The Republicans have a pope problem

[cbayer]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/religion-and-politics

Jun 19th 2015, 18:14 BY E.W. | WASHINGTON, DC



IT WAS bad enough when Pope Francis began banging on about inequality. Worse still when he changed the church’s tone when it comes to addressing gay people (“Who am I to judge?”). Now the pope has issued a papal encyclical affirming the science of climate change and calling on leaders to phase out fossil fuels from the global economy.

This puts the GOP’s presidential candidates in an awkward position. At least five of them—including frontrunners Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio—are practicing Catholics. Messrs Bush and Rubio have both questioned or denied the science of climate change and rejected policies to regulate the burning of fossil fuels. And they are both from Miami, a place seen as especially vulnerable to economic damage from climate change.

For some years Republicans have been accustomed to recruiting the pope as a figure of moral authority for their social agendas, especially in their arguments against abortion and gay marriage. As governor of Florida, Mr Bush regularly cited church teachings, and enacted a law to introduce anti-abortion “Choose Life” license plates. But he has seemed rather less eager for the pope’s guidance on the environment. “I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope,” Mr Bush insisted on Tuesday. “I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting in the political realm.”

Still, Mr Bush and his peers are wary of criticising Pope Francis outright. Few score points by speaking ill of a spiritual leader, especially one as overwhelmingly popular as Pope Francis (86% of American Catholics view him favourably, accordingly to a recent poll by the Pew Research Centre). What’s a Republican in the age of Francis to do?

more at link

[DetlefK]

1. They really thought they "own" religion and get to decide what it says.

This somehow reminds of the republican assumption of being the party of "patriotism". I guess they were pretty shocked when the Democrats went all-out patriotic at the last DNC.

[cbayer]

3. They thought that and they convinced a lot of other people that it was true.

I see a watershed opportunity here.

If they claim "patriotism" then we should clarify that definition and own it. If they claim "family values" then we should clarify that definition and own it.

[DetlefK]

4. Bernie Sanders already makes clear that family values is more than abortion and gay-marriage.

You know, it's about actual parents and actual children in actual households.

[cbayer]

6. Exactly and that's how we need to redefine it.

Family values is about equal civil rights for all kinds of families and families free of prejudice and bigotry.

You've got it.

[trotsky]

8. Then "we" have a pope problem.

Because he is against that, remember? Marriage equality is "from Satan" and gay adoption is like Nazism? You know, THE STUFF WONDERPOPE HAS SAID.

Good grief. You certainly DON'T "got it."

[trotsky]

2. No more or less than the Democrats do.

They also choose to ignore the pope's proclamations when it comes to things like abortion rights, birth control, gender equality (and identity), and LGBTQ rights like marriage equality.

Pretending that 'ooh, the pope is an awesome liberal and Republicans are gonna have to accept what he says about the environment' is wishful thinking to say the least.

[C_U_L8R]

5. KKK never did like Papists

I mean, GOP

[cbayer]

7. Nope, not real christians.