to be citizens of America and the world.
As the grandson of Italian immigrants I was deeply moved when the Holy Father introduced himself to President Obama at the White House as the son of Italian immigrants to Argentina — the first Latin American Pope.
Then he joined the President by calling on all of us to be the “land of the free and home of the brave” by practicing the Golden Rule and treat others as we want to be treated.
VIVA LA PAPA !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Please share widely!
Did you hear of the Congressman who stole the Pope’s glass of water?
that he apparently met with Kim Davis while he was in the US. That was a mistake.
the Little Sisters of the Poor, the order of nuns suing over contraceptive mandate.
He met with Mark Wahlberg, that doesn’t mean he likes Ted.
Now having this meeting in secret and seeing Davis’ lawyers get ahead of the Vatican in spinning the story is certainly a mistake. He met with the Little Sisters in the open and it wasn’t really remarked upon, this invites a media shitstorm and it’s their own doing.
a meeting with the Pope has a much greater significance, to think otherwise is foolish.
The Pope also met with Castro and gave him a rosary, so the idea is that meeting with someone is not automatically an endorsement of their views or actions.
Martin’s full response is here and more nuanced than that one liner.
What is troubling to me is that he openly met with the Little Sisters of the Poor, I took that to be a small amount of signaling to the traditionalist flock to keep them in line ahead of the Synod and it didn’t phase me. Yet conducting this meeting in secret, confirms that the Vatican is now savvy enough to recognize that openly associating with anti-gay bigots is bad PR but not nearly savvy enough to you know-not do it at all. It’s like they forget this happened.
I argued in my other post here on the visit that he seemed to be elevating the policy priorities of the church on questions of communal action-climate change, income inequality, and diplomatic solutions while maintaining dogma on the pelvic issues but basically leaving the implementation of said dogma to individuals rather than government. This is a sad step in the wrong direction, more info is needed and I am disinclined to believe any info coming out of Davis’ camp, but it’s something I’m not proud of.
…that conscientious objection as done by Kim Davis is a human right. I’m not that surprised given there has been no officially reversal of teaching on homosexuality and certainly no move to provide the sacrament of Holy Matrimony to same-sex couples. It’s a bit of a disappointment, but I think mostly stands out because we had gotten used to Francis sounding like the greatest liberal to occupy the Chair of St. Peter since John XXIII.
This nonsense is now coming out of Kim Davis’ mouth
Kim Davis belongs to the Apostolic Pentecostal Church, which does not believe in the Holy Trinity. I am not a Catholic but I am not going to let a pig like her tell me what the Pope meant by telling her to be strong, a phrase he uses with pretty much everybody he meets. There is a nice piece by Father Martin who, as Conway referenced, examined the meaning of his meetings. Martin wrote:
6. It’s ill advised to use a private visit with the pope to make political point. It’s also unfortunate that after the pope’s visit, during which he sought to reconcile divisions, during which he explicitly lamented political polarization in his speech to Congress and during which he sought to show how foolish the “culture wars” are, that his meeting with Ms. Davis may be used to score political points.
7. Most of all, despite what Ms. Davis said, a meeting with the pope does not “kind of validate everything.” Again, the pope meets with many people, some of whom he may know well, others of whom may be introduced to him as a reward for long service, and perhaps others who will use a meeting to make a political point. Meeting with the pope is a great honor, but it does not betoken a blanket blessing on “everything” one does. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Pope Francis also met Mark Wahlberg, and that does not mean that he liked “Ted.”
For the full text of Father Martin’s words see
http://papalvisit.americamedia.org/2015/09/30/the-pope-and-kim-davis-seven-points-to-keep-in-mind/
It’s too easy, and it doesn’t work. Mark Wahlberg is famous for a lot of things. Kim Davis is famous for exactly one thing, and so, to quote the Globe’s John Allen, “there’s no way to view the encounter other than as a broad gesture of support by the pope for conscientious objection from gay marriage laws.”
Martin’s response came before the details of the meeting emerged, and it’s clear this was a deliberate meeting for a deliberate purpose. I’ll reiterate what I said in agreement with Fred’s comments that this is a symbolic alignment with the right wing of the Church, while the real political capital is clearly being aligned with global concerns progressives can appreciate.
What’s sad to me is that they choose to do this in secret, recognizing in a way other church leaders have not that the public tide has turned on this issue, but not recognizing it enough to avoid holding the meeting in the first place. It’s also disheartening since even socially conservative critics of same sex marriage have critiqued Davis for breaking the law, something the Pope shouldn’t be endorsing.
What is Wahlberg famous for other than acting and a racist beating and verbal assaults? Oops, some really bad music too.
Check out the kiss scene in planet of the apes …
I don’t wanna even think about what that might look like. Ewww.
music in the background and everything!
but let’s keep perspective on this.
I have come to the view that on social issues like marriage equality and contraception we should take the Church’s views with a very large grain of salt. They are speaking to and appeasing their base. As long as their position doesn’t become government policy I’m ok with it. To me these issues are moot because we won.
However, when it comes to big issues like climate change, immigration. income inequality, poverty and peace that have important national and international implications —the Pope’s leadership is critical and indispensable.
So,overall I give his visit an A.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Far more succinctly and eloquently than my reply above. I think overall he is moving the actual political capital of the Church towards issues we care about and away from issues we disagree with it on, but I completely agree with you and David that this visit was a mistake.
The Pope is A+ when he advances our agenda, but can be disregarded if it doesn’t fit in with our ideals?
I am not Catholic, so I find his pronouncements interesting, but not influential. But it seems to me that the church has dogmas it holds to be true, and knows exactly where it stands on issues. A lot of this ‘base’ talk seems vaguely insulting – he isn’t running for anything, has the job for life, and has no need to appease anybody.
MAYBE he is just saying what he believes and expects other Catholics to follow suit?
They both hear what they want to hear from the pope. Cafeteria indeed.
There is a reason the church once had an Americanist heresy , since American Catholics agreed with the then heretical notion of the separation of church and state, a fact the Vatican itself would come around on during the Second Vatican Council, largely due to the influence of theologians trained at American universities. Which also shows you that dogmas and doctrines can change and evolve, while the church remains ‘Catholic’ through it’s unity with the pope and bishops around the world.
It’s just that the term was once exclusively applied to Catholic’s on the left side of the spectrum. George Weigel or Newt Gingrich are just some of the many conservatives who have claimed St. John Paul as a fellow Reaganite neoconservatism, they do so while completely ignoring the latter’s powerful speeches favoring nuclear disarmament, public health care, or skepticism towards American capitalism.
Now that Francis has put the social teaching of the church front and center, elevating it over questions of individual morality, one can see how the right and the left equally fall short in the Pope’s eyes of affirming a political vision consistent with the teachings of the Church. In this way, he is taken the Church out of the culture war and redirected it towards solving problems affecting the common good. Some conservatives like Merkel and Cameron recognize the dire problem of climate change, care about immigrants, and even favor social market economies in their countries. So the Pope really isn’t liberal or anti-conservative, he is simply against the libertarian ethos and throwaway consumer culture that is wrecking our planet and causing human misery. At the end of the day progressives can agree about that, while disagreeing with the notion that same sex marriage or abortion rights are party of that culture.
You are wrong. Not all Americans are Catholics let alone cafeteria Catholics. Maybe every “American Catholic” is a cafeteria Catholic??? I’m an American with zero religious ties. So I don’t fit into the “Every American is a cafeteria Catholic” box.
But whatever, apparently you don’t have to be a Catholic to fall under the pope’s spell as evidenced by our friend Fred and Kim Davis. Neither of them are Catholic yet both have clearly embraced some of the popes teachings while ignoring others.
At the end of the day I can’t follow a man who shits on people the way the pope does. In my mind the pope’s views toward gay marriage, divorced couples, and women in general is appalling. Fred and Kim Davis can have him.
I am not a cafeteria Catholic. I am not Catholic, to start. I also don’t “choose” a set of beliefs and rituals embodied in Catholicism and then bend them based on whether I need an abortion, a wedding or a burial in a Catholic cemetery.
I have beliefs based on a morality I have contemplated since I was ten years old. I try to live by that sense of morality but it is not Catholic, since Catholicism starts with a belief that we are all born with original sin (bull shit!) and that women (Eve) are the source of evil (hideous bull shit!)
You are mistaken in claiming that
American Catholics agreed with the then heretical notion of the separation of church and state
American Catholics believe in a wide range of church/state relations. You and I have lived many years amongst Catholics and I have never heard a consensus emerge about the separation of church and state. Go to a KofC on a Saturday night and ask a question about church-state separation. One of my past jobs required me to go to a lot of different religious and ethnic meetings at night, often with alcohol, and you hear a lot of different responses from people who otherwise claim religious affinity.
No, we are not all cafeteria Catholics.
I was referring to every American Catholic and was unclear about that. And I don’t view that as a bad thing at all. I agree with you that individuals use their faith or a system of ethics in addition or in lieu of faith to make informed decisions about their private and public morality (a good distinction Tom introduced). American Catholics are no exception, as you pointed out, a wide diversity of viewpoints are entertained within it and it strengthens the church in my opinion.
I am still offended. You should learn the affirmative words “I am sorry I was so wrong,” in this case about your religious bigoted assumptions.
EOM
you can apologize to me for downrating me when I took objection to being called a cafeteria Catholic. Reality based commentary???
It was perfectly obvious to me that jconway had no intention of saying that every American is a Catholic of some variety (cafeteria or otherwise) – any such statement would be patently ridiculous on its face. It’s a simple misstatement, which he promptly acknowledged. Case closed, AFAIC.
No, every American is NOT a Catholic. Why do you and Conway make up this crap? Your language is offensive. I am NOT Catholic. Wy do you think you can offend with such language. Is it a game or just bigotry?
I’m not sure what part of “had not intention of saying that…” was unclear.
As David said, jconway corrected a simple misstatement.
EOM
Anyone who understands context could easily tell that is exactly what you meant. TBD sometimes takes things way too literally and will find any excuse to pick a fight even with those he at least in theory mostly agrees with:(
There is a reason why two of us (including thebaker, with whom I don’t often agree) objected in written word to Conway’s statement that we are all cafeteria Catholics: he was wrong. An apology from him is in order.
You can blame me for his bad behavior but it does not stick. Just stop it.
Besides, it has occurred to me it works the other way too. I don’t identify as Catholic, but if I happen to agree with Catholic teaching on this or that matter I could argue that I was doing a bit of grazing in the Catholic “cafeteria” myself. You are not owed and apology every time someone makes a mistake. Not every mistake is a personal affront. You really need to get over yourself and let it go.
This is a pathetic explanation for an insult against an Asian American who understands Christianity but does not practice it.
You and David and maybe some other BMGers need to UNlearn a little about what they think they know.
I grew up in a very Catholic area. Absent pointing out the contrary people assumed I was too. When I mentioned I wasn’t they sometimes asked first if I were Jewish rather than a different type of Christian. I can think of MANY worse things one can mistakingly be called than Catholic.
If someone calls me a Catholic, I am offended. What part of your Christian religious understanding is not connecting with this?
EOM
…at least you just found an epithet that’s worse to be called than Catholic!:) Nobody called you Catholic (except in that you refuse to extrapolate the obvious from some imprecise syntax) and even if they did it’s not worth getting offended over.
Conway wrote this:
Every American is a cafeteria Catholic
That is offensive. The vast majority of Americans are not Catholic. I am not Catholic. I expected better from a man involved with a Philippina woman, from a country that has been tortured by Catholicism. Yeah, I lived there for a brief period when I had a contract there. Mindinao, not some candy-ass dive site in the northern islands.
If Conway wants to apologize he…
1. Nobody has disputed what jconway wrote. It’s plainly legible to all of us.
2. He (jconway) has already said multiple times that he simply misspoke. He did not mean it as an insult to anyone.
3. He (jconway), of all the participants here at BMG, is among the least likely to knowingly insult anybody. Unlike several of us (including myself more often than I wish), he rarely if ever directs an insult towards anybody.
4. David has already repeated the clarification from jconway.
5. Such misstatements happen frequently, especially when comments may not be edited once posted.
You seem to be the only participant who feels so offended, and you seem to be fixated on receiving an apology from jconway. You are the only participant who has demanded this.
I don’t understand why it’s so hard for you to simply acknowledge the mistake for what it was and move on. It’s almost as if you want to feel offended. A different response might be “Oh, I’m glad to hear you didn’t mean that the way it sounded” and be done with it.
What IS the issue there?
Most minorities (gender, racial, political or religious) only believe apologies when we hear from the offender, not his apologists. Ask a battered woman. When I see the words “I am sorry” I will accept them. Until then your words are part of the dominant paradigm that says bigotry is okay.
I AM offended. I am not a Catholic, Conway’s BS claims to the contrary. You may not have noticed that Conway has conveniently removed himself from this thread.I don’t subscribe to a cafeteria form of religion and I am not member of whatever church he attends.
That is the issue. I am sorry that one of the mods here thinks that religious and racial bigotry is something I or anyone else should accept. I guess that is the “reality based” part of this site. Religious bigotry is acceptable.
Is this the point where I should note that I often attend a mosque? Or do the religious fascists don’t like that?
“I was referring to every American Catholic and was unclear about that.”
There is nothing more for him to say, so I’m not surprised nor do I blame him for not coming back. Of course it’s fine that you’re a Muslim, but if we had been talking about Muslims to begin with and someone had said something like, “Every American is a cafeteria Muslim,” I would have understood that he meant American Muslims and as a non-Muslim I would not have taken offense to that. Besides, we all worship the same God of Abraham anyway. If you are so offended by a suggestion that you are Catholic (assuming for the sake of argument that was ever suggested anyway) it must be because you have very negative views of Catholics, which says more about your bigotry than any of ours.
I am not a Muslim. Stop your racist and bigot shit.
…as an indication you are a Muslim. I’m sorry if I misunderstood, but you can still dial it back a bit.
you are the same person who posted crap a few months ago about physical differences that define races. I did not write then about how nasty your crap was but any person who cares can find it.
…through classes and reading the Koran, but you must be confusing me with someone else regarding physical differences that define races. That’s not the kind of thing I would have written about because that’s not how I think.
Pretending to speak on behalf of a few million people allows him to say he was “unclear about that” ???
I am still waiting for the apology. We all know he is reading this, minute by minute, but is holding back because of his bigoted commentary.
I am not a christian, and I am not a Catholic despite his offensive assertion. His comment was offensive to me. Give him the space to apologize. I can wait.
n/t
Your focus on the content of the Pope’s words misses the point. Those words are, in fact, carefully composed and scripted to provide something in them for everybody — or at least, to not include anything offensive to anybody.
Like all adequately composed spiritual statements, the Pope’s pronouncements are clear enough to sound like they’re agreeing with something the listener already believes, and vague enough for the Vatican to correctly claim “The Holy Father did not say that” when complaints are raised. In this regard, these statements have much in common with daily horoscopes. Pretty much each daily “prediction” for each sign sounds meaningful for any reader regardless of the reader’s date of birth.
According to various sites like this, the Pope said the following in their private meeting (paraphrasing):
He also gave her a rosary and they exchanged hugs.
There is absolutely nothing controversial (at least to me) about any of these. I make the perhaps rash assumption that the Pope chose to NOT say many things. I watched Episcopal priests on all sides of equally contentious disputes say and do these things pretty much weekly during that denomination’s sagas about women’s ordination and Gay/Lesbian ordination.
Anyone who read encouragement of anti-women or anti-gay sentiment from any embrace, prayer, or similarly “supportive” statement from the late Bishop Tom Shaw did not know either Tom Shaw or the Massachusetts Episcopal Diocese very well.
Ms. Davis has been married four times. She has recently converted to a sect that has very different views of Christianity than the Pope and the Vatican. I sincerely doubt that the Pope would encourage or support either. Most of the extravagant claims made by Ms. Davis and her supporters are, in fact, their own interpretation of what the Pope actually did and said.
While it can be argued that the Vatican staff may be demonstrating the same political and/or cultural naivete that we saw from Barack Obama and his team, it is clear enough that the Pope does NOT endorse everything she has done (a claim she and her supporters have been making about the very brief meeting).
You speculate that may he is just saying what he believes.
My own speculation is that he (aided by his staff) is trying to please as many listeners as possible. I find it quite possible that he and his staff either don’t know or don’t care about the political fallout — he and they will always be able to truthfully respond “That’s not what I/he said or meant”.
When a plaintiff’s attorney refers to the defendant’s attorney as “My brother” while making a statement to the Court, do you also suggest that the plaintiff’s attorney is “just saying what he believes”?
…that Ms. Davis was AT the meeting with the Pope, which those reporting on it were not. To parse the meaning of words that they did not hear is spinning at its finest.
The Pope of Rome doesn’t favor gay marriage – why would that be a controversy? Who thought he did in the first place?
LOL
The words I cited are widely reported by all sources, including Ms. Davis herself. Are you suggesting that different words were spoken?
Nobody ever suggested that the Pope favors gay marriage. It is not a controversy. It is possible to not support gay marriage and also not encourage breaking federal law to impose that personal decision on others.
If a follower of the Amish faith tradition were to take a job working for the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles, would that person be a hero if he or she refused to issue driver’s licenses because of his or her religious beliefs? How long do you think it would take Pennsylvania authorities to transfer the employee to a different job?
I don’t doubt that the Pope appreciates the “courage” of Ms. Davis. I doubt very seriously if the Pope agrees that his gesture means that he endorses “everything she’s done”.
The Pope also doesn’t favor abortion. If the Pope were to acknowledge the “courage” of one of the many Catholic anti-abortion groups, would it be correct for them to trumpet that as an endorsement of bombing abortion clinics?
Nobody thinks the Pope favors gay marriage. Many people think the Pope has said, as clearly as he is able given his position, that he views that as a matter of private — rather than public — morality.
According to multiple published reports, the Vatican “has clarified the details” of the Pope’s meeting. The Vatican spokesman, Father Thomas Rosica (who was also not at the meeting), said
Please see the penultimate paragraph of my comment from yesterday.
The question now is whether the homophobic religiously motivated bigots of the GOP will admit that they were placated rather than supported.
Jeffrey Toobin hints that an a la carte ethic of government, rather than of catholicism, is more at play here than, at first blush, it would appear.
I am a Humanist who left the Catholic Church in 1967 over its’ support for the Vietnam War. I spoke out publicly against that war at the age of 17 when I was a junior at Wakefield High School.
Unlike you, I find Pope Francis’ pronouncements both interesting AND influential not because of his adherence to Church dogma but because he had the courage, wisdom, compassion, and integrity to TAKE ACTION on those most important issues that matter to the 7 billion human beings that live on the planet Earth.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
The meeting with Kim Davis cheapened an otherwise outstanding trip—great tone, great visuals, great remarks/speeches, well thought out and put together, right down to the Fiat. And, then, to find out that he met with that un-American, lawless, scumbag, P.O.S., Kim Davis, what a way to wreck an otherwise brilliant visit.
Pope Francis’s meeting with Kim Davis, I think he was probably “set up” by some of the conservative elements the Church. I don’t think he sought her out. He did meet with Davis, did pray for her, and gave her a rosary (a more common gift for the Vatican than bobbleheads at ball parks). He’s given rosaries to those incarcerated in prisons and in the media.
I have no sympathy for Kim Davis, who claims the status of conscientious objector but is more of a conscientious subjector. But Pope Francis is Pope Francis. He would bless the devil before considering the political implications.
With all that said, who’s going to remember Kim Davis or her visit with the Pope a year from now?
n/t
A lot of people, unfortunately. That one 15-minute visit harmed his standing dramatically with a lot of people who, while not normally big fans of Popes, had just starting coming around to liking the guy.
He may well have been set up. But the fact is, if you want to play in the big leagues, you have to be able to hit a big league fastball. He whiffed on that one big time, and it cost him.
It took most of two terms for Barack Obama to figure out that the GOP was more interested in its own agenda than any matter of public policy. In particular, the GOP’s desire to destroy Barack Obama has trumped every other concern — including national security and the future of the human race (regarding the Iran deal) — for as long as he’s been President.
I think Pope Francis very much wants to change the dynamic. I think he sincerely believes that government policies that benefit the wealthy and harm everybody else are immoral — and are issues of PUBLIC morality. I think he equally sincerely believes that gender preference (it isn’t even a choice!) is a matter of private morality.
I think Pose Francis and his staff may have naively hoped that this “both-and” stance would be welcomed by both sides. I hope that he and his staff learn more quickly than Barack Obama that the right wing has no interest in compromise.
To demonstrate, how often have I used Pat Buchanan’s outrageous and hate-filled speech at the 1988 Republican Convention at the height of the AIDS crisis in the US as my justification for why I will never EVER even consider a Republican for President? A dozen times, two dozen, five dozen!
Pope Francis is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. He probably opposes abortion and gay marriage, but they aren’t his priorities. In spite of direct support of many causes we support, we shouldn’t mistake him for a wholesale change in church doctrine. Anyone who doesn’t realize this will continue to be confused and/or disappointed.
It is always possible that all this is more about smoothing troubled waters than actually changing direction. I agree with you that this may not portend a “wholesale change in church doctrine”.
In my view, such a wholesale change is matter of greater concern for Roman Catholics than for me. Whether a Catholic man who divorces and remarries can take communion in a Roman Catholic church matters approximately as much to me as whether the wafer and wine are actually and physically transformed into flesh and blood — not very much. If asked, I’ll offer an opinion.
Of much more import is whether we are seeing a shift in Vatican priorities about very specific issue of PUBLIC morality. Until now, the Vatican has largely ignored the wholesale exploitation by America’s wealthiest of everybody else. The Vatican has largely remained silent as the GOP has used that silence as an endorsement of its policies that exacerbate, rather than resolve, already difficult challenges.
If this is a shot across the bow, as it were, then we may see a VERY interesting future — including a very interesting election. IF the Pope has decided that such exploitation by the 1% has replaced sexuality as THE moral issue at the top of the Vatican priority list for America, then I suggest we are in for some real fireworks.
What happens if the Vatican announces that Catholic candidates who vote to reduce or end government subsidies to the poor will be denied communion? What happens if excommunication is the result of denying climate change or scapegoating immigrants?
The GOP has happily enjoyed the application of such Vatican swords when they cut in favor of the GOP. We’ve heard all too much about “religious freedom” when some of us objected.
When that same sword threatens the knees (or other other parts) of the GOP itself, I predict that the GOP will suddenly discover and trumpet the importance of the Establishment Clause.
What happens during the upcoming campaign season if the Roman Catholic church mounts a prolonged and high-profile campaign emphasizing the Pope’s priorities of social and environment justice? What happens if every Catholic hears a weekly reminder from the pulpit of the moral importance of helping the poor, and the grave sin of helping those who exploit the poor?
What happens if the GOP nominee is Marco Rubio, and the Pope announces that Mr. Rubio will be denied communion if he continues to promote his campaign agenda?
you hit that one right over the Green Monsta !
Bang ! I can hear con heads exploding all over the world !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Of any Catholic politician for any reason, to me it smacks of the exact kind of stuff that made Protestants scared of JFK, and JFK had to go out of his way to say he wouldn’t be dictated to by Catholic prelates in order to quell that controversy. It was wrong for Chaput to deny Kerry communion in 2004, wrong for Francis or any bishop to do so now for the GOP.
That said, it is totally appropriate for bishops, like mine in Chicago, to go after Republican politicians like Gov. Rauner and say they are out of step. His labor day speech this year might have been the most forceful criticism of a Republican politician by a Catholic prelate in some time. And Francis went out of his way to pluck Cupich from a backwater diocese to put him in one of the big 5.
…to revoke the eucharistic privileges of two female legislators – Barbara L’Italien and Shirley Gomes – for not taking anti-abortion/anti-contraception votes while he was head of Fall River (I am acquainted with one of the ladies in question and she was deeply hurt as she has a profound faith), while not giving any such punishment to male legislators who have the same voting record.
Didn’t hurt his career. Excommunication would likely be selective.
I think he learned later in his career not to do that, he explicitly ruled it out when he first accedes to his current bishopric. I will completely agree with you that female Catholic politicians get treated far worse than male ones by the hierarchy on this and many other issues. Joe Biden, who has a somewhat more centrist record on abortion than some but is still adamantly pro-choice has received a significantly less criticism from the hierarchy than Geraldine Ferraro who was blasted from every pulpit in 1984. It’s really sad so many bishops are threatened by female leadership-Jesus certainly wasn’t.
There is simply no escape from the reality that Roman Catholic dogma, both public and private, is flagrantly sexist. So is virtually everything else about the Roman Catholic tradition.
Women cannot be ordained. Women cannot practice artificial contraception. Women are chastised for adultery in ways that men are not. Women who choose abortion commit a mortal sin, while their partners are ignored.
The belief system of the Roman Catholic religious tradition, from the assertion of parthenogenesis through and including its assertion about marriage, contraception, abortion, and the insistence that offspring be themselves raised in the tradition, is fundamentally patriarchal and sexist.
It should come as no surprise that the institution’s public treatment of women, including women candidates, reflects its deeply-rooted internal value system.
Agreed completely. L’Italien and Gomes are both wonderful women: one a liberal Dem and the other a moderate Repub, personal friends of mine in the past, who ride far above the pathetic moral judgement of the men who claim ownership of the Church and faith.
It was a little surprising that the Davis group seems to be exaggerating the substance of the meeting. Francis has not changed church teaching on anything, but has been trying to change the tone. Even the version of the meeting as reported by Davis is consistent with that. People who are expecting something more than a change in tone are unrealistic.
I kind of like the platinum rule: treat others as they would like to be treated
Some interesting words from the pope, would be even more interesting if grounded in things not supernatural.
met with met with a same-sex couple.
Maybe we have to get used to understanding the Pope rather than he getting used to the media and preserving his image.
It always seems to be a non-Catholics who pontificate – and I use that word advisedly – about how terrible it is that some Catholics are “cafeteria Catholics”. The whole concept is silly. Why? Because it is ridiculous to expect people to adhere to all tenets of any religion. That is called fundamentalism. It is the pope himself, and I think two his great credit, who has commented explicitly that the problem we face in all religions is the temptation to intolerance of others, extremism, and fundamentalism. He is right. To paraphrase this pope: let’s all chill out.
remind me of that passage in the New Testament where Jesus’ detractors are pointing out the faults and shortcomings of others. Jesus admonished them for criticizing the splinter in their neighbors eye while ignoring the beam in their own eye.
As a fallen Catholic and a non-believer what amazed me most about this extraordinary Pope Francis — it moved me to tears — was how he reached out to me and all those who don’t share his faith — and asked us to wish him well even if we couldn’t pray for him.
I do wish him well as I am sure billions of other non-believing men and women do all over the world.
After all, wasn’t it Jesus who said : “By their deeds you will know them” ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I am also reminded of the admonition cited in Matthew 5:5-6 (Emphasis mine) —
I don’t know about anyone else, but from my perspective this passage speaks rather directly to the current plethora of too-public religiosity spewing from the right wing.
I’ve always wondered how the Roman Catholic tradition, with its long history of assigning multiple repetitions of “hail Mary” as “penance”, reconciles that practice with the final verse of the above.
I guess it’s another of those “mysteries of faith”.
What some may not see immediately is that for this particular group of people, the fact that the pope has gay friends and treats them with the same warmth and respect with which he treats all any other personal friend is already a victory that is far more important than whether or not he met Kim Davis briefly and was polite and welcoming to her.
Every American is a cafeteria Catholic
but he won’t come back and apologize for his bullshit. I am an American. I am not a Catholic. The rest of you you can apologize for him but he delivered the gross insult and when he apologizes I will accept it.
I suspect that jconway, like I, am done with you on this topic.