Pope Francis is not a progressive—he just has terrific PR

[Red Light Racicot]

http://qz.com/511809/pope-francis-is-not-a-progressive-he-just-has-terrific-pr/

The Pope’s arrival in the United States was met with 200,000-strong crowds, a popemobile Snapchat filter, and a level of euphoria that would unnerve One Direction. He posed for selfies with his fans, tweeted to his 7.3 million followers, and has been described as a “liberal icon” and a “lodestar to both the spiritual and secular worlds.”

But this adulation has very little to do with Pope Francis’s beliefs or actions, and an awful lot to do with an impressive PR campaign led by former Fox News correspondent Greg Burke, who is the Vatican’s senior media advisor.

In the past few years, Pope Francis has steered clear of controversial topics and displayed an open-minded attitude towards the most socially conservative aspects of the Roman Catholic Church.

He said the Church had become “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage, and contraception, which was why he chose not to talk about such issues.

Pope Francis sent a kind letter to a same-sex family and, while talking to reporters in 2013, he said: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

However, in a letter to the Carmelite Nuns of Buenos Aires in 2010, when Argentina was debating gay marriage he said the following:

“It is not a simple political struggle; it is the destructive attempt toward God’s plan.”

The political movement for gay marriage is “the envy of the Devil, by which sin entered into the world, which cunningly seeks to destroy the image of God.”

Gay adoption is discrimination against children: “What is at stake here is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of so many children who will be discriminated against in advance, depriving them of the human maturation that God wanted to be given with a father and a mother.”

The Pope’s record on several other social issues could hardly be described as “liberal” either. Pope Francis has:

-Compared arguments for transgender rights to a nuclear arms race.

-Spoken out against abortion, saying: “Defend the unborn against abortion even if they persecute you, calumniate you, set traps for you, take you to court or kill you. No child should be deprived of the right to be born, the right to be fed, the right to go to school.”

-Said he’s firmly opposed to ordaining women as priests, or clergy of any kind, insisting, “That door is closed.”

Francis has also upheld the Church’s opposition to birth control.

Though Pope Francis was enthusiastically received at the United Nations, his policy on contraception is at direct odds with the UN’s goal of eradicating poverty.

Expanding access to birth control could prevent 52 million unintended pregnancies, 14 million unsafe abortions and 70,000 maternal deaths a year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, yet the Pope will not shift. (It’s not so inconceivable that he would do so: in 1964, Pope Paul VI held a commission to debate the issue and the majority, including 60 of 64 theologians and nine of 15 cardinals, were in favor of repealing the ban.)

And though Pope Francis has approved a system of accountability for Catholic bishops who don’t properly respond to sex abuse accusations and met with victims of sex abuse and “renewed his commitment” to treat victims with justice, he has a far from exemplary record at tackling sexual abuse within the Church.

While an Archbishop in Argentina he was often quiet on the issue, and when one priest, Father Julio César Grassi, was found guilty of molesting a pubescent boy, he was not expelled from the priesthood.

Instead, church officials led by Archbishop Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) commissioned a private report arguing that Grassi was innocent and which, prosecutors say, has helped Grassi avoid jail time.

In January last year, a UN report said the Vatican should “immediately remove” all known or suspected child abusers among the clergy. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) said the Holy See should identify those who had “concealed their crimes” so that they could be held accountable.

A few months later, Pope Francis retaliated, saying:

The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility. No-one else has done more. Yet the Church is the only one to have been attacked.

And yet there are fugitives in the Vatican. If they are finally extradited, and those who covered it up are made to answer, I'd feel a lot better about the whole thing.

With all the non adherents and atheists fawning over this new Pope, I felt obliged to show you why I am not a fan, and perhaps a few things you were not aware of.

[Jägermeister]

I'd say he's about as progressive as the figurehead for such an explicitly non-progressive organization can be.

[Down by the River]

Ugh. If you actually click on the hyperlinks to that article, you get a bunch of biased sources that provide no specific quotes or links to documents where the Pope made similar statements.

For example, one of the hyperlinks in the article links you to: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/14/pope-francis-defend-the-unborn-from-abortion-even-if-persecuted/

Obviously a pro-life website that claims Francis said "Defend the unborn against abortion even if they persecute you, calumniate you, set traps for you, take you to court or kill you. No child should be deprived of the right to be born, the right to be fed, the right to go to school."

Yet, the same site does not provide any source to this quote.

On same sex marriage, you're linked to a catholichawaii.org website. The 'letter' they refer to is a pdf document that I could have created sitting at my desk in 5 minutes. It is not even a signed letter (http://www.catholichawaii.org/media/224245/bergoglio_to_carmelite_sisters.pdf)

If you read the quote about a child having a right to a mother and father, the hyperlink takes you to a site where he is clearly talking in the context of marriage and divorce and not about gay marriage (http://ccgaction.org/node/1843).%C2'>

I'm not going to go through all the other hyperlinks, but I feel that you're similarly likely to continue down a rabbit hole of little reliability.

[Dekey Pete]

Ugh. If you actually click on the hyperlinks to that article, you get a bunch of biased sources that provide no specific quotes or links to documents where the Pope made similar statements.

For example, one of the hyperlinks in the article links you to: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/14/pope-francis-defend-the-unborn-from-abortion-even-if-persecuted/

Obviously a pro-life website that claims Francis said "Defend the unborn against abortion even if they persecute you, calumniate you, set traps for you, take you to court or kill you. No child should be deprived of the right to be born, the right to be fed, the right to go to school."

Yet, the same site does not provide any source to this quote.

On same sex marriage, you're linked to a catholichawaii.org website. The 'letter' they refer to is a pdf document that I could have created sitting at my desk in 5 minutes. It is not even a signed letter (http://www.catholichawaii.org/media/224245/bergoglio_to_carmelite_sisters.pdf)

If you read the quote about a child having a right to a mother and father, the hyperlink takes you to a site where he is clearly talking in the context of marriage and divorce and not about gay marriage (

I'm not going to go through all the other hyperlinks, but I feel that you're similarly likely to continue down a rabbit hole of little reliability.

They need to teach kids this kind of stuff in school nowadays. Too often people don't question sources and just believe anything that comes across their facebook feed.

[Red Light Racicot]

Ugh. If you actually click on the hyperlinks to that article, you get a bunch of biased sources that provide no specific quotes or links to documents where the Pope made similar statements.

For example, one of the hyperlinks in the article links you to: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/14/pope-francis-defend-the-unborn-from-abortion-even-if-persecuted/

Obviously a pro-life website that claims Francis said "Defend the unborn against abortion even if they persecute you, calumniate you, set traps for you, take you to court or kill you. No child should be deprived of the right to be born, the right to be fed, the right to go to school."

Yet, the same site does not provide any source to this quote.

On same sex marriage, you're linked to a catholichawaii.org website. The 'letter' they refer to is a pdf document that I could have created sitting at my desk in 5 minutes. It is not even a signed letter (http://www.catholichawaii.org/media/224245/bergoglio_to_carmelite_sisters.pdf)

If you read the quote about a child having a right to a mother and father, the hyperlink takes you to a site where he is clearly talking in the context of marriage and divorce and not about gay marriage (

I'm not going to go through all the other hyperlinks, but I feel that you're similarly likely to continue down a rabbit hole of little reliability.

So you just give up? Do some investigation at least.

"Defend the unborn against abortion even if they persecute you, calumniate you, set traps for you, take you to court or kill you. No child should be deprived of the right to be born, the right to be fed, the right to go to school."

I had plenty of results there, many confirming he did indeed say that.

As for the PDF, I actually found a book that contained that letter.

As for bias? I think you misunderstand the situation. The notion that the Pope was softening his stance on same sex marriage was extremely distressful for Catholics.

Perhaps that should be the overriding theme here.

When a Catholic says we need to accept homosexuality, their fellow Catholics will often react by assuming it is the influence of Satan. I'm dead serious when I say that.

All you need is some familiarity with the religion. Right Alf?

He has to take these stances.

[BanTSN]

We've heard nothing but this from the capitalist world since he was on their radar. He's ticked a lot of people off with the things he's been saying.

However, he does have political beliefs that learn towards progressiveness. He's the first jesuit pope, and the jesuits are pro-poor socialists.

The fact that capitalists are up in arms about the pope speaks volumes of what he actually represents. Even it's just PR, it's still better (or worse) than the nothing that we've seen from the vatican on progressive social issues for as long as anyone can remember.

[Lancaster]

By the traditional Catholic standards, he's probably very "progressive". Just most of the world has already moved past the pace of change the Vatican moves at.

[taxi]

Pope Francis is the PR guy. He says things like not to hate homosexuals. Then he pushes an ideology that says if a homosexual ever acts on their sexuality they will spend all of eternity burning in hell, which is the worst possible thing that could happen to someone. Giving homosexuals the choice between burning in hell and forcing yourself into a heterosexual lifestyle is not progressive.

A true progressive would never take a religion like Catholicism literally.

[Alflives]

Who cares? The guy rocks a great beanie. He's the Pope, and is therefore infallible. His decisions are guided by the Holy Spirit.

[G.K. Chesterton]

This has long been obvious to practicing Christians. It's amusing seeing people who don't understand Christianity, and specifically Roman Catholicism, fawning over Pope Francis and drawing all these wild assumptions about him. I actually think he's just what the Catholic Church needs right now - a pastor, not an eminent theologian like his predecessor.

[thejazz97]

Pope Francis is the PR guy. He says things like not to hate homosexuals. Then he pushes an ideology that says if a homosexual ever acts on their sexuality they will spend all of eternity burning in hell, which is the worst possible thing that could happen to someone. Giving homosexuals the choice between burning in hell and forcing yourself into a heterosexual lifestyle is not progressive.

Who said anything about forcing gays into heterosexual lifestyles?

People could just abstain, same as any other believer would with any other sin. Because with any other sin and any other person, it still has the same end unless you get to know Jesus as saviour and try your best to come under alignment with the kingdom of Heaven (if you don't think you can, as in the case of many people who identify as gay, abstaining is perfectly okay).

And if you think it's hating to homosexuals (or anyone really) to say, "hey, do what you want but it's wiser to do this instead"... I really don't know what to say.

[Tortorella's Rant]

Who said about forcing gays in heterosexual orientation? Christians do. Conversion therapy, straight camps, ostracization from friends and family and church/community. Can we at least agree that god enjoys the occasional pole smoking? If we're all made in his image then it's only rational to conclude he's somewhat gay. Perhaps bisexual is more accurate. Then again rationality was never his forte and maybe he's just a contradictory, hypocritical twit.

[thejazz97]

Who said about forcing gays in heterosexual orientation? Christians do. Conversion therapy, straight camps, ostracization from friends and family and church/community. Can we at least agree that god enjoys the occasional pole smoking? If we're all made in his image then it's only rational to conclude he's somewhat gay. Perhaps bisexual is more accurate. Then again rationality was never his forte and maybe he's just a contradictory, hypocritical twit.

That's wrong of us to do that then. I mean, we can offer help, but we shouldn't be forcing them to go straight and ostracizing them if they reject our offer to help.

We're all made in God's image, but we've all been corrupted in some way.

[Tortorella's Rant]

That's wrong of us to do that then. I mean, we can offer help, but we shouldn't be forcing them to go straight and ostracizing them if they reject our offer to help.

We're all made in God's image, but we've all been corrupted in some way.

No we haven't.

[thejazz97]

No we haven't.

Been corrupted?

[taxi]

Who said anything about forcing gays into heterosexual lifestyles?

People could just abstain, same as any other believer would with any other sin. Because with any other sin and any other person, it still has the same end unless you get to know Jesus as saviour and try your best to come under alignment with the kingdom of Heaven (if you don't think you can, as in the case of many people who identify as gay, abstaining is perfectly okay).

And if you think it's hating to homosexuals (or anyone really) to say, "hey, do what you want but it's wiser to do this instead"... I really don't know what to say.

You realize that sexuality isn't a choice? And yes it is extreme hate to think someone will go to hell if they act upon their sexuality.

You somehow have yourself convinced you're helping gay people? Baffling. I think I preferred my old school bigots. At least they were honest.

[thejazz97]

You realize that sexuality isn't a choice? And yes it is extreme hate to think someone will go to hell if they act upon their sexuality.

You somehow have yourself convinced you're helping gay people? Baffling. I think I preferred my old school bigots. At least they were honest.

Sexuality isn't a choice, but they're not born that way either.

And it's not just acting on sexual preference though that'll "send" you to hell. There's other stuff too.

Yeah, my parents are ministers who have had done ministry with a couple people who were gay at the time and came out from it, and my aunt (also a minister)'s had the same thing happen to her. They don't "force" people who are gay to come (it's actually a ministry for people who are under spiritual oppression, and if you're wondering, they do it for free - but do accept donations), nor do they ostracize gay people. So yes, I am convinced.

[The Ghost of Tom Joad]

For the record, I'm totally indifferent to the Pope's views, but there are some obvious flaws to your argument.

1. You're citing a document from 5 years ago? So, you don't think he's capable of changing his position on the issue in that time? An entire country (generally speaking, the US) shifted its social attitude on gay marriage in the last 5 years.

2. Even if he's just pretending to be progressive, and he's propagating views of acceptance, isn't that good? Who cares what he really thinks? He's the head of a Church that represents over a billion people. As long as his public opinion is acceptance and he's encouraging others to be accepting, I don't really care what he thinks or says to his buddies in private.

[DonLever]

A true progressive would never take a religion like Catholicism literally.

A true progressive would likely be non-religious anyway.

[Red Light Racicot]

For the record, I'm totally indifferent to the Pope's views, but there are some obvious flaws to your argument.

1. You're citing a document from 5 years ago? So, you don't think he's capable of changing his position on the issue in that time? An entire country (generally speaking, the US) shifted its social attitude on gay marriage in the last 5 years.

2. Even if he's just pretending to be progressive, and he's propagating views of acceptance, isn't that good? Who cares what he really thinks? He's the head of a Church that represents over a billion people. As long as his public opinion is acceptance and he's encouraging others to be accepting, I don't really care what he thinks or says to his buddies in private.

He could be an atheist now for all it matters. He cant promote gay rights.

If he wants to support gay rights then he needs to quit the religion. Its an obvious deal breaker.

And the problem I have is exactly that. Pretending to be accepting, which in my opinion is not good. The glossing over of the infamous reputation of the Vatican with mindless poetic sounding fluff everyone already knows anyways.

War is... bad? Poverty is bad? Climate change is bad? Really Francis!?

You know who receives the brunt of the abuse this organization doles out? Catholics living in developing countries, where to my knowledge they are still taught bs like how condoms actually cause AIDS.

That's right. They have been saying condoms cause AIDS for quite some time now, wherever they can get away with it. Anyone can go ahead and ask me to provide links on this one too, but as we should know by now, what is good for the Vatican is all too often very bad for a great many.

Actually, I have a better idea. Watch this debate, for example, to get a grasp of the scope of the various problems stemming from Catholicism, namely Hitchens, who begins at about the 8 minute mark:

We shouldn't ignore the harm that is done just because they have a charismatic figurehead. The Pope cannot dare to support worthy and sensible causes like birth control.

Do I think we should rally around a man who's organization has a centuries long tradition of putting humanistic concerns a very distant second to the concerns of religious mandate?

Who will preach things which sound idealistic, yet the moment it comes in conflict with nonsensical and uncompromising doctrine it all goes out the window?

Whose organization will maintain a death grip on these so called "sacred" doctrines, yet when scientific revelation dispels them they have no choice but to either take a ridiculous stance, or abandon them entirely, acting like they never believed them in the first place?

No, I'd say that's probably not a good idea.