I don’t know what’s going on with the pedophiles, but I hope the same reform.
Is this Pope good?
I don’t see why you would call any catholic leader “Trump loyal”. Trump has nothing to do with this (isn’t he supposed to be protestant btw?).
What’s happening is the Vatican apparently trying to clean itself up a bit. Not really sure if there is anything to expect from it but it’s a start.
It’s a pretty accurate descriptor of some catholic leaders unfortunately, including some who were outspoken and trying to whip up their followers with lies about the 2020 election.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/19/opinions/catholic-clerics-who-backed-trump-big-lie-moses/index.html
And yes it is a weird situation. Especially since Biden is actually the catholic candidate.
I am glad the Vatican is trying to clean house a bit though. Some of the people being removed by Francis are those in the articles above, like Strickland.
I understand some clerics did back Trump. It just seemed a bit weird to use this as the main qualifier here. But your point about some of them being removed stands, fair enough.
Totally get you. And he’s certainly taken many anti corruption actions that have nothing to do with Trump or America too.
The Catholic subreddits were filled with bile filled people praising Trump and wringing their hands at othering the queer community. Honestly one of the worst places I saw when I was on reddit.
Yeah that’s not surprising. Catholicism has gotten quite a few converts by being the conservative religion with aesthetic in America in the 21st century.
It’s definitely not the religion of the Jesuits who taught me as a teenager that however god made you is good and that learning more about the world is a holy act anymore
Religious conservatives are a breed apart that is for sure …
Yup. They would nakba the fuck out of everyone here on Lemmy given the slightest opportunity. They’re dangerous af.
For most Catholics, abortion is the only issue that exists, so that’s not surprising.
Taking into account the Pope had to outright fire a bishop in Texas because he went full MAGA (including speaking at Trump supporter rallies trying to overturn an election result), I wouldn’t say he doesn’t have anything to do with it.
What I meant is that this is purely a power struggle within the Church. The main matter is not Trump but mostly loyalties within the Catholic church. That some bishops are insane enough to support people like Trump is a symptom (and a rather telling one) but not the dividing line here.
This pope is less awful than your average cardinal… the catholic church is so fucking conservative that the pope is still extremely conservative when measured against normal people.
I’m not Catholic; I’m an athiest. But I think this pope is a smart, decent person at the top of one of the world’s largest, wealthiest, old, and conservative organizations, with simply legendary levels of internal politics. He’s one of the most liberal popes we’ve ever seen, ever - although, we’re talking about the Catholic church, so “most liberal” only goes so far. But I do think he’s behaved like a kind, inclusive person.
I suspect any lack of real cleansing of corruption and pedophilia has been due to politics and realpolitik in the church, and not because he approves of it.
Even if he could mount an internal inquisition today, he doesn’t seem like a Pope who would.
He’s trying to stave off a schism or a disastrous collapse of the Catholic Church. Is he good? I think he’s much better than predecessors. But it’s important to keep some things in mind. He ascended after Benedict abdicated as what is generally regarded as a bad pope. Benedict was the far right pope that some Catholics had wanted after Vatican II liberalized the church. Under his papacy the pedo problem blew up, and attendance plummeted. There were serious questions of how long the Catholic Church would remain relevant. Not only that, but that’s the environment that the Vatican ecumenical counsels had sought to resolve (and they seriously did help)
In comes Pope Francis I. After the Vatican II eras of John, Paul, and both John Pauls had been effective and Benedict hadn’t been Francis was seen as a further reformer. Not only was he a liberal bishop, but he was also the first non European pope, an acknowledgement of the fact that the Catholic Church’s real base of power had become Latin America. From the start of his papacy rather than decrying sins of lust, he was decrying sins of greed. He was speaking on topics like global warming and wealth gaps and basically acknowledging that Jesus talked a bell of a lot more about caring for the vulnerable than about gay marriage and abortion.
That said not all was great from the start. Francis decried Ireland legalizing gay marriage and abortion and he compared trans people to nuclear weapons about a decade ago. But he’s clearly trying to adapt to the times. The Catholic Church can’t about face on a lot of this (though trans people I actually think they absolutely can theologically justify trans inclusion). But he can justify increasing lay involvement and increasing the power of women in the church. And it’s clearly necessary to do this. Including lgbt people is needed as well in order to protect the church from schism.
Now for the schism bit. The right wing American Catholic Church has a large movement of what can be considered heretics. Rejection of an ecumenical council is far and away more heretical than rejection of a papal decree. Papal infallibility only applies to interpretation of tradition and scripture. Ecumenical councils can override it. Things they’ve done include deciding what all is contained in the Bible, deciding the basic statements of what Christians believe, and other big deal things. It’s a whole ass ordeal. Shedding Latin mass for local language, increasing lay involvement, having the priest face the congregation, and all the other Vatican II changes weren’t made lightly. If Vatican II decided that the letters from Paul weren’t actually divinely inspired every Catholic would need a new Bible. American Catholic conservatives have been spitting in the face of Vatican II for about a generation and they’ve been increasingly challenging papal authority. Francis has to stop them because if he doesn’t they will eventually schism.
Don’t read to much into it. This is a pure publicity stunt to slow down the rate of people leaving the church. But they don’t change at their core. In a few years from now we will find out about all the abuse and dirty businesses going on right now that the Pope and the rest of the Catholic Church is sweeping under the rug as we speak.
They have done similar publicity stunts before. Pope Francis was preaching tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality as far back as 2013. Did things really improve since then?
I see it the same way as Nestle announcing some kind of charity or “commiting” to some kind of sustainability. Yeah sure it does some good but they only do it to hide all the bad stuff.
That’s a very black and white view. There are good comments in this thread, but yours is not among them.
This is just removing the previous Pope’s cronies. There’s nothing in the article to make me think the Pope is putting in systemic fixes to prevent his own cronies from worming their way into positions from which they can abuse their power.
I would expect any pope or leader to remove those around him who are loyal to someone else.
I wonder if anyone on the planet has enough brains to get that loyalty actually is something bad… everywhere you go it is praised like the literal best thing in the world but actually if we all were completely disloyal and only subscribed to our values, we might actually get somewhere.
I would argue that zero loyalty may be as bad as full loyalty. Also that things are maybe more complicated than subscribing fully to own or other’s values.
Ok, sure. Do you care to give an example? I‘d like to get your perspective.
My perspective is that when everyone is only loyal to their own interests this becomes an extremely divided and trustless environment. Whether it’s social or workplace this is quite toxic to my views
I agree. That is why I said values, not interests.
Interests are something that excites your curiosity or attention. Interests are different from values in that values are your personal principles. Interests get you excited about something and inspire you to take action. You will use your values to guide you as you pursue your interests.
Gave it a quick google to not have to formulate it.
In that case you are just rigid and loyal to some moral values, fundamentally created by people. It is not that easy, and loyalty itself is not a bad thing. How these values and tools are used morally can determine bad person.
I am a Gen-Xer who was raised Catholic in America. The old-school church values of my childhood in the 1970s were mostly liberal democratic, promoting humility, circumspection, and Golden Rule, love-thy-neighbor attitudes. (Setting aside the entire organization’s liability for the systematic raping of children, that is, which is a lot to ask.)
But with the more extreme politics of groups like Opus Dei, the modern Catholic Church in America, by contrast, has become a right-wing propaganda machine. It promotes a noxious brand of pseudo-religious pomposity and holier-than-thou windbaggery, practiced by preening, empty-headed bigots and jackasses who couldn’t find real spirituality if it bit them in the ass.*
*Just my opinion, but I’m fucking right.
They seem to flip between hard liners and reformers. Francis is from South America where the church is more Christian, for lack of a better word, more concerned with lifting up the poor and nonviolence. They are just an awfully big ship to turn and never going to align with a truly progressive movement. But yes I think both John Paul II and Francis could be considered forces for good working within the system.
In the article I’m reading about a run of the mill corruption trial. If you have more tea you gonna have to spill it.
Living in any era, to some extent, comes with a handful of pressures to uphold ideals considered becoming of that era. For better or worse, that includes spiritual leaders from thousands of years ago who lived in what they considered more fertile norms.
During the early Roman empire, the pope and infamously even Jesus had to watch his step with the officers. Today the EU exists where Rome once stood (if we’re not arguing the EU is in fact Rome’s new manifestation) and the pope again must bend or be broken.
Could you remind us who was the Pope before Jesus?
Being charitable I think he means the Pope and Jesus alike had to watch themselves in light of political officers of Rome and such.
Pope Sheev Palpatine.
Could you remind us who was the Pope before Jesus?
Saint Peter or are you trying to put words in OPs mouth lol?
I knew they were vampires!
