Why The Advocate's Choice of Pope Francis for Person of the Year is a Mistake

[trotsky]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/antheabutler/7450/why_the_advocate_s_choice_of_pope_francis_for_person_of_the_year_is_a_mistake/

That Time named Pope Francis "Person of the Year" was not a surprise. But for The Advocate to follow suit is a big bag of whut? for this liberal Catholic. Perhaps the venerable LGBT magazine thought this would be an appropriate birthday present for the pontiff, but the gift, as well as the thought behind it, is misplaced.

....

What Pope Francis is doing is walking a tightrope. Instead of pushing dogma, he’s pushing a change in tone, not in substance. Because he is carefully eliding the church’s teaching and focusing on compassion, many liberals and media pundits—including The Advocate—believe that he is opening a door to a changed theology. That is not the case. What the Pope is doing is opening a door for discussion, but not necessarily change.

...

The disappointment that will come in the future when Catholic church teachings do not change will not be a surprise to those of us who know the history of the glacial pace of change in the Catholic church. Personally, unless Pope Francis calls a council on human sexuality, I very much doubt his papacy will change much about the corpus of Catholic teaching on homosexuality—defined by that tradition as ‘intrinsically disordered,”

While I very much appreciate the change in focus and tone from Pope Francis, I would caution everyone: “don’t get it twisted.” Pope Francis is still the Cardinal Bergoglio who opposed same sex marriage in Argentina.

[pinto]

1. "What the Pope is doing is opening a door for discussion, but not necessarily change."

True that.

Yet opening a door for discussion may facilitate change. One often follows the other, no?

I'm not holding my breath for Francis to implement dramatic change in this one action. But a broader range of discussion is an opening, fwiw. And change in the church system is glacial, at times, as the author notes.

What I think is relevant in the short term is precisely the change in tone and perception. I'm not a particularly adamant Catholic yet I know many who would welcome some relevancy to today's social norms. The church has changed over time and it may well again.

We'll see.

[el_bryanto]

2. That assumes that A) the Catholic Church is capable of change and

B) there are positive qualities in the Catholic Church that are worth preserving, and, I suppose,

C) that in order to preserve those positive qualities, the Catholic Church would have to be preserved as well.

I think where it falls down for some is that even if the Catholic Church did change, that change would be far too slow, and that the Catholic Church isn't really worth preserving anyway. We'd be better off if people left the Church, presumably to become non-believers.

All hypothetical, as the Catholic Church probably isn't going anywhere.

Bryant

[cbayer]

3. I think the discussions in The Advocates staff room were probably

intense and fascinating.

This author makes some good points and I was surprised at their choice.

Having not had the opportunity to read the article that I assume is connected to the cover, it's hard to comment on their reasons for this choice.

But they made it and that is significant.

[pinto]

4. I bet they were.

[trotsky]

19. Depends.

What is the track record of "discussions" resulting in change within the RCC?

Do they hold "town hall" style meetings where members of a church discuss a topic, then vote?

Or is the RCC a hierarchical, non-democratic institution that generally only changes when forced to by factors outside its control, such as secular law or declining membership?

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. I think Butler is off the mark there

I don't think the change in tone is in any way an invitation to discussion. Francis has made it perfectly clear he has no intention of revising church doctrine on homosexuality, so what is there to talk about? He simply understands that prosecuting teh gay, and teh sex in general, to the neglect of more popular and tangible issues hasn't been good for the church's image. So, the bigotry is going to stay on the menu, and bishops and priests are still free to serve it up as they so choose, but he isn't going to be talking about it quite as sternly or as often has his predecessor. Big deal...

If it looks like a calculated PR move and quacks like a calculated PR move, it's probably a calculated PR move.

[trotsky]

39. I fear you are correct.

Given the history of the institution, it's hard to see things playing out any other way. Its image has always been more important than anything else.

[rug]

5. You're running out of talking points, trotsky.

[okasha]

6. Never happen.

n/t

[rug]

7. True. Pedophilia can always be dusted off.

[eqfan592]

20. What a callous attitude you have on that topic. very telling. nt

[rug]

21. What's callous is using it as a talking point to advance an agenda.

[eqfan592]

22. If that agenda is to put an end to such abuse, then no, it really isn't. nice try, tho. nt

[rug]

23. That's not the agenda, as you well know, Nice try, tho.

[eqfan592]

24. Actually, it is, at least in part. But please, enlighten us all to the true agenda. nt

[rug]

25. Ah, that explains all the anti-religion rhetoric. But please, enlighten me as to who "us" is?

Might it be the usual gallery rushing to post stories about clergy (but never a nonreligious person) accused of abuse?

Followed by solemn condemnations of religion?

[edhopper]

26. The cover up and

protection of the guilty priest was as reprehensible as could be. You don't seem to get that what makes it so loathsome.
For an institution that is supposedly so moral and wholesome to engage in such a monstrous crime is what is unforgivable.
Your "get over it" attitude is what rubs so many the wrong way.

[rug]

27. What you don't get is that if it never existed, your opinion of religion woul not change one iota.

So don't peddle that crap that that is why you object to religion.

I will state the obligatory that it is indeed reprehensible, no matter who does it. However, expressions of disgust and outrage by me, by you, or by the unspoken "so many" doesn't change it.

What I do object to is the dishonest use of these abuses and these victims to make spurious broad-brushed accusations against religion and the religious. Especially when you know damn well you would make the same statements regardless.

[edhopper]

34. The pedophilia has nothing to do with my feeling about religion in general

Those were formed long before the scandal. This is specifically about my disgust at the Roman Catholic Church and their criminal enabling of child rape.

[rug]

35. Yeah I saw i was not replying to eqs again until after I hit post.

[edhopper]

36. okay

happens to me too.

[eqfan592]

28. A religious org that actively shelters and enables child abusers...

...is worthy of condemnation. If you can find a similar non religious organization, they would be equally worthy of condemnation.

[rug]

29. I see. Otherwise you would not.

Bullshit.

Craven, opportunistic bullshit.

[eqfan592]

30. Otherwise i would not what?

And craven? Seriously? Calm down dude.

[rug]

31. Condemn.

[eqfan592]

32. If the church weren't doing all the negative things it does...

...then no, I wouldn't condemn it. The UU church is one, for example, that I've never had issues with.

[rug]

33. We're talking about one thing in particular.

[eqfan592]

37. Not in the context you're implying we weren't. nt

[okasha]

40. Recycle, re-use, re-purpose, reclaim.

He certainly repeats the same points over and over, especially to people he knows won't respond to him.

[rug]

41. That's one way to reinforce certitude.

[edhopper]

8. True

now that the Church supports Gay Rights, allows a woman's right to choose, doesn't stop condom use to prevent AIDS and endorse the idea that a demi-god was given birth by a virgin girl.

Oh wait.

[rug]

9. Are you equating gay rights, reproductive rights and AIDS with the doctrine of the Virgin Birth?

Is that what you're really going on about?

Then stop the masquerade of being a civil rights activist and get down to your real agenda. You simply have contempt for religious belief.

Then you and I can have a nice honest discussion without all the bullshit.

[edhopper]

10. I was referring to you

saying trosky is running out of talking points because of this magazine.
So I rattled off some things that might not make that true. They are of a different nature, not meant to be equated.

I don't think it's contempt. I just don't accept any religious belief as valid.
Which is a different discussion than civil rights issues and religion.
But both are discussed here.

[rug]

12. Then what on earth does the virgin birth have to do with this?

I agree with you. They are both separate discussions interesting in their own right. While we would disagree on one, I expect we'd agree on the other.

[edhopper]

13. Like I said,

you made a snarky little comment that trosky is running out of things to argue about vis a vis the Church.
I just wrote a few things that came to mind where he might disagree with the Pope.
I'm pretty sure trosky doesn't go along with that part of doctrine either.
Hope you get this was meant as an off the cuff jab in the same manner as your post.
You seem far too offended by this than it would warrant.

[rug]

14. Maybe. I take civil rights very seriously. Religious belief less so.

I don't like to mix the two, which happens way too often in here.

[edhopper]

15. I get that

[edhopper]

11. My guess is this is like Obama's

Nobel Peace Prize. It's not so much about what he has done as hope and encouragement on what he will do.

[skepticscott]

16. Good to see that the readers over at Advocate

aren't falling for the pope's bullshit PR campaign, and have almost to a person roundly condemned this choice. Sadly, the religionists on DU seem far more gullible.

Here's my fav:

What complete horseshit. It would be hilarious to watch liberals falling all over themselves lapping up this PR bullshit if it weren't so sad. All it takes is a few words of not-exactly-condemnation, and you're down on your knees for the most successful mouthpiece the world's largest hate group has ever produced? Some of us have more self respect than that. When he changes ONE anti-gay policy of the church...ONE...let me know. Until then, he remains nothing more than the Catholic church's latest attempt to re-brand itself without making any changes whatsoever, in a completely transparent attempt to stem the tide of people rightly fleeing this archaic, woman-hating, anti-gay, pedophilia-enabling, snake-oil-selling cult, led by a man who called same-sex marriage a plot of the devil and adoption of children by gay parents child abuse. THAT'S your person of the year. Sick.

[rug]

17. This is my favorite.

It sure looks to me like the Advocate has been taken over by Opus Dei.

Unexplainable disappointment breeds stupidity.

[trotsky]

18. That's a brilliant comment, and spot on.

Especially considering the hurt and damage the RCC has caused to LGBTers and others over the centuries (and continues to do), it is just disgusting to see some on the left cheer the new pope's platitudes when STILL, nothing has changed. When the RCC conducts its first gay marriage, allows all birth control, and welcomes women and transgendered people into its priest ranks, (oh, AND roots out the pedophiles and all their enablers), THEN I will gladly stand and applaud their arrival into modern times.