteNo, you're telling me that they are intentionally and wildly warping Francis' message, but that this is Francis' fault. Because he didn't word his message in a way that... what? Makes it immune from warping by people who are willing to literally grossly mischaracterize what he said?
I don't deny that, but honesty is no longer important, it's appearances.
Francis' words don't even *appear* to mean what NARAL is presenting them as. You're in the unenviable position of arguing that, when a person's words are wildly misreported and misrepresented by a literally hostile third party, it's the person's fault because they should word their statements in a way that is impossible to misrepresent.
Here's a challenge for you, John: give me a word for word example of what Francis should have said. If I can misinterpret your words, you lose. I get to selectively quote you and be wildly dishonest about what you said. Think you can win this one?
But that's an evasion on his part -- Why doesn't he speak forcefully to the public in those terms -- directly to those poor young girls he claims to care about?
Right. Because 'Pope calls whimpering poor rape victim 'sinner' and 'slut'' is a better dishonest headline to invite?
Regarding that excommunication
What a surprise. John Bugay is completely incapable of acknowledging when the Catholic Church does anything right whatsoever, no matter how modest the acknowledgment would be. But I should really regard your analysis - which, remember, is basically "The Pope should only say things that are utterly immune from being misreported by hostile third parties who will do anything to advance their cause" - as serious?