For the pope I’d be concerned if he didn’t support harboring sexual abuse.
In other words: he’s fit for the job
Thus answering the question “Is the Pope Catholic?”
He’s just a priest, nothing really can come of him
That was quick.
That’s a feature, not a bug.
I thought it was called a job requirement.
Right? Find me a single priest who isn’t a kiddy diddler or who hasn’t protected one. I’ll wait.
I mean, you don’t make it to the top of the mafia without being a gangster
Couldn’t you make this article no matter who they picked?
The previous pope didn’t have this problem.
Pretty sure he did…
Hmm. Maybe never was too strong a word.
Isn’t that what you do when you’re a member of a pedophile ring?
He’s also threatening to excommunicate any priest who follows Washington’s mandatory reporting law.
No more tax exemption. Even better, ban them.
Which shows where their priorities are.
Not in the greater good.
Not even in the common good.
Their priorities are, as always, been in protecting, defending, and hiding pedophiles… especially pedophile priests and other officials.
Doctors, Teachers, Therapists, Etc all have a moral and legal imperative to protect children from harm and abusers. Why is it the catholic church fights so hard to argue it doesnt?
He’s a corporativist
In Catholic Church politics, he was the middle-of-the-road candidate.
On the one side, he protected priests who sexually abused children.
But on the other side, he was never caught diddling kids himself.
A true moderate.I hate that this sounds a little sarcastic but it’s absolutely true.
Well, this is what I would expect from any/every catholic pope, so…
He has all the qualifications!!
Right! That move got him on the short list of possible popes. If the church actually made any remediation towards their victims they would be broke. And since they can’t make things right from their past actions they’ll never stop doing those acts. Organized religion will always lead to corruption and abuse.
I’ve seen a lot of people call this guy ‘progressive’ so far and I do not even remotely see it. He’s quoted as being anti-gay, anti-trans, thinks women being in church positions will cause more problems than they solve, put a pedophile up in a church and then is accused of refusing to investigate two other pedophiles. And he’s progressive how, exactly? Because he told off Trump and JD Vance? The absolute bare minimum to not be a horrible person?
“progressive” is a relative term.
True. However the default implication is progressive from the thing that came just before it, not something that came 300 years before it. This dude is obviously more progressive than like Pope Pius the Third or something but it’s outright regressive in comparison to Francis. Also, he’s accused of protecting pedophiles on a number of occasions. I feel like that is kind of like a neutron bomb when it comes to any claim that they’re progressive or a good person.
Eh, idk. Francis was caught multiple times in closed-door meetings using the f-slur. However relatively progressive you may present yourself to the world, I just don’t think you become head of one of the largest, oldest religious organizations in the world by being truly progressive.
An institution like the catholic church doesn’t change overnight. It couldn’t or it would lose its legitimacy and therefore its followers. Many US catholics have already started to push back. Some things take time. Frankly the pope being at least “comfortable” with gays probably did more to help change some minds than any amount of protesting has.
That said - protecting pedos was and is horrific. it’s not “progressive” one way or the other to condemn that.
Your comment is confusing the hell out of me.
My whole point is that this dude isn’t progressive but, if anything, regressive. You then talk about how progress is needed for the church but then how the progress from Francis was too much?
Also doesn’t address, remotely, the point that calling this Pope progressive is either a lie or a delusion, depending on how much you believe it.
My whole point is that this dude isn’t progressive but, if anything, regressive.
Your whole point is wrong. That’s why you’re confused.
Compared to the “conservative wing” of the Catholic church he’s quite progressive. That’s why I said “it’s relative”. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to be smoking a joint at a pride parade while distributing condoms.
You then talk about how progress is needed for the church but then how the progress from Francis was too much?
You’re very “black and white” with your reasoning. You will find it hard to understand with that attitude. For some conservatives in the Catholic church it was definitely “too much”. But for others it was not. And there will be some in the middle who will be potentially swayed. For yet others it will be a welcome recognition of their point of view. What did you expect?
People are more easily convinced of a point of view by people they know and trust. If you’re a middle-of-the-road Catholic who now sees The Pope blessing homosexuals then maybe you start to accept the idea. “Guess it’s not so bad if the Pope even does it.” To the Fox News I-went-to-Sunday-school-once-as-a-kid-and-now-I’m-Catholic crowd that will be a bridge too far.
The pope leads the church - but no man rules alone.
Bro, we literally just had this conversation.
Progressive implies in comparison to what came before. This dude is not progressive in what comes from before. It is regressive behavior. The church took 3 steps forward and 2 back. This is called regression.
You’re very “black and white” with your reasoning.
No, I’m being forward and backward with my reasoning.
I’m not continuing this conversation. We’re going in circles. I am not going to call a dude who protected pedophiles ‘progressive’, full stop. Nor will I really respect anyone who does.
Progressive implies in comparison to what came before. This dude is not progressive in what comes from before. It is regressive behavior. The church took 3 steps forward and 2 back. This is called regression.
You’re using your definition of “progressive” and applying it to the way other people are using the same word though. That’s not how communication works. It’s like you’re trying to misunderstand.
But Relative to what, he’s not progressive relative to his predecessor.
Relative to the conservative wing of Catholicism. They make being anti-gay and anti-abortion look pedestrian in comparison.
The guys who would go back to pre-Vatican II Catholic Church are some weird fucks. They want the return to the mass in Latin and probably want to conduct inquisition-style torture on anybody not comforming to their weirdo dogma.
Speaking as an ex-Catholic, can’t agree more
I don’t really feel very good about judging people subjectively based on their beliefs or culture. Like I get it, but I hate giving people excuses for being objectively garbage and bad for society.
And like it’s the pope and he’s at best a pedophile enabler so fuck him.
progressive for a pope. as a cardinal he did not actively rape kids, just passively tolerated that his peers were doing it. i’m sorry but the bar is in hell. the new pope sucks because the pope must suck to maintain the hegemonic order of the world’s most powerful organized religion. if a potential pope was actually a good person as we conceptualize one, they wouldn’t have ever involved themselves in the power squabble of the clergical hierarchy.
our estimation is this pope is pretty good in the context of being a pope. he is still, however, a pope. it’s like how in america our options in november were “passively tolerates atrocity” or “enacts atrocity”
sigh
The new pope holds opinion that are counter to what the old pope did. The old pope was progressive because he pushed the church forward. The new pope is regressive because he’s dragging it backward.
I’m not having this conversation anywhere else in this thread. Y’all can bend over backwards trying to justify that he is progressive but he aint. Full stop, simple, flat, you don’t get to argue it. By simple definition of progressive and regressive, this pope is not PROgressive. He is REgressive. He is bringing the church BACKWARDS. His opinions are counter to what Francis pushed for in a lot of cases and, oh yeah, HE FUCKING PROTECTED PEDOPHILES.
And trying to split hairs that “Oh he was a cardinal then!” is objectively insane when it is pedophilia. I do not give a fuck whether or not you get given a silly hat or not, you’re still someone who protected pedophiles. The last pope didn’t have that direct accusation.
I’m all the way the fuck out from this entire posts thread.
yeah nah. i’m advocating for stripping the catholic church of its power since this is the best it can do. like. we’re honestly on the same page that this guy sucks but your takeaway about what i’m saying should be done is off the mark of what i’m actually saying
I heard that he went with the name Leo because Leo 13 was very pro union, pro labor, pro worker. Put that up with being a homophobic, misogynistic, diddler-protector and he is still quite progressive as compared to the current Overton window that’s representing US politics.
You should have seen the conservative candidate…
From what I’ve read, he does hold some progressive opinions, such as on immigration. He also holds some conservative opinions, like homosexuality being bad. I don’t think it’s fair to call him either. However, from what I’ve heard he is about as “progressive” as we could have hoped for from this process this time. I think hoping for anything good from something like Catholicism is foolish. The best you can normally hope for is that they just don’t get in the way.
I’m guessing you’ve seen the Reddit threads about him? The commenters display the exact behavior you describe lol.
Somewhat related: It’s funny, I came to Lemmy because of the Reddit API fiasco, but stayed because I prefer the culture here. Sometimes I’ll visit Reddit (during major news stories, or for niche topics) and man, does it feel so off lol
Amongst from personal friends. Queer friends. That blows my mind.
Progressive as in he does hate and pro-paedophilia with a smile, maybe?
So… Business as usual, I suppose?
Peruvian non practicing Catholic here; from what I can gather, both mainstream and alternative (meaning independent, not meaning alternative-facts) in Peru have been afire over this. Afaik the accusations seems to be a revenge hit-job done by a cult/faction (the sodalites/los sodalicios) that just recently were disbanded by pope Francis itself, with some even being excommunicated. This sect is/was rolling in money, so bad that they even have companies in the caiman islands; they ofc seem to have also corrupted judges, other non cult priests and politicians and that explains the failure of secular justice.
