The Pope thread

[BerenTebogo]

Its not a shit argument and it's quite an easy one to make when looking at the current political environment. I don't get why you're so dismissive of it considering how politicians use religion to dictate how and what we teach children. Sup Texas.

Primarily because what is going on in America re: science illiteracy spreading like wildfire isn't attributed to any one (or necessarily any) religion. For cases involving abortion, evolution, sexual education, etc it is very easy to point to the cause being some manner of religious (or religion-influenced) belief.

The overarching problem of science illiteracy doesn't pertain to just those subjects though. Whether it be a passive (or active) belief in astrology, or mystic energy, or similar woo nonsense, the whole umbrella of anti-vax / everyone is a big-pharma shill nonsense, or GMO stuff, it all has the same common root as the religious problems.

The intersection of the sets of people who fall into the abortion/etc camps and the sets of people who fall into the mysticism woo camps isn't terribly large, but fundamentally they both share the exact same mindset "my beliefs matter more than your evidence".

Your statement that politicians use religion to decide what we teach children is true. And it's scary. But the American version of the problem has very little to do with religion, in my opinion.

[BerenTebogo]

Scientific research, development, and ultimately, literacy are, for worse, inextricably tied to funding, which is tied to social issues. NDT hit this on the head in a Colbert interview.

"When you part the curtains, at the bottom of all that, there's a politician funding that research… We have scientists who invented the bomb, yes, but somebody had to pay for the bomb, and that was taxpayers. There were war bonds. There was a political action that called for it. Everyone blames the scientists."

One of the biggest scientific achievements of this century came as a result of war.

Now what any of this has to do with the pope, I have not a fucking clue.

To expand on my reply since you also expanded:

Part of the problem we have currently, like pouring water on an oil fire, is that somehow many of the arguments have become so embroiled in conspiracy theory nonsense that funding == evil. You have more people than I would like to believe who see funding of scientific research as evil and sinister (monsato, tobacco, oil, etc) and such funding is indicative of some manner of collusion.

Many of the non-religious scientifically illiterate fancy themselves crusaders fighting an invisible war against an unseen enemy. It's a shame that this is one of the direct consequences of the freedom of the internet. Funding for evidence-based science is quickly becoming akin to blood money for certain "hot topics".

It's all fucking stupid as shit, but it's where we are.

[Tyche]

I think what you and others are missing is that when people discuss the pope, they're doing so with the understanding of the confines and the boundaries of the person in that position. Or being as good as they can be given the limitations allowed. As much as you or I or anyone else would like the pope to say "fuck yeah, Big Bang, evolution, abortion, and hot women priests", it just ain't gonna happen. As much as I'd like a secular president, it ain't gonna happen.

Still, if the pope speaks highly of science and gets 1,000 kids interested in science that wouldn't have been otherwise, it's a win. Because no matter who the pope is, their social view will still be constrained when it comes to points you and Tyrath have raised. You can't change the entire church in one papacy, as I stated earlier. Slow and gradual change we can believe in. Fucking invoking Darwinism into a pope thread. Eat shit Ed.

[BerenTebogo]

I think what you and others are missing is that when people discuss the pope, they're doing so with the understanding of the confines and the boundaries of the person in that position. Or being as good as they can be given the limitations allowed. As much as you or I or anyone else would like the pope to say "fuck yeah, Big Bang, evolution, abortion, and hot women priests", it just ain't gonna happen. As much as I'd like a secular president, it ain't gonna happen.

Still, if the pope speaks highly of science and gets 1,000 kids interested in science that wouldn't have been otherwise, it's a win. Because no matter who the pope is, their social view will still be constrained when it comes to points you and Tyrath have raised. You can't change the entire church in one papacy, as I stated earlier. Slow and gradual change we can believe in. Fucking invoking Darwinism into a pope thread. Eat shit Ed.

I agree with this, but my main point is that I don't think a slight change in stance on science is a net win. Obviously how you put it, yes 1000 > 0.

The thing that I (and probably Tyrath) realize is that obviously the entire papalcy isn't going to change in a day, or probably ever. The point I'm trying to emphasize is that if there is wiggle room on science, which being for or against doesn't have any (that I can see) measurable negative effects on people, then where is the wiggle room on topics being used to oppress people?

I'll trade the 1000 kids being interested in science for 1000 people not being beaten for being gay. I can make shitty equivalencies too, lol.

Right now, the concessions he has made (to my knowledge) have not resulted in an increased quality of life for anyone. There's more than enough hot topic issues he could choose to be controversial about which would really help people out - without overthrowing the fundamentals of the church. I'm not asking him to move mountains.

Edit: to use a real example - some concession on contraception would change the world for third world catholics. Doesn't need to be a sweeping acceptance of all contraception in all cases, but if we're talking about taking things that are black and white and making them gray, this is one of those topics where the difference would be huge.

[Tyche]

I don't think the pope is out there advocating the beating of gays. That's intellectually dishonest. The dude has penned letters to LBGT Catholics, giving them his blessing to be part of the church. He's met a transgendered that was rejected by his parish because of his sex change operation. That doesn't happen under Benedict or John Paul.

[BerenTebogo]

I don't think the pope is out there advocating the beating of gays. That's intellectually dishonest. The dude has penned letters to LBGT Catholics, giving them his blessing to be part of the church. He's met a transgendered that was rejected by his parish because of his sex change operation. That doesn't happen under Benedict or John Paul.

Well obviously he isn't.

Going to try to tl;dr my entire point because I really do need to sleep.

Good guy pope is better than previous popes. Good guy pope makes reasonably mellow, yet positive, statements that are slight deviations from traditional belief. Good guy pope comes under heavy criticism (and support) from uppity reactionaries as if he were making extravagant and polarizing statements despite the fact that he is being mellow.

If making mellow statements of support that yield negligible positives to anyone receives the same harsh criticism as if he was actually shaking things up - why not direct the support where it could actually make a difference?

An unwillingness to do so makes good guy pope not such a good guy, in my opinion.

[Thunder]

EU is a little bit different than the US with its regards to the pope and the influence he has. Much more than 1000 kids would have been raised to be against evolution if it had not been for the pope's accepting it. I'm talking about this generation coming up and the next one thereafter. Most teenagers+ of catholic families today are already fucked probably. Would not believe the power god has over people in EU, even among advanced degrees. Cousin's finishing a doctorate in biology (biotechnology, but still, right?) and I got to meet her "team" while visiting and it blew my mind how many did not believe in evolution, even though the research some of them were doing on yeast was literally evolution

Like you said science doesn't care if someone believes in it or not, it'll keep on sciencing, and the same is true for religion

It's true, he could be doing more, but I'm not under the illusion the church is a sector that quickly assimilates new information - it's one of the slowest we still have around today. And whether it should be or not be so slow isn't really up for debate, because it is what it is.

[Gredival]

Right now, the concessions he has made (to my knowledge) have not resulted in an increased quality of life for anyone.

I think a lot of you are underestimating how much will change as a result of how "little" Francis has done. Francis is a verifiable quantum leap forward from Benedict (albeit Benedict was a step back himself from John Paul II).

While there are undoubtedly people who will twist themselves into knots to avoid listening to the Pope because they want to focus on abortion and their "religious opposition" to homosexuality, keep in mind that Francis is setting the tone for a future generation of Catholics here. On World Peace Day, through media coverage of his trip, whenever he makes a "controversial" statement... millions of young Catholics are now hearing him talk of acceptance, mercy, forgiveness, ecological and economic responsibility. And that's no small thing. What Francis is doing is preventing a whole new generation from becoming religious zealots ensuring that the Church of tomorrow is a more tolerant, merciful one with people who will basically actually do what Jesus would do.

I will wager for many here, their separation from organized religion had a lot to do with how it didn't accord to their internal compass, especially on issues such as treatment of societal "outcasts." Francis focusing his papacy on a message of social welfare helps redirect (for the better) all those Catholics for whom leaving the Church wasn't an answer.

[Cantih]

I think a lot of you are underestimating how much will change as a result of how "little" Francis has done. Francis is a verifiable quantum leap forward from Benedict (albeit Benedict was a step back himself from John Paul II).
What Francis is doing is preventing a whole new generation from becoming religious zealots

This. As Sath said, there is a trend of "my ignorance is equal to your knowledge" types. But a factor that helps that trend hold, is the presence of any kind of crazy hanging around in force like it's legitimate, kind of like mental herd immunity.
If the small changes by a pope, however arguably better in degree, can start stemming or cutting the pool of crazy, it's worthwhile.

[Tyrath]

While there are undoubtedly people who will twist themselves into knots to avoid listening to the Pope because they want to focus on abortion and their "religious opposition" to homosexuality, keep in mind that Francis is setting the tone for a future generation of Catholics here. On World Peace Day, through media coverage of his trip, whenever he makes a "controversial" statement... millions of young Catholics are now hearing him talk of acceptance, mercy, forgiveness, ecological and economic responsibility. And that's no small thing. What Francis is doing is preventing a whole new generation from becoming religious zealots ensuring that the Church of tomorrow is a more tolerant, merciful one with people who will basically actually do what Jesus would do.

Is he really through? For every 5 comments he makes about acceptance, he sneaks one in about how it's okay to have "conscientious objection" against gay marriage and how it is a "human right to deny marriage licenses" if your beliefs are anti-gay. I don't think you have to twist yourself into knots to avoid listening to the pope to remain on your anti-abortion and anti-gay stance. He is those things too. He just does the happy dance of "we shouldn't judge" but there is still that implied "but god will and you are going to hell unless you change your ways."

Yes, being the pope he has to have those beliefs. I don't expect that to change. It just brings us back to the point: being a slightly better pope isn't all that much better in the grand scheme of things.

And maybe I am cynical because of his predecessors, but I am not convinced his goal is to cut down religious zealotry in the future so much as it is to improve the image of the church so there will still be people going to church in the future.

[Tyrath]

I don't think this is true. At least not for Catholicism. You may have forgotten nuns also cannot marry/have kids. There has been a lot of debate on when/where priests stopped being able to marry. And many Orthodox Churches still allow their priests to marry and have kids, but with certain sexual restrictions.

I actually hope the church changes their stance on priests marrying. I think it's very possible.

With that said, I am a "terrible woman" and couldn't give two shits about woman being priests. If a woman has the calling, she can be a nun. You don't see men whining they can't be nuns. There is little difference in the good you can do as a nun vs. a priest. And when it comes to your faith, you should care more about doing good, than trying to make some liberal point.

Reality is, Catholicism is very very focused on the roles of a family. It wouldn't make a lot of sense with the way the church is structured to merge the roles.

Couldn't respond to this yesterday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a nun a lower position than a priest?

You don't see men whining they can't be nuns.

Why would anyone whine wanting to be on a lower rung of the ladder?

And when it comes to your faith, you should care more about doing good, than trying to make some liberal point

I think doing good involves providing equality to women. Holding women down at a lower position and telling them "you can still do good from there" is still bigotry, nothing less.

Reality is, Catholicism is very very focused on the roles of a family. It wouldn't make a lot of sense with the way the church is structured to merge the roles.

I don't think we live in an age anymore where the man is the head of the family and the woman is beneath him. They should both be equal. Nobody said the roles should be merged. All they want is for women to have the opportunity to move up the ranks within the church and not be limited to just nuns.

[synistar]

I think a lot of you are underestimating how much will change as a result of how "little" Francis has done. Francis is a verifiable quantum leap forward from Benedict (albeit Benedict was a step back himself from John Paul II).

While there are undoubtedly people who will twist themselves into knots to avoid listening to the Pope because they want to focus on abortion and their "religious opposition" to homosexuality, keep in mind that Francis is setting the tone for a future generation of Catholics here. On World Peace Day, through media coverage of his trip, whenever he makes a "controversial" statement... millions of young Catholics are now hearing him talk of acceptance, mercy, forgiveness, ecological and economic responsibility. And that's no small thing. What Francis is doing is preventing a whole new generation from becoming religious zealots ensuring that the Church of tomorrow is a more tolerant, merciful one with people who will basically actually do what Jesus would do.

I will wager for many here, their separation from organized religion had a lot to do with how it didn't accord to their internal compass, especially on issues such as treatment of societal "outcasts." Francis focusing his papacy on a message of social welfare helps redirect (for the better) all those Catholics for whom leaving the Church wasn't an answer.

So much truth right here. What Francis' message is focusing on the simple message of Jesus to help those who need aid and forgiveness of those who have done you wrong. The doctrine of the Church will not change unless an ecumenical council is convened, the previous one being Vatican II back in the 1960s that transformed the Catholicism a substantial amount. Sins will still be sins. Abortion will still not be accepted by the Catholic Church, nor will gays be allowed to marry under the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. But Catholics should not hate those who sin, rather they should pray for them that God grant the sinners mercy.

Most of BG is probably too young or haven't been born to remember this, but someone tried to assassinate John Paul II back in the early 80s. Instead of damning the assassin, he visited him jail and pardoned him of his sin. Guy still rotted in jail, but the message is to forgive and turn the other cheek and not live a life of vengeance.

When Francis replied "Who am I to judge?" in response to having openly gay priests serve in the Church, it is not for man to decide whether this person is living in sin, but the judgment of God. What doesn't change is that gay priests serve the message of Jesus regardless of sexual orientation. Now whether they drift off message and promote a personal agenda that's counter to doctrine is another story. If anything, like above, others would pray that God shows them mercy for any wrongs. During Benedict's papacy, I'd say it was a sexual abuse crusade from many parishioners and the Church. The general message of mercy was lost. People were angry and wanted justice, perhaps revenge. Now with a lot of the scandals settling down, Francis has taken a step forward to get back to basics.

And yes I am a Catholic but far from being a model parishioner and quite liberal when it comes to a few issues. But like in the movie Dogma, it's the ideas and values of Catholicism that I can live by to be a decent person.

[Rooney]

Wouldn't the male equivalent of a nun be a monk? In which case men can hold every position women can, and many more. And yes, monk/nun is the lowest position possible without being a regular person (as I understand it).

[Rooney]

People were angry and wanted justice, perhaps revenge.

Forgiveness and mercy do not preclude justice. Just like your example of John Paul II forgiving the attempted assassin. You don't let the guy off the hook just because someone said "I forgive you."

[archibaldcrane]

It's funny that the pope is trying to focus on helping the poor instead of abortion and gay marriage, but everyone in here is focusing on abortion and gay marriage.

There's more work to be done apparently.

[Tyrath]

Maybe its because of shit like this.

I stand corrected, Kim Davis' lawyer wasn't making things up. Pope did in fact meet with Kim Davis in secret. See, this is what I get for giving the pope the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...-meeting-in-dc

Addressing reports that Pope Francis met privately with controversial Kentucky clerk Kim Davis during his U.S. visit, the Vatican acknowledges that the meeting took place. Davis, who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, says she met the pope at the Vatican Embassy in Washington.

"I cannot not deny the meeting took place but I have no comments to add," Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said in Italian Wednesday.

Adding further fuel to all I suspect about him simply being a PR machine.

Yes, all he does is focus on helping the poor while in secret supporting anti-gay people.



Edit:
A further quote for whoever was saying the pope would be stemming the tide of religious zealotry

"Just knowing the pope is on track with what we're doing, and agreeing, you know, kind of validates everything," Davis tells ABC News Wednesday morning, speaking about her meeting with Pope Francis and the stand she has taken against same-sex marriage.

The fact that this was a secret meeting and they had to sneak Davis and her Husband into the embassy makes me really question how genuine the pope really is.

[Byrthnoth]

Meets with Kim Davis, a social pariah who isn't even Catholic.

#progpope

[Galkaeater]

How dare the pope not inform me personally of his secret meetings

[Byrthnoth]

Let's say you meet the Pope and he doesn't really speak English and you don't really speak Spanish. What do you do? Smile at each other and then spend some time petting the Pope? Does the Pope like scratches? Who's a good Pope? I do not understand why the meeting was not publicized officially. It was clearly scheduled for the sake of media coverage and to nod to the conservative arm of the Church, so why make it secret for a few days?

[Tyrath]

Because all the liberals who are on the pope bandwagon are gonna be mad about it? I've already started seeing a lot of "WTF pope" from people who were cool with him.

The fact that he made it a secret meeting tells me that he wanted to protect his image.