Am I the only one more disturbed by the current pope? He's not better, he's just a better mascot for a religion that still won't take responsibility in regard to its child molestation issues or how their politics hinders the world. The fact that he is better at placating does not mean he is DOING good. I still don't see them compensating victims, or changing their socially conservative programs. People are still getting aids at an increasing level because of their anti-contraception policies. Women are still second class citizens in the church. They still fund anti-gay marriage groups. They still push against a proper secular education, refusing to get out of the way of standardized public schools. And they still move money around so that churches don't needs to pay out for molesting kids.
If anything, this man is more dangerous. Before, the pope looked like an evil douche, representing his religions true intention. Now he's just a false front, and people seem to be fooled by it.
It's kind of like saying that chemical weapons are ok, because their CEO is a giant living teddy bear. Pay no attention to the millions of people's faces melting off, because mister snuggles is giving out free hugs and loves children...even faceless mutated children. ಠ_ಠ
I am not aware of any substantial policy changes in the catholic church since the election of the new pope. Sure, he talks about helping the poor but this is a facade. Catholic policy on contraception condemns the poor to a generational cycle of need and deprivation from which few escape. Furthermore, the clergy has not been purged of sex criminals as national governments such as Australia and victims around the world begin independent inquiries and prosecutions.
With 3 million people turning up at Copacabana beach in Brazil to see the pope, the catholic church might be thinking it's back to business as usual. If that's the case then national governments should be taxing the church just like any other business.
Why do people even bother to listen to the pope ? He is an emotional juvenile who has never developed and experienced an intimate relationship with another person and in all probability spent the best years of his life fantasising and masturbating. His gestures of poverty as a clergyman are meaningless bearing in mind the corruption and criminality of the tax exempt organisation he represents.
The pope is a scum bag. A useless shit, a wanker and a confidence trickster. He is a filthy degenerate with his repressed sexuality, proclamations and deceit. He needs the poor much more than the poor need him because without the poor, he hasn't got a business.
I would relish the opportunity to punch his ugly smiling face to a bloody pulp. A pope with a badly broken nose, scarring and missing teeth would be a better pope in my opinion.
Latent cocksucker Pope Francis a.k.a. the repressed masturbatory manipulator
Napoleon, the reason why you're not aware of any changes in policy of the catholic church is, big surprise, Because There AREN'T ANY!!! It's a case of "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss," once again. A minor concession to the GLBT community and indulgences by way of Twitter and all is supposed to be both hunky and dory.
And we're supposed to buy all of that ... yeah, right.
The minor concession to GLTB is very minor, it seems. Apparently, GLTB aren't going to hell now provided they do not have sex. An edict from a repressed wanker ! Indulgences ? Absolute bullshit !
So long as any pope and not just Francis or Joe the Rat follow along with the fundamental tenets of the organization they represent, they will be perceived by US as being more of the same ... which is what they are. Certainly, Francis gives the initial impression of a new coat of paint, particularly with his rejection of much of the pomp and circumstance of the role he's been elected to, and his recent statement which somewhat apparently softened the Vatican's stance on homosexuals. However, his position on gay BEHAVIOR vs. gay orientation is right out of the "love-the-sinner-hate the sin" playbook, along with his refusal to reconsider women in the clergy.
In too many ways, the RC church remains a creature grounded in the 15th century, while the rest of us live in the 21st. What changes we see are superficial; that "new coat of paint" covers an ancient, anachronistic structure and fails to hide its flaws, most glaringly, the still-outstanding child abuse scandal. Yet they go their merry way, offering indulgences via Twitter and insisting that they continue to be the One True Church. It may be quite safe to say that this is one organization which is not going to change from within.
What is worse is that there has been no truly serious public demand for its change. An ongoing, sustained public outcry regarding priests' sexual transgressions is either not seen or has no regular coverage in the press. No police are observed at parsonage doorways with warrants, no priests or monsignors or even bishops being led away in handcuffs while observed by TV news cameras, and no daily coverage of public trials for these transgressors have been in evidence, unlike the recent over-coverage of the Trayvon Martin incident.
And this is because the RC church somehow maintains its supposed respectability in the eyes of the general public. They still treat it as something special and therefore worthy of deference. As with their beliefs which contradict reality, they compartmentalize the aberrant behavior of the church away from their general view of it. They fail to recognize that that behavior is not a departure from the church but intrinsic and endemic to it.
And as long as this is the case, it will be, in the words of Steven Tyler, "The same old story, same old song-and-dance."
It's all 15th century stuff. Remember others like Padre Pio who had "the wounds of Christ." This happens so you will "believe more." It's a shell game. Come over to my house and you can have the wounds of Jebus also. I'll supply the hammer and nails.
No, Jeremy, you are far from alone on this. Like many things that I find utterly repulsive but which are out of my control I try to tune this guy (and the sickening "news" coverage of this guy) out. I have recently become a more active atheist in other ways. Its my way of fighting back. Its all I can do and it gets me through my day. Peace.
Jeremy, glad to know you're not the only one who is less than fond of Pope Frankie the Gaucho. All this crap about going to the slums in Rio de Janiero makes for a great soundbites and videos on the evening news. And when he gets on the private Vatican jet, uncorks a bottle of vintage vino, and heads back to Rome, the TV soundbites go to something else, the poor are still starving, diseased, and uneducated. And, most of all, the RCC doesn't part with one fucking penny to help them. They continue to lie about condom usage, and treating women as nothing more than breed stock.
Oh, and as long as I'm going off on a rant here, allow me to respectfully disagree with Loren's comment about a minor concession to LGBTs. What the Argentine vicar of Hay-Zeus said was, “When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby,” Francis said. Soooooooo, it's OK to be gay (sort of - while you hold your nose), so long as that person doesn't affiliate themself with any group or organization that wishes to promote the common humanity, and equal rights and protections under the law for all of our brothers and sisters. In other words, be who you want, but get your ass back in the closet.
What a Fucking Sport!
Okay, so it was less a minor concession than it was a meaningless one, at least from the point of view of moving the church so much as a micron (that's 0.000001 meters, gang) toward the 21st century. They still expect people to conform to their bullshit, and they still think they're a major player in the world game. To a degree, they are, but their stock is falling and I suspect they know it. Their problem is that, were they do actually do something positive about their declining popularity, they would also be directly countering the very dogma they expect their flocks to follow blindly.
Ultimately, Frankie is still a schmuck, perhaps a touch less so than the schmuck who went before him, but still a schmuck at the head of a bunch of arrogant schmucks. [shrug] So it goes...
Benedict was fun to demonize because he seemed so demonic, crass, blatantly elitist.
(from WIlliam Blake)
This one.... I'm still in a wait and see mode. Not trying to be contrarian. I cant get over feeling, the church board of directors realized their marketing practices were resulting in a decline in brand popularity, and Francis is part of the re-branding of Catholicism. What that suggests, I think, is the stone wall of Catholicism inc. is permeable to public opinion. Sort of like the Berlin wall turned out to be. If they are listening to their marketing department, maybe we'll see more changes ahead.
I think it would be fun to hate this one too. I certainly despise the catholic behemoth. But having a new mascot in a friendlier, more touchy-feely mode, seems like a positive step in responsiveness to a changing world..
The "stone wall of Catholicism" may be permeable, but only to a point. Francis still can't consider gays and Lesbians actually ACTING like gays and Lesbians act, and of course, he can't remotely consider the further empowerment of women within his old boys' club. Certainly he's friendly and engaging and looking to connect to the crowd, and that makes a nice veneer.
Problem is, that's all it is: veneer.
Loren, if anything, the idea of a "nicer" catholicism would be concerning for me. I think many people have been getting the point, that catholicism is horrendous, self serving, and hate filled. If the re-branding results in many thinking there is a nicer, friendlier catholicism, the church's hemorrhaging of members and money could slow.
They aren't fooling you or me, but we are not their target audience.