Pope Francis went ahead and poked his finger in the eye of the Conservative Movement.
Francis has made clear that he hopes the encyclical will influence energy and economic policy and stir a global movement. He calls on ordinary people to pressure politicians for change. Bishops and priests around the world are expected to lead discussions on the encyclical in services on Sunday. But Francis is also reaching for a wider audience when in the first pages of the document he asks “to address every person living on this planet.”
That’s not being a loyal member of the team, which obviously means that the pope must be excommunicated from the Movement as a “Malthusian” and a “Marxist.”
The tables have turned nicely here, and eventually we’ll see it have an impact on stuff like this:
Congressman Jody Hice railed against the separation of church and state in a video statement screened at a San Diego Christian conference, Right Wing Watch reported.
“Somehow we have bought into that false belief that our Constitution forbids us from being involved because of the so-called separation of church and state,” the Georgia Republican said in a video prepared for the Future Conference in San Diego. “I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that that’s not in our constitution. But it’s been said so many times that many Christians believe that we ought not be involved.”
It’s all fine to “be involved” until the pope comes down on the other side of the issue and bishops and priests begin discussing the urgency of phasing out fossil fuels from their pulpits.
Now, suddenly, religious leaders are “out of their element” and discussing secular affairs about which they know nothing.
Very amusing.
Best Pope in my lifetime. Probably best Pope ever if he keeps this up.
I’m certainly listening.
Never thought I’d see the day when I would become a Pope stans, but that day has come. Actually unfollowed someone on twitter yesterday because s/he dissed the Pope.
Conservative Roman Catholics are now literally willing to pass judgment on the (formerly) infallible Pope:
http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2015/06/16/bush-i-dont-get-economic-policy-from-my-pope/
“I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home,” said Bush, a Roman Catholic. “But I don’t get my economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope. And I’d like to see what he says as it relates to climate change and how that connects to these broader, deeper issues before I pass judgment.”
So awesome.
It’s OK to preach separation of church and state.
If you’re a Republican.
First, it’s important to understand that fundamentalist Xtians do NOT like the Catholic Church at all. Some of them go so far as to refer to Catholicism as a “cult” (which it is, of course, but then that also applies to whatever sect they belong to). I mention this only because a lot of non-conservatives don’t get this and think that the Pope has more influence in conservative America than he actually does.
In fact Catholics in the US – and by that I mean anyone who was at some point part of the Catholic Church as a child or adult and still attends mass occasionally, even if only at Easter or Xmas – are split pretty evenly between left and right, liberal and conservative. To understand the different factions amongst the Catholic populace it helps to know a bit of recent history.
The Pope from 1978-2005, John Paul II, was perceived in the US as emphasizing the more conservative-friendly teachings (anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-contraception, and anti-women in the clergy) but this was really a distortion fed by the US media, which tended to emphasize those points and go out of its way to feature far right Bishops and Cardinals on TV. In fact JP2 put at least as much emphasis on helping the poor (and, compatibly, the overemphasis on wealth in the west – keep in mind he DID come from communist Poland), taking care of the environment, and avoiding war – just those statements tended to get no coverage.
But the last Pope, Benedict, actually did push the more conservative line harder and also pursued a vision of a smaller, but more pure (read: conservative) church. Benedict was elected by a cardinality which had been packed by John Paul 2 to emphasize conservatism, so after Benedict did the same most observers figured his successor would be more of the same.
But somehow the cardinals picked Francis. Maybe they felt that they needed a whole different approach given their rapidly aging and declining church population and all the sex scandals – and there is evidence that was a big part of the choice. But it also appears that Francis carefully hid his true intentions and surprised pretty much everyone with his papacy so far – it’s like glastnost and peristroika all over again.
So, back to American Catholics. During John Paul 2’s time Catholic discussion groups had a good mix of both liberal and conservative viewpoints. Conservatives used the term “Cafeteria Catholics” derogatorily to describe liberal Catholics who sinned by using birth control and supported legal abortion, but of course liberal catholics responded that it was the conservatives who actually ignored most of Catholic teachings in their politics. During Benedict’s reign of error the conservatives felt ascendant, especially as his vision of a smaller, “purer” church started to take form as so many liberals walked out. The arguments at the time generally involved the liberals quoting extensively from the Catechism and the conservatives quoting the Pope. Funnily enough, most Catholics don’t understand the Papal Infallibility doctrine – which doesn’t apply to all papal statements, only to one about Mary – and so when the pope says something they agree with they tend to lord it over the others.
Now, of course, the situation is the complete reverse. The conservatives are beside themselves, and unfortunately unlike the liberals don’t have the Catechism or other Catholic writings to go back to for support – since those all support Francis as well. Basically, Francis is teaching real Catholic theory – that is, he’s leading the Church to live up to its own myths about itself. And conservatives, whose ideal God threatens fire and brimstone and lays waste to whole countries that are sinful, well they really can’t accept it.
But conservatives are by nature tribal. We’re talking about an identity crisis bigger than any liberal is likely to ever encounter. This is why the conservative Catholics are reduced to fantastic conspiracies about the Pope as a way to explain it.
What this does demonstrate, as part of general understanding of conservative theory, is that conservatives do not follow their leaders blindly. If the leaders are preaching us-and-them, with-us-or-against-us, and violence against those who oppose us the conservatives will find another leader.
US evangelicals have even less regard for Mormons than they do Catholics. But they voted for Romney nonetheless. And are quite keen on Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy (most of the time).
As a far outside observer of the selection of Benedict’s replacement, I went though the list of those that were considered eligible. After eliminating those with a taint of sex abuse scandals, the short list was very short. Benedict had also presented another problem for the image of the church with his ostentatious dress and standard of living. Not to repeat that, left them with but one man, Bergoglio. (Or perhaps they just went with the oldest on the short list.)
Bergoglio didn’t mislead anyone. Seemed clear enough to me that his orientation was pastoral, but respected the hierarchy of the church enough not to make any waves in his role as a Cardinal.
From reading after the fact, it was clear that his orientation was pastoral, but I don’t think the extent was clear. Francis seems to go a very long way with the idea that sinners belong in the church, being persuaded, rather than outside being shunned. I also don’t think he was expected to put this much emphasis on the liberal doctrines and softpedal the conservative ones this much.
I suspect the cardinals were expecting somebody like John Paul II with a somewhat more pastoral approach, not one perhaps even more of a reformist than John XXIII.
Haven’t a clue what they expected. My take was that Bergoglio was more in the mold of John XXIII and the liberation theologists. Didn’t mean that he would rise to the occasion. Only that he had the capacity to do so. Unlike all but one of the others that were considered as candidates.
I realize that this is a rather educated and respectable blog but my goodness Jody Hice is a freaking moron! What is wrong with these people. How do they get elected? What does that say for our voting public?
Go Pope Frankie!