Pontiff concerned by Assange's suffering

submitted by risistill me from (apnews.com)

sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SusanJ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Nice article. I don't know how Francis got elected, he's completely the opposite of his predecessors. I hope he's got a few more years in him.

"The Argentine Jesuit pope has long expressed solidarity with prisoners, frequently visiting detainees on his foreign visits."

[–]risistill me[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Obviously, the Pope met with Stella Assange to bring to bear whatever moral authority the Papacy has with the Biden administration. (Biden is Catholic, for whatever that's worth in this context.) For that, I commend "Frankie Two Sticks" (an affectionately bestowed nickname, or so I understand).

Perhaps, he got elected because the Vatican (and perhaps Francis's predecessor?) thought it was past time for a "New World" Pope? At one time, America's Cardinal Law was thought to be in line to be the first New World Pope--and then the Massachusetts pedophile priests lawsuit was filed. So, instead, Law "only" got kicked upstairs to Rome, probably for his own protection.

My opinion of Francis II? He has a knack for phrasing so that he seems doctrinally different from his predecessors, but he is not. For example, his famous comment about gay priests. None of the articles I read at the time about Francis' comment seemed to have picked up on the fact that Francis commented only on gay priests.

Because Catholic priests vow to be celibate, it was not a change from prior doctrine, which said, "We love gays. We only hate gays having 'gay' sex." (Not the Church's wording, of course.)

I do think that Francis II has a heart for the poor. https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/sen-sanders-goes-vatican

[–]SusanJ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

He's got so much opposition, especially in the U.S., where conservatives hate him. I really do think he's trying to do the right thing and turn things around.

I'm an atheist, btw, but I have a soft spot for Francis. His writings on climate change, on socialism, on peace, on the need for healthcare for everyone, these are things I've been talking about for years. Of course, it's falling on deaf ears with Biden and the rest of the Democratic leadership who are Catholics. But that shouldn't suprise any of us!

[–]risistill me[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

His writings on climate change, on socialism, on peace, on the need for healthcare for everyone, these are things I've been talking about for years.

Things many people have been talking and writing about for decades, for millennia as to peace, for over a century as to socialism and health care.

Of course, it's falling on deaf ears with Biden and the rest of the Democratic leadership who are Catholics.

Has any national leader or legislative body changed anything because of Francis?

I really do think he's trying to do the right thing and turn things around.

He has the power to change church doctrine. Unlike a politician, he cannot be recalled or voted out of office for any change he makes, even in theory. What change has he made in the sphere in which he has unilateral, unfettered power to effect change?

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

No one can change doctrine.

[–]risistill me[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Perhaps "doctrine" is the not the precise word. But, clearly, the Pope can make changes. https://religionnews.com/2023/04/11/pope-benedict-closed-limbo-and-no-one-complained/

Has Francis made any comparable changes?

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm not sure that's a good example, since the writer seems confused about the difference between doctrine and dogma, and his conclusions are all wrong.

 

Skimming the product of the commission, what jumps out at me is this: "We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge." (italics in original) Even the document itself doesn't make the claim Reese does!

 

Basically, it seems that Benedict allowed the publication of this paper, which must have been commissioned under JP2, since CNS says the process took "several years," and Benedict was elected in 2005. This implies, at most, that he considered its theory about Limbo to be consistent with doctrine. He didn't say it was correct. There's an infinity of things that can be consistent - that is, not contradictory - without being correct. Like, Catholics aren't obliged to believe in evolution, but they aren't forbidden to either.

 

Now, all that said, Reese's hypothetical about how conservatives would have reacted if Francis had allowed it instead is plausible, but what he shrugs off as a stereotype isn't just some irrational prejudice; it's the result of pattern recognition. Francis is often vague, and says confusing things, letting liberals believe he's on their side in the moment, and then having the Vatican spokesmen deny he meant to say anything new at all in the weeks following. Even the Washington Post recognized this tendency, explicitly comparing him to Obama, who memorably said: "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

 

Liberal Catholics don't see the clawback, because they don't pay attention to this sort of thing unless it matters to them personally - that's what makes them liberal Catholics. They just crow over the initial (apparent) change to something they think fits more comfortably with their lifestyles and non-Church-based beliefs. Conservative Catholics see the initial (apparent) change, and don't believe the clawback.

 

Thanks for asking the question, btw :) I hadn't looked into this before, and it turned out to be interesting.

[–]risistill me[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

First, I am deeply remorseful. By linking something about "Limbo," I meant only to say that a belief that most or all Catholics held changed. I did not mean to endorse the article itself. (I am ashamed to say that I only searched "Limbo" and linked the first hit that seemed to say it was a change. I didn't even read the article!)

I should have simply cited "Limbo" with no link at all. I never meant to put you to analyzing the body of the article. I'm sorry. Nonetheless, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis.

As to what role Benedict did or didn't play, who knows? I try to take very little at face value anymore because I spent too long doing almost the opposite, to my great detriment. (Not as to religion, but as to politics. However, as far as the papacy and "the Vatican," I think they may operate similarly.) But, back to Francis II---

Francis is often vague, and says confusing things, letting liberals believe he's on their side....

This is almost exactly my problem with him, except that, in your wording, I would substitute "making" for "letting." I think he chooses his words carefully to give the impression of dramatic change when there is no change at all, as with the gay priest example.. And it isn't only liberal Catholics whom he misleads, but most people and media. At least media give the impression of being misled, but, again, who knows?

But I thought my question was, what meaningful changes has Francis II actually been responsible for?

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree with everything you said, especially the ever-growing similarities to everyday politics and the Vatican's antics.

 

As for the question, technically you asked for comparable changes, so of course I had to check out the point of comparison first ;) But anyway, let's look for meaningful changes. I think the one thing liberals and conservatives alike would point to is Francis saying that the death penalty should now be considered "inadmissible."

 

This has produced a lot of handwringing from conservatives and a lot of cheering from liberals, along with endless blather about how just how much assent, of what kind, of what quality, is required to be given the pronouncements of a pope. We can dispense with all this by asking a simple question: did Francis say the words "intrinsically evil?" The answer to that question is no, because that would be a moral teaching that directly contradicts Scripture. The problem here isn't merely that the death penalty is explicitly sanctioned throughout the Bible; it's that Jesus himself says that God gave Pilate the authority to execute even him.

 

This is why Francis has to say "inadmissible." He can say all sorts of things, but all he can really change is public perception. The kind of Catholics who think the Church's actual teaching on the death penalty has somehow changed already opposed the death penalty on extra-ecclesiastical grounds. It reminds me a bit of how, at Nuremberg, Goering kept loudly proclaiming his loyalty to the Fuhrer. He was perfectly well aware that he couldn't be hanged for being loyal, and that wasn't the question. Francis is doing something similar here.

 

Much like you, this is my biggest problem with Francis. He's a coward and a sneak. This sort of creeping around the edges, exercising deniable influence through mealy-mouthed vagaries and spokesmen reading out carefully-calibrated press statements - this is the realm of politicians. It's deceitful. If you really want gay priests, gay marriage, married priests, women priests, the abolition of the death penalty, Pachamamas on every altar, bishops freely using seminaries as orgy recruitment centers, all right, stand up like a man - or at least a reasonable facsimile - and say so. Plenty of Catholics think you'll be struck by lightning if you do. Prove them wrong.

 

I'll add a relevant passage here from Revelation:

 

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write;

These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

(3:14-16)

[–]risistill me[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think the one thing liberals and conservatives alike would point to is Francis saying that the death penalty should now be considered "inadmissible."

Was the church officially pro-death penalty before Francis II said that?

AFAIK, the Catholic Church has long opposed the death penalty and war, as well as opposing abortion. Or so a believing Catholic informed me about twenty years ago.

She is pro-choice by personal conviction, as well as Catholic for the same reason. She cited the Church's opposition to war and the death penalty to say that the Church, unlike some other sects, was truly pro-life and not merely anti-abortion. (I was not arguing against the Church at the time. She just wanted me to know.)

In any event, the topic is not the Catholic Church per se, but Francis II and my question about change. You and I seem to be roughly on the same page as to Francis II. However, I was asking about changes within Francis's actual powers. I didn't specify that in my prior response to you because I thought that obvious from my posts to susan and you on this thread. Again, I apologize for my omission.

Unless there is actual, significant change within the Church, as opposed to only words about the behavior of others, Francis II is just another person advocating against the death penalty. While I am one of them, that "don't impress me much" coming from a Pope. Advocacy against the death penalty by people with influence, but no power, has gone on since before the Ten Commandments appeared in the Old Testament.