Many on the left who celebrate Pope Francis’s hostility toward capitalism and support for climate apocalypticalism also claim he is moving the Roman church forward on gay issues. Many have cited his 2013 remark “Who am I to judge” as if he were referring to gay people in general. He was not; Francis was specifically asked about celibate gay priests, and the remark, in context, implies that if the priests are celibate, than who is he to judge them because of their sexual orientation, which they are (supposedly) not acting on.
When Francis said “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods,” he meant that he was just as, or more, concerned that his church focus on climate hysteria and antagonism toward market-driven economic development.
News reports have said Francis’s remarks to Congress offered something to liberals (anti-development and a response to climate change that demands more government control over, well, everything) and to conservatives, especially this (via USA Today):
“I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without,” Francis said. “Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life.”
Yes, Francis offered something for liberals and conservatives, but little for libertarians.
More. Via Reuters:
Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a “human right” to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals….
Maybe The Advocate would like to rescind its 2013 Person of the Year.
Furthermore. He’s actually even worse than I suspected: Vatican Confirms Private Meeting Between Pope Francis and Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, in which he encouraged her to “stay strong” in her intransigence. Time for the LGBT Pope-defenders to apologize.
And more. No, it doesn’t change things that Francis also agreed to meet in Washington with a gay former student and the student’s long-time boyfriend (and other family members), and was gracious. As CNN also reports, “the Vatican has refused to recognize France’s ambassador to the Holy See, Laurent Stefanini, who is openly gay. And Francis has shown little inclination to adjust church doctrine on sexuality.” That’s the context in which he then met with Kim Davis; that’s what matters.
And then this: Pope asserts marriage is forever at start of family meeting. But hey, he’s anti-capitalism, has a clear soft spot for socialism, and thinks climate apocalypse is upon us for the sins of industrialization, which makes him heroic in the eyes of the left.
60 Comments for “The Left’s Embrace of Francis”
posted by Lori Heine on
This Pope’s stand on gays is identical to that of Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Kim Davis and the Duck Dynasty boys. My reaction to the orgasmic enthusiasm he’s getting from the Left? “Meh.”
What’s supremely amusing is listening to the hysteria from social conservatives about how Francis’s proclamations about capitalism and climate change are NOT infallible. (When he, and past popes, opined about homosexuality, they supposedly were, remember?) Of course NONE of any popes’ utterances are or ever have been infallible, but now they drag out their catechisms to show us that.
I am reminded of why I’m now an Episcopalian. And annoyed that so many Episcopalians are having orgasms over Francis, too.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes! Yes! Yes!
I don’t get it. There is not a word of new in anything he says. People are just so desperate for any modernization in the church that they cling to his every word. Watching people fawn all over someone who has nothing new to say and never will reminds me why I’m a nonbeliever.
posted by Jorge on
This Pope’s stand on gays is identical to that of Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Kim Davis and the Duck Dynasty boys.
I would have expected this kind of nonsense from Mr. Miller, but not from you.
posted by Lori Heine on
I see you looking through your glasses, as they slide to the end of your nose, Jorge.
We will merely have to agree to disagree.
A lot of what Francis says, I’ll grant you, about our being some colossal threat to the family is what he’s expected to say. Even if he has a food-taster test every meal, he’s still got to be careful.
Will he eventually creep the Church forward? Hope is always a noble thing.
posted by Houndentenor on
You are right, Lori. The pope’s position on gay rights is not fundamentally different from Huckabee’s. He’s just nicer about how he says the exact same things. it’s only different to people desperate for any hint of progress from the Vatican. I’ve been watching such people for decades and it used to be heartbreaking but now I just see them as delusional. That change is not coming in our lifetime.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
Homosexuality is apparently not illegal in the Vatican City, although the Church has been a bit vague as to whether or not they generally favor other countries following suit.
posted by JohnInCA on
A good point seeing as Santorum and Huckabee both think it *should* be illegal.
posted by JohnInCA on
Eh, I think the distinction between words and deeds is important though.
As far as “gays are icky and shouldn’t exist”, are the Pope, Huckabee and Santorum and so-on all on the same page?
Sure. But since he became Pope†, Francis hasn’t really put any force or action behind ideas, and has used pretty tame rhetoric. Huckabee, Santorum and so-on use much worse rhetoric (and degree does matter) and have pushed for concrete policy measures.
So while I understand the point you’re making, saying that Francis has the same views as Santorum papers over a lot of nuance.
________
†His actions in Argentina *prior* to that point are a different beast.
posted by Lori Heine on
Again, I hope you’re right. Though I no longer believe that the Pope is acting on divine authority every time he blows his nose, I do believe it’s important for the RCC to evolve.
posted by Houndentenor on
The RCC is structured to hinder any such evolution.
posted by Jorge on
As far as “gays are icky and shouldn’t exist”, are the Pope, Huckabee and Santorum and so-on all on the same page?
Well that’s an easy question that tells you nothing. The fact is that gays do exist: what now? That’s the question they answer differently.
Rick Santorum is Catholic, of course, and my sense is he tries to live Catholic doctrine on homosexuality to the letter, enforcing in “word, in action, and in law” a sharp distinction between rejecting “deplorable” and “unjust discrimination” and embodying the tenet that “clear and emphatic opposition is a duty” (these are all references to statements on doctrine by Cardinal Ratzinger) with respect to anything that might promote what the Church calls the homosexual lifestyle.
One characteristic that does distinguish Rick Santorum is that he claims to know people who have succeeded in changing their sexual orientation.
Pope Francis does not seem to share the Church’s aversion to doing or saying anything that accidentally promotes the homosexual lifestyle. But to follow up on what Houndentenor said, he has to consider how his words will be interpreted in countries more conservative than the US.
Mike Huckabee doesn’t have Rick Santorum’s reputation because he’s diplomatic enough to avoid offending people and political enough to stick to his agenda whenever he’s asked a direct question. But I have paid attention to him for some time as well. I have long said that I believe he fundamentally does not care about any person or group that is not part of his favored coalition. I’m talking politics, not morality: personally he says he’s big on compassion and other stuff, but I think the way he does that politically is to leave traditionally liberal matters to the other party to be worked out in bipartisanship. I don’t like that. I have never heard him say anything even remotely positive or conciliatory about gays or gay rights. Catholic doctrine is peppered with such statements, and Rick Santorum has his moments. I don’t even know if Huckabee acknowledges homosexuality to exist.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
It’s a shame, because I would think that the Catholic Church could back a gay rights.
posted by JohnInCA on
Yes… what they do about it.
Huckabee and Santorum think we should all be in jail (see: support for sodomy laws and their reactions to Lawrence v. Texas). The pope, at the very least, hasn’t called for *that*. Publicly, anyway.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Francis offered something for liberals and conservatives, but little for libertarians.
Francis’ address to Congress was a homily of sorts that reflected standard Catholic teaching on the issues he addressed, using the vehicle of “four Americans” to structure the homily.
Francis said nothing that is not grounded in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the teaching encyclicals that underlie the Catechism, he said nothing that was startling or unique, and each of the positions he expressed to Congress have been expressed before, year after year, by the Catholic Bishops of the United States in various statements to the American laity, including the “Faithful Citizenship” series and related documents pertaining to political issues.
The game of political liberal/conservative/libertarian ping-pong doesn’t work well with Catholic teaching, because the teaching of the Church falls outside the intellectual constructs of the Enlightenment and other secular movements from which modern liberal/conservative/libertarian political positions have evolved over the last couple of centuries.
Catholic teaching precedes modern political theories, and it might be more accurate to say that “liberals and conservatives each stand aligned with, and in opposition to, Catholic teaching in various ways”, rather than to think in terms of a Pope’s homily “offering something” to either side of modern political battles.
I haven’t thought about it in those terms, but I suspect that you are right in suggesting that the libertarian movement does not align well with Catholic teaching. The Catholic vision of human life is both sacramental and communal, can Catholic teaching resists the “individualism” that underlies much of modern libertarianism. I suspect that is inevitable, because Catholic teaching, like the Jewish teaching from which it stems, is grounded in the idea of a “People of God”, which posits and requires communalism. The Catholic vision of human life and the libertarian vision are at odds at a deep and profound level, and probably cannot be reconciled.
As Francis put it at one point in his address, “Politics is instead an expression of our compelling need to live as one in order to build as one the greatest common good, that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life.” Contrast that with the first sentence of the Libertarian Party’s 2014 platform: “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.”
Enough said on that score, I guess.
posted by Lori Heine on
The Catholic concept of community does not demand that people use violence and force against one another to bring community about. That is why so many libertarians are Catholics (or Episcopalians).
Francis said nothing about how community should be brought about. Much was read into it, on both Left and Right, but it is significant that he didn’t spell out what he meant in great detail. I suspect that he does NOT mean what modern socialists think he does. And precisely for the reason I gave above.
His views on sexuality are backward and archaic, based on a Bronze Age view of relationships between men and women. The Catholic Church may yet evolve on those positions, and is indeed in the process of doing that. Although there is voluminous evidence of this in print, online and in the action that goes on daily, it usually flies under the radar of the mainstream media.
posted by Houndentenor on
WHAT??? The RCC use violence to convert half the world the Christianity in the first place! They also use a lot of pressure to get their way. I’m looking forward to the film Spotlight coming soon which will show a lot of that.
posted by Lori Heine on
Oh, but it’s do as they say–not as they do.
The RCC has a dark and bloody past. Its present isn’t too pretty, either. Francis is their chief P.R. guy. I don’t see him any other way.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The RCC has a dark and bloody past.
As an outsider with no denominational dog in the intra-Christian fight, I would quietly remind you that the Christian movement as a whole has a dark and bloody past, and that no denomination within the Christian movement is exempt from a history of persecution.
posted by Lori Heine on
Usually this has happened because Church leaders (elected or self-imposed) get delusions of political grandeur. This is why separation of Church and State is so important.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Your observation reflects the experience of the Church of England and long history of persecution of Anabaptists, Catholics, Puritans and Quakers, both in England and in the Colonies. Not, mind you, that the Catholics and Puritans didn’t get their licks in, too, of course.
I think that it probably also works as an explanation of the religious Catholic/Protestant and intra-Protestant struggles in Germany and in the Low Countries. The Reformation coincided with the rise of the nation state, and while the Reformation was a religious rather than political movement, it quickly became entangled with nationalism in most of Europe.
I wonder, though, whether there isn’t something deeper afoot, a fundamental flaw in Christian thinking that (in my view, anyway) gives rise to the long history of intolerance and persecution of other Christians (typically denied the title “Christian” by those doing the persecuting) and adherents of other faiths — the historic Christian insistence that (as the Gospel of John puts it) “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Catholic concept of community does not demand that people use violence and force against one another to bring community about. That is why so many libertarians are Catholics (or Episcopalians).
Of course it doesn’t. Respect for the dignity of human beings is at the heart of the Catholic vision, and violence and force, misused, abuses the dignity of the human person.
But I am speaking (or attempting to speak) to another issue — the issue of community versus individualism, and the role of government in that context. I can’t speak to the Episcopalian vision, but the Catholic vision posits that holy men and women are made holy in community, not as individuals standing alone:
A Catholic theologian friend of mine jokes that Catholics do not go to heaven alone, but in bunches. The truth underlying the joke is that Catholics see themselves as a body, a body in which each individual is responsible for helping others along in the journey to faith. The vision of community, of human beings as a body, a people responsible to and for one another, extends beyond the faith community and into the political realm, as well, and stands in stark contrast to the individualism of the modern age. John Paul wrote eloquently about the issue, and he was, as is Francis, speaking from and of a longstanding tradition that goes to the heart of the Catholic vision.
I am probably wrong about this (as seems to be the case with just about anything anybody says about libertarianism), but I have the impression that the libertarian vision focuses on the individual rather than the collective, seeing human beings less as a body in which human beings are inextricably bound together as a people, in which the will of the individual is subordinate to the common good, than does Catholic teaching. But who am I to say?
Stephen observed that “Francis offered something for liberals and conservatives, but little for libertarians.” In doing so, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that Stephen was taking issue with Francis’s view of government as a necessary and proper means of promoting the common good. Looking at the was in which Catholic teaching looks at the role of government in bringing about the “common good”, it is clear that Catholic teaching posits a relatively expansive view of the role of government:
In my response, I was responding to what I thought was underlying Stephen’s “little for libertarians” statement, that is, the Pope’s obvious preference for a proactive, relatively strong and expansive, government as a means for bringing about a just society. I may have been wrong in assuming that. Rather than you and I quibble about it, it may be best to allow Stephen to expand on his remark.
posted by Kosh III on
Part of his appeal is his contrast with his awful predecessor.
JPII also criticized unbridled capitalism in Laborem Exercens; Paul VI in Populorum Progressio.
It’s foolish to ignore the failings of capitalism such as the Bush Recession or more recently the crimes of GM and VW.
“Climate apocalypticalism” Really? So now homocons also deny the obvious? Stephen should look at http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/ or any of the many other sources.
posted by Houndentenor on
As his predecessor was promoted from the task of covering up the church’s child rape scandal, virtually any human who ever lived would have been an improvement.
posted by Lori Heine on
Certainly, there’s that!
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
This pope has attempted to do some house cleaning with regards to sexual abuse and misuse of church funds (not to mention some absurd bonus policies) Neither of which is necesssrily a left or ring-wing issue.
Catholic Church policy has long since taken the position that society has a larger obligation to fight poverty and endure access to necessities. That is not incompatible with capitalism.
The political right in America is probably mostly upset that the Pope actually belives in evolution and global warming.
The anti-poverty and social justice rethoric is nothing new, and the American political system is good at pretending everyone is middle class or lazy or dead.
Its almost impossible to gauge whether or not, this current Pope really wants to rexamine church policy on gender roles/sexual orientation.
He probably lacks the internal support to do a Vatican II, even if he would actually want to.
posted by Jorge on
Yes, Francis offered something for liberals and conservatives, but little for libertarians.
Libertarianism is a philosophy of government that emphasizes the worth of individual judgment. While this Pope is rather communal in emphasis, he had many things to say about the worth and dignity of the individual as he or she tries to do their best for themselves, their families, and their communities.
Similarly, he said nothing about gays. But that does not make his words irrelevant.
There is something sacred about the liberty and individualism of one single person, to be sure. That must be protected at any cost. But can you truly say that a “free market” of individualism is not likely to lead to people working together for the common good? Some people will need to stand apart, but humanity is a social species.
These priestly people have such a way with words and ideas. I can’t believe he said such nice things about our government. About politics. About (choke!) the worth of entrepreneurship and even technology–everything under the son holds the power of good in tension, it seems.
I had a very good past two days, you know. I didn’t get to see the Pope directly, but I had my cable box replaced just in time to catch him before Congress, the UN, and now MSG. Then I realized I really didn’t need to get a ticket, I could have braved the overflow of the crowds. It might have been a better idea, might have exposed me to some of that community rather than doing things contemplatively.
But I had gotten over my initial disappointment at not getting a ticket to any of those sightings very quickly. It was just in 2008 when Pope Benedict came to New York, and I saw him in the Popemobile. I made my decision on how I would stand, before the Pope–I decided to believe that he already knew my heart and vision, somewhere out there, no protest was necessary. I was immediately rewarded. That is how I came to the belief that the Catholic Church was aware of, and supported, my calling–one that runs in opposition to the Church. Reading more of the Pope’s earlier and later writings has never led me away from that conclusion.
No matter how many times I ask the question of whether or not God approves of gay relationships, the answer is always the same: silence on that question, and an echo of the dignity and suffering of humankind, including the presence or absence of my part.
Why do I need a repeat of all that for another Pope? I have to believe in that which I came to believe in the past and keep moving forward. I am sure that many other people will have had the same experience I have had–it’s their turn now. So that today I am unmoved in any way except intellectually, because it is a smaller choice in front of me today: do I step forward another step, today?
Mr. Houndentenor, I think you fail to consider two important things about Pope Benedict. 1) The great effort Pope Benedict made to address and rectify the priest sex abuse scandal. 2) Let me say that it is well that after Cardinal Dolan lavished a scandalously effusive praise at Pope Francis today during this evening’s mass, the latter responded by asking those present not to forget to pray for him! Holy men and crusaders exist in fantasy and myth, while in reality they walk on earth, not water. One thing fantasy and reality have in common is that priests are relatively unimpressive in the down and dirty of direct action. You are trying to place accountability in a situation in which the deck is stacked on the side of failure.
posted by Jorge on
“everything under the son”>>everything under the sun. I’m not that nutty.
posted by Lori Heine on
🙂
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Jorge;
One gets the impression that the current Pope does not to do a bit of internal house cleaning; both about the sex abuse scandals and lots of waste/misuse of church funds. I am not sure how effective he will be in dealing with these matters (lots of other actors are involved in Catholic Church policy).
I suspect that a fair number of American conservatives are upset that the Pope believes in evolution and global warming. Fundamentalist Protestant conservatives have been trying to sell the “evolutionists are atheist” (typically with some rants about gays tossed in for good measure) silliness for quite some time now.
I suspect that Pope Francis wants to focus his time and resources on public/private social justice initiatives, better management of the Church itself (and its employees) and environmental conservation.
posted by Jorge on
One gets the impression that the current Pope does not to do a bit of internal house cleaning
Your typo makes your point difficult to understand.
I suspect that a fair number of American conservatives are upset that the Pope believes in evolution and global warming. Fundamentalist Protestant conservatives have been trying to sell the “evolutionists are atheist” (typically with some rants about gays tossed in for good measure) silliness for quite some time now.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the the religious conservatism of the United States and that of the Catholic Church. They have converged on social issues, but the Catholic Church, much like establishment Republican intellectuals, believes science and faith are not mutually exclusive.
It was Pope John Paul II who said it is possible Adam and Eve may have in fact come from evolution. And I will always point out that the Church appears to have known for decades that homosexuality exists as a static sexual orientation.
As for the environment, this strikes me as pure politics, I can’t understand it to have any (legitimate) religious basis. The only thing I can think of is that I once read that American religious conservatives believe the environment is irrelevant because Apocalypse. If so, it reflects a theological disagreement. that predates Francis. There’s a fable I learned in Catholic school about a man who’s trapped in his house by a flood and refuses all offers of help by saying, “I’m okay, God will save me.” The flood overwhelmed his home and he drowned, and when he got to heaven he said, “God, why didn’t you save me?” “I sent a rowboat, a motorboat, and a helicopter. What more do you want?”
Or, to paraphrase what a Catholic priest once told former NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn (whose grandmother survived the Titanic by running instead of kneeling and praying), it’s possible to pray and run at the same time. This is a minority view in this country.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As for the environment, this strikes me as pure politics, I can’t understand it to have any (legitimate) religious basis.
Catholic theology for protection of the environment begins with the understanding that when G-d gave human beings dominion over the earth, G-d’s grant included responsibility for protection of the earth, that which G-d created and called “good”. The most recent Papal statement of which I’m aware is Laudito Si. See also Renewing the Earth, An Invitation to Reflection and Action on Environment in Light of Catholic Social Teaching, USCCB November 14, 1991.
posted by Jorge on
I was referring to the criticism of Pope Francis. The explanation you cited is where I would begin as well.
posted by JohnInCA on
The Catholic Church always has, and probably always will, try to use government force to enforce it’s beliefs. Whether this is collecting tithes through Germany’s taxation system, trying to get law on marriage, divorce and abortion in America and Ireland to conform to their teachings, or the infamous Spanish Inquisition, they aren’t hesitant to force their beliefs on others.
That he said nothing to make Libertarians “happy” should be no surprise. They’re an authoritarian power. Just because they’re an authoritarian power that has largely lost it’s power in first world countries doesn’t change that.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Libertarianism is a philosophy of government that emphasizes the worth of individual judgment. While this Pope is rather communal in emphasis, he had many things to say about the worth and dignity of the individual as he or she tries to do their best for themselves, their families, and their communities.”
True, Jorge. The Christian understanding in general has always attempted to balance community with the individual. It rarely succeeds, but at least that has been the general idea.
“The Catholic Church always has, and probably always will, try to use government force to enforce it’s beliefs.”
John, that is certainly also true. Again, it’s “do as we say, not as we do.” They preach one message, but in action they all too often show another.
Christians believe that the Body of Christ is at the same time human and divine. The divine part is wonderful. The human part often sucks.
There’s a lot of tension in libertarianism between the Christian understanding of the individual and the Randian concept. Tea Party people are totally confused about this. They usually opt for the Randian, even when they say that they’re Christians.
posted by Jorge on
There’s a lot of tension in libertarianism between the Christian understanding of the individual and the Randian concept. Tea Party people are totally confused about this. They usually opt for the Randian, even when they say that they’re Christians.
Rich Lowry had a rather shallow column on the Pope’s speech that I had to put down. “He fundamentally misunderstands and despises capitalism! People don’t go into business for the good of society, they’re in it for themselves to make a profit!” When I told my mother how this part of the speech surprised me, she told me look at Bill Gates, his money gave him the opportunity to do many good things in the world. Warren Buffet, too. It’s not that they can’t live the good life. It’s true: I’m sure in their philanthropy they are acting out of a sense of duty, and they’re the two richest people in the world.
(The rest of Lowry’s points actually weren’t terrible.)
posted by Houndentenor on
Perhaps the strangest bedfellows in history are Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ. There are hardly two more opposite philosophies and yet the religious right has adopted a lot of Randian language, mostly when it comes to indifference to the poor.
posted by Lori Heine on
Everything about Jesus’s life — especially how He was killed — pointed to the importance of not treating His teachings like just another religion. He challenged religious power, and was killed for it.
For the 2,100 years since, many of the people who supposedly follow Jesus have been reducing them to a religion. Which then gets tangled up with political power. Which leads to bloodshed and misery.
Kim Davis and her crowd interpret Scripture “literally.” So they say, though because in fact that’s impossible to do with any consistency, they inevitably end up playing pick-and-choose about the parts they’ll take literally and the ones they won’t. But Scripture cannot be taken literally. It’s the story of people’s experience with God, and as such the lessons genuinely to be learned from it require THINKING.
The Kim Davis types, and the Pope groupies, think there’s nothing crueler than expecting them to think. It’s unfair–WAAAAAH!–so God couldn’t possibly want them to do that.
Unfortunately for them, it’s the only way faith can be lived out in this world without being destroyed.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I’m a bit tired of the reductive titles and reasoning by Stephen… But if you’re going to go with the ‘left embraces Francis’ at least add “& the right embraces Kim (Christian Sharia) Davis”.
posted by Houndentenor on
Meanwhile ignoring that Davis has switched to the GOP. The only surprise in that announcement is that she was ever a Democrat in the first place.
posted by Jorge on
Meanwhile ignoring that Davis has switched to the GOP. The only surprise in that announcement is that she was ever a Democrat in the first place.
She’s an old enough woman that it’s not that surprising. I would have been a Democrat once if I had been born any earlier. As she said, the Democratic party “abandoned” people like her.
Forgetting for the moment that she’s a recent religious convert.
But Scripture cannot be taken literally. It’s the story of people’s experience with God, and as such the lessons genuinely to be learned from it require THINKING.
Hmm, I think…
(****! I fell into her trap anyway.)
Maybe so, but I pulled Kim Davis out of it. You don’t think there’s a stegasaurus nerve in her tail telling her to do what she does, do you? She thinks, too.
Anyway, I think if there is any purpose to the Bible at all, you need to find that purpose when you read it, literal or not. Try not to forget that Santorum, uh, I mean Satan, touches the Bible without getting hurt. A bit of humility is important.
posted by JohnInCA on
It’s funny how people keep making hay out of her being a “recent” religious convert. She may have converted *to* her current sect only four years ago, but prior to that she was a *drum roll please* Baptist.
So yeah… she was totally a Christian before four years ago. Just a different flavor.
posted by Lori Heine on
These people get a high out of being “born again” — and again and again and again. And every time they do it, they count THAT as the time that they “became Christian.”
When those old tent meetings traveled from town to town, there were probably people who followed the caravan, getting saved anew at every stop.
The only way Davis’s “logic” makes any sense at all is if we are aware of that strange phenomenon.
posted by Jorge on
But was she a born again Baptist?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Meanwhile ignoring that Davis has switched to the GOP. The only surprise in that announcement is that she was ever a Democrat in the first place.
The hill country of Kentucky has been historically Democratic, and alignment with the Democratic Party, cemented by the New Deal and War on Poverty, survived longer in those areas than in other areas of the South, where former Democrats fled, relatively quickly, to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.
As Kentucky goes, Rowan County remains more Democratic than the state of Kentucky.
In 2012, Kentucky voted 61-37 for Romney. The Rowan County result was narrower, going to Romney by 52-46. In 2008, Rowan County went 50-48 for Obama, while Kentucky went for Romney 60-39. In 2004, Bush carried the state 60-39, but Kerry carried Rowan County 53-47. In 2000, Bush carried Kentucky 56-41, but Bush and Gore were neck and neck (each 49%) in Rowan County.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Time for the LGBT Pope-defenders to apologize.
Why? For what? For holding out hope that this Pope might be different, based on his earlier statements about gays and lesbians?
The gays and lesbians, often Catholic, who have been expressing that hope may be whistling in the dark, but that is an understandable human failing, at worst.
posted by JohnInCA on
Can I just say how amusing it is to see Miller bashing the Pope for not being 100% on-board with “equal means equal”?
Miller, and the people he supports, aren’t exactly better on that record. And unlike Miller’s favored politicians, the Pope was at least (if the reports are to be believed) for civil unions before it was voted down among the Argentina bishops (or whatever the body was) and has, since becoming pope, avoided being judgmental of gay people and focused on real problems (unlike Miller’s favored pols, who keep focusing on how to stick it to the gays)?
I mean, I know I’m not being terribly favorable to Miller here, but am I the only one seeing this?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I mean, I know I’m not being terribly favorable to Miller here, but am I the only one seeing this?
No, I doubt that you are the only one seeing it. Stephen has an almost obsessive record of negative writing about the Catholic Church, and in particularly the hierarchy of the Church.
In the decade-plus that I’ve been reading IGF, I have never, to my recollection, noticed a positive comment about the Church or Catholicism. You will notice, for example, that Stephen often mentions that young Evangelicals are coming around on marriage equality. Have you ever heard him mention that 60% of American Catholics are there already, supporting marriage equality? No.
Look at his most recent comment, “Time for the LGBT Pope-defenders to apologize.”
Apologize? Two whom? For what? For being Catholic and hoping that this Pope, whose record and statements on gays and lesbians have been less hostile than that of John Paul II and Benedict, might be different? For hoping that maybe the Church is starting to turn a corner?
That kind of anger at Catholic gays and lesbians who dared to hope — to demand an apology from them, as if they had inflicted personal harm of some kind on Stephen by hoping — bespeaks an anger that Stephen cannot or will not let go of, and move on.
His anger sounds to me like that of the former Catholics that I know who were really hurt/betrayed by the Church in one way or another — the woman whose father was refused burial according to the Catholic rite, the man whose brother was abused by a local priest, the woman who gave her life to the Church but was cast aside when she divorced, and so on. All of these people have left the Church but harbor the anger, still, in marked contrast to the former Catholics I know who left but moved on.
I don’t know Stephen’s story vis a vis the Church, but I do observe that he carries a similar level of anger toward GLAAD, which he has explained. As a young man, he worked for GLAAD, only to have a falling out, which appears to have been bitter, at least on his part. I suspect that something similar is going on with the Church.
And yes, Stephen’s anger at the Catholic Church is striking in the context of his relationship to the Republican Party, in which every sign of hope, however small, is trumpeted as if it were a major event. Stephen has a real disconnect going.
posted by Jorge on
He’s actually even worse than I suspected.
I’m shocked, shocked Steven Miller suspected Pope Benedict of not being Catholic.
Tom: This Pope is different. He is successfully doing what the Church has been trying to figure out to do for some time: standing by its condemnation of gay marriage without condemning gay people.
Didn’t he tell US bishops that the correct answer to a situation where the laws are inconsistent with Chruch doctrine is not to fall into the trap of “explaining” while doing nothing?
There are particulars in this case that are not being appreciated in the questions to the Pope, and thus naturally he’s sliding past them. Because he does know the particulars.
John: I’m a little more attentive to Miller’s Catholic-bashing than I am to his gay-bashing. I’m surprised it took him so long. Duh! To paraphrase a recent article, he didn’t realize the Pope was Catholic.
My own view of the matter is that it is divine payback for the White House and the immigration group manipulating the Pope’s visit for political ends. It’s subtle, because I don’t think God disapproves of either act, but God does have to remain the one in charge of the Pope, okay?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This Pope is different. He is successfully doing what the Church has been trying to figure out to do for some time: standing by its condemnation of gay marriage without condemning gay people.
It sounds like you better start drafting your apology to Stephen .
As an outsider to the Church, though, I agree with you. I think that this Pope is different.
I don’t expect any material changes in Church teaching any time soon (the Church seems to run about 50-100 years behind the culture in most respects), but I don’t think that we’ll see the kind of overt hostility toward gays and lesbians during his pontificate that we saw during John Paul’s and Benedict’s.
I won’t soon forget Vatican hostility to Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers, after the document, reasonable and measured while upholding Church teaching, was released by the Catholic Bishops. I hope that those days are gone, at least for a while.
The emerging story of the Kim Davis debacle is getting complicated. It is starting to look like Francis was played by ultra-conservatives within the Church, either to make a point or to make Francis look like a fool. After a couple of days of what can only be described as untypical confusion, the Vatican has now issued a statement that makes clear that the Pope’s meeting should not be read as a validation of her position.
I suspect that there is more to follow, and I will be astonished if the Papal Nuncio, Carlo Maria Vigano, reported to be a Benedict loyalist and implicated up to his ears, isn’t replaced by the end of the year, or shortly thereafter. Francis strikes me as a forgiving man, but I can’t imagine that he’ll tolerate being set up, if that is what happened.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Davis story gets even more complicated.
The WP is reporting that “Pope Francis reportedly met with a same-sex couple the day before he met with Kim Davis“.
And the Vatican is now directly pointing to the Papal Nuncio, Carlo Maria Vigano, for the Davis debacle:
That would be the audience granted to the gay former student and his family, which included his partner.
posted by Jorge on
That would be the audience granted to the gay former student and his family, which included his partner.
This Pope Mother-Theresa-Suckling is turning out to be a more skilled Machiavellian than president Obama. Do you think maybe he learned something about politics when he was the Cardinal?
It sounds like you better start drafting your apology to Stephen .
I think I’m gonna delete my references to Pope Benedict in my letter to the editor on Pope Francis. It pains me to do so, but it’s a distraction.
“Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.”
“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
I did not apologize either to God or to the Pope. Nor did I declare myself except for a single time. When I saw Pope Benedict, what I experienced and remembered was a certainty that my Church, my Pope, knew and understood the truth, that I existed, what I wanted to do, and why. I wanted to follow him to the ends of the earth, even though my calling would lead me to the opposite sides from him in the end. What has long frustrated me is the Church’s inability to express that truth, and the blindness of my fellows from seeing that here are people who know something that you think is important, will you not allow the wind to be at your back?
The papacy of Benedict XVI came to represent the turning point of the inadequacy of truth. The reach of a prayer into a starlit night, a responsible yet falling short striving of a leadership by one better known as a theologian. Now that we have a Pope who goes to the ends of the earth, who lives and acts the truth so that others can see it, I know I should be happy. But there is a moment when I am not, feel my moment has passed, and wonder what it is I am left to wait for now.
Will God grant what the gay humanity prays for? Is there even a right to ask for bright light in a world with such senseless suffering? In this I remember these words Benedict wrote as the Pope: “But there is also the mourning occasioned by the shattering encounter with truth, which leads man to undergo conversion and resist evil.” Not even onto the last minute of the last day before the guillotine of God’s judgment should we renounce that within us which God has created.
posted by Jorge on
No, it doesn’t change things that Francis also agreed to meet in Washington with a gay former student and the student’s long-time boyfriend, and was gracious.
Indeed, no. For in the 1986 “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” (Permit me to interrupt myself a bit. The Vatican is not obligated to provide pastoral care to the French ambassador. Pfbbbbbblt :P), the then-Cardinal Raztinger, God’s Rottweiler, writes:
“Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of.”
“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”
It seems to me that it should be considered a mundane thing for the Catholic Church to check a barometer on its pastoral care that is of its own creation, and a good thing when that comes after many years of it not doing so.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jorge: It seems to me that it should be considered a mundane thing for the Catholic Church to check a barometer on its pastoral care that is of its own creation, and a good thing when that comes after many years of it not doing so.
I hope, as a non-Catholic, that the Church will increasingly return to and respect its teaching about the dignity of gays and lesbians. If it does, it will, as you say, be “a good thing”. The teaching of the Church was distorted during the last years of John Paul II’s pontificate, and during Benedict’s, particularly in the United States, as mediocre bishops appointed for obedience rather than intelligence, became the majority in the Conference. Francis has made a point of addressing the distortion, and that’s “a good thing”, too.
Stephen: “And Francis has shown little inclination to adjust church doctrine on sexuality.”
I do not expect the Church to change its teaching concerning marriage or the “disordered” nature (that is, not ordered to procreation) of sex outside of marriage. I do not expect the Church to change its teaching concerning divorce and remarriage. I do not expect the Church to change any of it, any time soon.
What I do expect is that the Church will begin to focus on the pastoral care of gays and lesbians, divorced Catholics, and remarried Catholics. Care, not condemnation, is what John Paul I promised, and what Francis, many years later, seems to be determined to bring to fruition.
I’m not one of those who expects Christian denominations, Catholic or otherwise, to change their teaching concerning homosexuality. What they do in that regard is their own business, not mine. But I do have an interest in seeing to it that Christian teaching is not reflected in the laws of the United States, when the common good dictates otherwise.
The point of the argument gays and lesbians put forward in the last several decades (see Rausch, Corvino, et al) is that “equal means equal”, in marriage and otherwise, is “Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America”, to borrow Jon Rauch’s book title from 2003. We’ve made the point, we’ve convinced a large majority of Americans that we are right about that, and we need to stick with it.
That’s the context in which he then met with Kim Davis; that’s what matters.
All indications are that Francis was set up, and that the Liberty Counsel’s crowing was an exercise (as usual) in deception and dishonesty. The Liberty Counsel and the Papal Nuncio appear to have tried to pull off a fast one, got caught, and have egg on their faces, as they should. As for Kim Davis, the self-styled country girl who loves Jesus, was a willing accomplice. The sooner the lot of them are discredited, the better.
posted by Jorge on
The teaching of the Church was distorted during the last years of John Paul II’s pontificate, and during Benedict’s, particularly in the United States, as mediocre bishops appointed for obedience rather than intelligence, became the majority in the Conference.
Oh, that. I appreciate your clarification. I still can’t figure out how a believer in libertarian theology slipped through. Oh, right, he took the train to church.
I won’t soon forget Vatican hostility to Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers, after the document, reasonable and measured while upholding Church teaching, was released by the Catholic Bishops. I hope that those days are gone, at least for a while.
Okay I’ll have to read it.
posted by Jorge on
I have to tell you Tom, I was extremely disturbed to see one of my favorite columnists as a signatory on a rebuttal to that document.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/1997/an-appeal-concerning-always-our-children
So that’s how the Vatican got wind of it–that’s who they sent it to.
I think I shall forgive God for creating that trifecta of Tom, Hound, and Stephen, and ask if he can make sure he created them without any defects.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I still can’t figure out how a believer in libertarian theology slipped through.
Francis is a believer in liberation theology only in the minds of the right wing, He doesn’t deviate from Church teaching, as Evangelii Gaudium demonstrates, and he seems to believe in working through existing governmental and economic structures rather than toss them aside.
Francis has resurrected the Church’s focus on social justice and the preference for the poor that has been an important part of the fabric of Church teaching for a long time.
The preference for the poor went missing, to a large extent, during the two most recent pontificates, focused as they were on geopolitical opposition to Communism, theological orthodoxy within the Church, and centralization of power in Rome.
Francis is again expressing it, in word and in symbol, something that we haven’t seen much of out of the Vatican since the days of Paul VI, who argued “If you want peace, work for justice.”
I think I shall forgive God for creating that trifecta of Tom, Hound, and Stephen, and ask if he can make sure he created them without any defects.
It is probably too late for God to nip it in the bud at this point, Jorge.
posted by Jorge on
It is probably too late for God to nip it in the bud at this point, Jorge.
Nonsense! God exists outside time. That’s how that Kim Davis story snuck in there.
Now I’m reading that Always Our Children was revised in 1998–which makes me unsure of which version I read.
…I read the revised version.
Hmm. Sorry, Tom, but I’m satisfied with the whole deal. I like Cardinal Ratzinger even more now. Oh, well, too late, the trifecta is here. But I will say that I feel better that my family’s matriarchs didn’t achieve the greatness of my favorite columnist. To be great is to risk making great changes in the wrong direction.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Sorry, Tom, but I’m satisfied with the whole deal.
I’m not at all sure what you think that “the whole deal” might be, Jorge, but let me make myself clear if I have not already:
(1) Francis’ encyclicals, exhortations and statements on gays and lesbians, economic issues and other matters are, as far as I know, consistent with the teaching of the Church. Francis may focus on different threads of that teaching than his immediate predecessors (Catholic teaching, unlike that of so-called “Bible Christians” is broad, deep, systematic, and grounded in both scripture and a long theological tradition) but he is does not seem to be interested in radically changing anything about Catholic teaching.
(2) I am not concerned about Catholic teaching (or the teaching of any other Christian denomination, for that matter) about homosexuals and homosexuality, any more than I am concerned about Christian teaching about anything else. Christians (like everybody else) are free to think and believe what they want, however sensible, non-sensible or absurd that may be. I believe that everybody is born a little bit nuts, and religious precepts (including my own) are more often than not an expression of that fact.
(3) I believe that our laws should be based on the common good, not on religious precepts, and it makes no difference to me that the religious precepts may be held by a majority of Americans. Our laws concerning remarriage after divorce, for example, should be based on objective evidence concerning the societal costs and benefits of permitting divorced persons to remarry, not on Matthew 5:31-32 et al.
(4) I oppose the idea that America is a “Christian country” and that our laws should be based on Christian understanding (misunderstanding?) of their scriptures. I would take the same position with respect to my own religion, if we constituted 85% of the country’s population, rather than 3%.
(5) I believe that the common good would be well served if we had a serious discussion about freedom of conscience in our country, drawing sensible lines with respect to exemption from laws of general application on freedom of conscience grounds, so long as the exemptions granted are religion-neutral, issue-neutral and class-neutral.
(6) I do not believe that the current political ping-pong game over Kim Davis and hapless “bakers, florists and photographers” is anything close to a serious discussion about freedom of conscience. It is a politically-driven wedge-issue sideshow, prompted once again by the Republican Party as part of a longstanding political strategy of using gays and lesbians as cannon fodder for short-term political gain. I hope (without much expectation) that this will be the last round of that strategy.
posted by Jorge on
I’m not at all sure what you think that “the whole deal” might be, Jorge
What you brought up on the Vatican’s response to the publication of “Always Our Children” by the US Catholic bishops.
(3) I believe that our laws should be based on the common good, not on religious precepts, and it makes no difference to me that the religious precepts may be held by a majority of Americans. Our laws concerning remarriage after divorce, for example, should be based on objective evidence concerning the societal costs and benefits of permitting divorced persons to remarry, not on Matthew 5:31-32 et al.
Sorry, I don’t agree. I think there is a legitimate place for subjective value considerations, religious or otherwise, that are not empirical.
The previous two I agree with.
I oppose the idea that America is a “Christian country” and that our laws should be based on Christian understanding (misunderstanding?) of their scriptures.
Hmm, Bill O’Reilly annoys me when he says this country was founded on “Judeo-Christian principles.” I’m sympathetic but I think it misses the point about pre-American religious persecution. I think this country’s laws should be based on a 1700s American Christian understanding of European history.
I believe that the common good would be well served if we had a serious discussion about freedom of conscience in our country.
I don’t. I get suspicious of so-called “national conversations” on social issues. They often have a pre-determined “correct” answer that overturns more than it reforms. I think this should be a judicial question. We have decent laws on the books already. Kentucky made an exception for Kim Davis [which she never bothered to ask for] and *rolls eyes* it turned out halfway decent, but there are a lot of non-elected marriage clerks who got religious exemptions, too, so I’m not sure. And if the current people in power choose to violate the religious freedom laws already on the books, then they should be thrown out of office and we should correct those laws. I see no good reason to resolve this by negotiation.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And then this: Pope asserts marriage is forever at start of family meeting.
Did you expect something different? Catholics are Christian, after all, and Church teaching is grounded in Scripture, notwithstanding all the twaddle about “man made rules” that so-called “Bible Christians” spew out. If you have an issue with Francis or with the Church on this score, you have an issue with Matthew 5:31-32, 9:6-7; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2-3, and related. Church teaching on divorce and remarriage predates Francis.