The Pope's Mixed Messages

[DonViejo]

Barbie Latza Nadeau

Is the pope sending mixed messages, or are we just hearing what we want to hear?

VATICAN CITY—So which is it? Are Catholics supposed to heed Pope Francis’s advice not to “breed like rabbits” or are they to follow his missive, “The choice not to have children is selfish.” And is it ok to be gay, as the world thought he meant when he said, “If a person seeks God and has goodwill, then who am I to judge?” Or is still wrong in the eyes of the Catholic Church, as he implied on recent trip to the Philippines when he said, “The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.” And we won’t even mention the pope’s widely-reported punch the other cheek or the assumed endorsement of spanking on the eve of the Vatican’s child abuse commission meeting.

The pope seems to be all over the page lately, contradicting himself at every turn as each headline writer regurgitates his quotes, altering them slightly like a global game of Telephone or Chinese Whispers, where the message gets more garbled each time it is repeated. Part of the problem is the fact that in two years at the helm of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis has opened the floodgates of communication in an institution that has been effectively cloistered for centuries.

While it is no exaggeration that a pope has never been so widely quoted by the secular press, it could also be said that a pope’s intentions have never been so widely misinterpreted. While it may seem like the pope is sending mixed signals, the truth may be that most of the press and non-Catholics are just projecting their own wishes and values on him. “The pope’s communication style is not formal, it is not super controlled and it is not super thought out,” Vatican expert John Thavis and author of the Vatican Diaries told The Daily Beast. “He shoots from the hip, which makes him marvelously spontaneous, but open to misreading.”

And because of the pope’s popularity, almost everyone wants to hitch a ride on his popular bandwagon. The problem, of course, is that because the pope is still very Catholic, much of what he says in terms of acceptance and transparency can’t yet be traced back to tactile changes in the organization he leads. Nor will it likely ever be.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/15/the-pope-s-mixed-messages.html

[edhopper]

1. The only message I see

is the Church will change none of it's policies.

[cbayer]

3. What do you think about his new cardinal selections?

That has the potential of changing things up. He completely snubbed the American bishops.

[edhopper]

4. I haven't followed that all

close enough to give an opinion.

Aren't they having a big conference or something about Church policy?

[cbayer]

6. He just promoted them yesterday.

20 new cardinals and a pretty broad representative group.

I'm not sure about upcoming conference, but I think they meet regularly to discuss policy.

[edhopper]

7. Thanks

as Scott Walker said, I'm gonna punt.

[cbayer]

8. And for similar reasons, I fear.

[edhopper]

9. True

I did not graduate from the seminary. like he didn't from college.

[cbayer]

10. I did not know that about him.

Well, that might 'splain some things.

[cbayer]

2. Good article. I think the point is that he speaks spontaneously

instead of from a tightly controlled script, and it shows. He is not always consistent, not always very politically correct and he certainly leaves some things open for interpretation.

That makes him endearing to many who want a pope they can relate to, but also provides a lot of fodder for those that want to attack him.

The take away from this is to not try to over-analyze every little thing he says, but to watch for what he does.

[gcomeau]

52. It is entirely possible to be both spontaneous and consistent...

...but it requires your positions to be consistent so that when you spontaneously speak about them you always end up saying the same thing.


If you're constantly playing a PR game trying to dress up your policies as something else depending on the audience you're speaking to on the other hand... yeah. Spontaneity is not the road to consistency.

[cbayer]

53. It is not always necessary to be consistent, particularly when

one is formulating ideas.

He is bound to some extent by current doctrine, but may not fully agree with the doctrine that binds him.

Like any good politician, he tries out different approaches that may reflect some of his underlying views.

I'm not that impressed with some one who always ends up saying the same thing. Those type of people are often very rigid and dogmatic. They often have a great deal of trouble changing their positions, even in light of new information.

In this case, I'm going to lean towards spontaneity, particularly because I'm not a big fan of a great deal of the RCC's policy. It's generally very consistent and not at all spontaneous.

[gcomeau]

55. If you're average Joe on the street? Sure.

If you're someone who is up front about being in the process of modifying their positions on an issue? Whatever...


If you're the leader of one of the largest religious organizations on earth who is communicating the stances of that entity in your capacity as the supposedly *infallible* communicator of doctrine when speaking on those matters as the Pope? Doctrinal positions hundreds of millions of people are supposed to use to guide their own actions?


Yeah... you should have that worked out before opening your mouth probably, trial and error in public pronouncements not really being the most responsible approach in that situation.

[cbayer]

56. I find it refreshing.

The vatican has always been so closed mouth, tightly controlled and scripted. I'm sure he drives his handlers mad.

Since I don't see him as *infallible*, I'm quite comfortable with him speaking off the cuff and not always being completely clear on a particular issue. I don't think that catholics around the world are waiting for instructions from him.

The doctrine is clear and he doesn't waver from it, but he gives glimpses of possible change. Those changes will hopefully be made by larger groups, or not.

Rigidity of position is what I associate with conservatives who expect a lock step approach. I am much more comfortable with those whose positions can change and evolve.

[gcomeau]

57. And do you weigh your refreshment above the harm those statements cause?

"Since I don't see him as *infallible*,"

But it is the official position of his religion that he is.

A religion with hundreds of millions of adherents. Listening to everything the guy says. And while a lot of them are unlikely to take the infallibility thing seriously (a sign they don't take the religion thing seriously in general) a lot of them DO.

[cbayer]

58. I'm not seeing a lot of harm.

Like I said, I think he gives some indication that he is not fully in agreement with some of the doctrine.

I do think that the doctrine causes serious harm and I remain hopeful that change is coming.

In the meantime, I think catholics in general feel that he is more real than some recent popes. He bugs the hell out of the conservative RCC hierarchy, and I like that as well.

The adherents listen to him, but data shows that they still adapt the doctrine to suit their own lives. IMO, rigidity would be much more likely to cause harm.

We can disagree on this without making it personal, I hope.

[gcomeau]

59. I'm having difficulty seeing...

...how you could not see the harm in telling several hundred million people, a not insignificant portion of which at the least consider your pronouncements to be infallible, that, for example, smacking your kid around as long as you don't do it in the face to preserve their dignity is "beautiful".


Would you mind explaining to me how you are evaluating that not to be harmful? Because I would think it would be harmful to the kids of the many people who undoubtedly walked away from that thinking beating their children has the Pope's blessing. Would it be all the Catholics? Of course not. Most of them? Doubt it. Half of them? Extremely unlikely.

1%? Quite plausibly.

Which is still *millions of people*.

The adherents listen to him, but data shows that they still adapt the doctrine to suit their own lives.

Many, yes. But his opinion still sways some. If it didn't he would be completely irrelevant. And when you're talking about a mass of people the size of the Catholic religion that "some" doesn't have to be much of a percentage of the whole to be a freaking lot of people.

[cbayer]

60. I have not made the argument that the positions of the pope

and the RCC are harmless. In fact, I have acknowledged that many of their positions are quite harmful. I very much object to his statements on corporal punishment, for example.

We are discussing his speaking spontaneously and sometimes inconsistently. I would like to see him walk his position on corporal punishment back. If he were to be totally rigid and completely consistent, he couldn't do that. Being flexible and somewhat spontaneous allow him to change that position.

His opinion does sway some and he is clearly not completely irrelevant. If the churches doctrine weren't so egregious, I might support his being consistent in promoting it. But since much of it is very egregious, I am glad to see him taking some positions that rile up the conservatives within his hierarchy.

[gcomeau]

61. One could be excused..

...for reading you saying one post ago that you don't see a lot of harm in what he's done as you arguing that you, well, don't see a lot of harm in what he's done.

We are discussing his speaking spontaneously and sometimes inconsistently. I would like to see him walk his position on corporal punishment back.

And my point had been that is he had started out with a consistent position before opening his mouth there would be no need for walk-back.

Again, an "oopsie... just shot my mouth off and didn't really think that one through" is a perfectly fine thing in average Joe on the street, less fine in claimed infallible leader of massive religious congregation.

[cbayer]

62. Well, I think we can just agree to disagree.

I've read enough of your posts about him to feel pretty confident that you aren't going to be particularly happy with anything he does. You think he's better at PR than his predecessor and that's it. Part of the PR is his spontaneousness and lack of rigidity.

I'm hopeful but not at all confident that he may institute some very badly needed change and am going to give him a chance to do that. I'm prepared to be disappointed, but I'm not going to totally dismiss him at this point.

It's been nice talking to you.

[gcomeau]

63. Or you could just try defending your position for once.

If you don't think telling hundreds of millions of people that look to you as the supreme religious authority in their lives that beating their kids is ok in a moment of "spontaneity" is particularly harmful lay out an argument where my outline of why it's clearly significantly harmful went wrong.


Or if you do think it's harmful then explain why it's LESS harmful than if he had watched his mouth in the first place and maintained a consistent and well thought out position on a somewhat important topic, so he didn't say it. Detail the manner in which the harm of him doing that would have exceeded the harm actually done by being Mr Spontaneous.


Do something besides repeating that it's just so nice that he's spontaneous and makes some conservatives upset once in a while.

[Brettongarcia]

64. likely he weakens infallibility somewhat

If not the formal doctrine, then the common misperception of a pope, as never erring at any timr

[ann---]

5. I think he means what

the Catholic Church has always taught. Have children but use approved methods of birth control. What is so hard about that?
Real Catholics know what he is talking about.

And - about that "assumed" endorsement of spanking - you know what "assuming" does.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. "Have children but use approved methods of birth control"

the only RCC approved method of birth control is "natural family planning", which is not birth control, it is a sick joke.

[rug]

12. It's a good thing, then, you're not Catholic.

[Curmudgeoness]

35. Are you really saying

that you believe that "natural family planning" is an acceptable method of family planning? With all the medical and scientific evidence that it does not work, do you believe the Pope above all the others?

[rug]

36. I am "really" saying what I typed.

Warren posts one of his usual the-RCC-is-all-fucked-up posts and I noted it's a good thing he in particular doesn't belong to it.

Then, as usual, one of his cohorts steps in attempting to tell me what I "really" said. This time it's you.

[Curmudgeoness]

38. Now I belong to a gang.

Cool. I will I was so popular.

I am sorry that I have to guess what you are really saying. You never come right out and say anything directly so we are all left to guess. I will admit, I still don't know what you meant.

[rug]

39. Do you now?

All you have to do is read the post to see what I said. I can't be responsible for whatever sinister machinations you think are going on or whatever bullshit people feed you about what I say. Echo chambers tend to impair cognition.

[Curmudgeoness]

40. You seem to be accusing me of deliberately stalking you

or being sent here to bother you. I don't know where you get that notion, but stop it.

[rug]

41. No, my objection is trying to restate what I said.

It's a common enough practice in here. If I offended you beyond that, I apologize.

[ann---]

19. Well, that's your opinion

but it is the teaching of that Church. If you're not Catholic, you don't have to worry about
it or what the Pope says about having children.

[Lordquinton]

42. "If you're not Catholic, you don't have to worry about"

What the pope says about childbirth affects many non-catholic women, like how they are buying up hospitals up all over the west coast and stopping abortions, that affects non-Catholics everywhere.

So yes, we do have to worry about what the pope says about having children.

I guess only real non-Catholics would understand that

[ann---]

46. Non-Catholics

do NOT have to worry about the Church's stance on "birth-control." I said nothing about
abortion or anything else.

[Humanist_Activist]

51. Yes we do, many insurance plans run by Catholics, for example, covering, for example...

non-Catholics employed at Catholic universities or hospitals, continue to refuse to cover birth control. Are you saying the church's stance has no effect on this, nor the resulting lawsuits?

ON EDIT: Not to mention these same hospitals and clinics in the universities may refuse EC to rape victims who request it.

The Catholic Church is a HUGE organization and your argument would only have wait if they left kept to themselves, but they don't, instead their Dioceses fund "Pro-Life" efforts to change laws, the National Organization for Marriage, campaigns to limit access to birth control, etc. These effect all citizens, not just Catholics.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. I'm pretty sure massive over population of the planet is a problem that affects non catholics.

So the "fuck off and mind your own business attitude" is pretty much a load of crap.

[napi21]

26. It's abstinance and the Rhythm method. At least that's what I was taught.

They object to anything that interferes with the natural body process, like preventing an egg from implanting in the uterine wall, or men having a snip.

[merrily]

27. Using those methods, my father in law's mom had 14 kids.

[ann---]

47. There are much

more accurate ways to practice this method today.

[merrily]

48. Maybe, but there must be some reason so many faithful prefer other kinds of contraception.

Besides, even planned abstinence and rhythm are only for people married to each other. No one else is even supposed to be having sex, which we know to be outside the realm of current reality.

Thing is, I've read the bible cover to cover several times. I don't see a biblical basis for bans on contraception and bans on masturbation. If an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God actually wanted to ensure any of this, he sure had the power to do so. I think it's a classic case of patriarchal control freaks blaming their own control freakiness on God. But, that's my opinion. Yours obviously differs and I respect yours for you. I would not dream of trying to get laws passed that require you to use contraception, or marry anyone or sleep with anyone in violation of your beliefs. I sure wish religions would stop trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us by getting secular laws passed, though.

[ann---]

49. True, and I'm

not saying they don't have the right to choose whatever method they feel is necessary,
whether it is "sinful" to them or not.

I was just commenting on what the Pope's message.

[Warpy]

31. Catholics call the "rhythm method"

"rhythm and blues" since it usually results in unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. This is why most Catholics in the US (and even elsewhere) use reliable birth control methods the church doesn't approve of because they know a celibate old man simply does not know what he's talking about.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. I see the usual deflections and bullshit have sprouted.

Here are the facts about NFP:

Of 100 couples each year who use natural family planning methods up to 25 may
become pregnant.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/pdfs/natural-family-planning-fact-sheet.pdf

HHS is an obviously biased rabidly anti-catholic source.


How effective is it in preventing pregnancy?
Natural family planning is not as effective as most other methods of birth control. One in four women who use this method become pregnant.

http://www.acog.org/-/media/For-Patients/faq024.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20150216T1353410592

Another horrid anti-catholic organization, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Besides, who you gonna believe, the pope or these clowns?

[Lordquinton]

23. Ah, the no true Scotsman argument

Haven't heard that in such a long time, like a whole hour at least.

[cbayer]

24. In what way is this a NTS argument?

[Lordquinton]

28. "Real Catholics know what he is talking about. "

Like literally the dictionary entry for NTS in the post.

[cbayer]

29. Er, no. That's not NTS at all.

NTS is when someone attempts to distance themselves from someone with whom they share a label by claiming that the other person is not actually a member of the group.

She's just saying that catholics understand this and non-catholics don't.

She is not saying that people that don't understand this but claim to be catholic aren't true catholics. That's an interpretation that you have made and that would be an example of NTS.

[Lordquinton]

34. No, you are factually wrong here

She said, in an exact quote "Real Catholics know what he is talking about." she is saying that the people who don't interpret the messages her way aren't real Catholics, which is the text book dictionary example of the fallacy in action.

[cbayer]

37. Wrong, this is only your interpretation.

But you can keep pounding it.

Again, if she had said that there are catholics who interpret it differently and they are not true catholics, you would be right.

But she didn't say that at all. She excluded no one from that group but non-catholics.

Real catholics include all catholics.

I'm not going to try to explain this to you any further. You chomped down on a way to attack what she was saying and you are not going to let go of that bone.

[Lordquinton]

43. Now you are NTSing it

"Real catholics include all catholics."

Even the Catholics that don't share her interpretation?

[cbayer]

45. Recently Amanda Marcotte wrote an article that was posted in the AA group.

A member stated emphatically that she was not an atheist.

That is a classic NTS fallacy. If you are not familiar with her, Amanda Marcotte is a widely read activist atheist blogger, but the other member didn't like what she had to say.

Classic.

[Goblinmonger]

44. "Real Catholics know what he is talking about."

There's no "interpretation" needed. If she was only trying to exclude non-catholics, why the word "real"?

[Cartoonist]

13. What he says - what he does

What he says is for the gullible, it's what he does that matters. Or what he doesn't do, like make any change to the centuries old prejudice that is intrinsic to the RCC.

As for those new Cardinals, it makes no difference where they are from, it's how they think that matters. Please link to an article that describes their opinions on accepted doctrine. How many of them want to accept gays, birth control, and an end to pederasty?

[cbayer]

14. If any of them support continuation of pederasty, I'm pretty sure they

wouldn't be there.

As for GLBT equality and birth control, they are unlikely to stray from current doctrine in public.

[Cartoonist]

15. I mean zero tolerance

If none of them are for changes in Catholic doctrine, then I don't see anything worthwhile in these new Cardinals. Just more same old. I will wait and see before I condemn or not. I find those that are getting all giddy to be rather immature.

[cbayer]

16. The pope has already instituted a zero tolerance policy.

You already indicated that you have no knowledge of them or their positions on things, so not seeing anything worthwhile is not surprising.

Perhaps you should do your own research before you judge them and say it's just more of the same old.

Who's getting giddy?

[skepticscott]

17. A "zero-tolerance" policy is nothing but a media show

Only a zero-tolerance practice means anything.

If the Vatican were actually serious about "zero-tolerance", they wouldn't still be sheltering Bernard Law from the authorities, and they would release every known detail of his activities in covering up and abetting the sexual abuse of children by priests to those same authorities.

[Cartoonist]

18. As I said

It's one thing to say you are zero tolerance, and another to actually expell the guilty priests. I haven't read of any such mass exodus.

As for giddiness, your posts sound like it. I guess I'm wrong.

[kwassa]

20. The Pope personally initiated an investigation of a Spanish priest

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/world/europe/in-spanish-abuse-scandal-a-more-open-vatican.html?_r=0

There, Mr. Ramírez, now 25 and still a Catholic, says he was repeatedly abused by Father Martínez or made to watch him and others, including several priests, have sex over three years, starting in 2004 when he was 14. The priests deny the accusations, and a lawyer representing them called the charges “invented.”

Nevertheless, the case, which includes allegations of a sex ring and a cover-up involving as many as 10 priests — accusations supported by one other plaintiff as well as by several witnesses — has become one of the most serious sexual abuse scandals to emerge under Pope Francis.

....................................................................

Though the Vatican’s record remains mixed in following up on the numerous sexual abuse cases that precede this one, Mr. Ramírez wrote the pope about his claims last August, he said. Just days later, the pope called him, encouraging him to pursue his complaints, and then personally ordered an investigation into the case, demanding complete transparency.

“I told him, ‘Go to the bishop tomorrow,’ and then I wrote to the bishop and told him to start an investigation,” the pope told a Spanish reporter in November on his plane from Strasbourg, France, where he had addressed the European Parliament.

“I received this news with great pain, very great pain,” the pope said, “but the truth is the truth and we should not hide it.”

[Cartoonist]

21. Mixed is not zero

Though the Vatican’s record remains mixed in following up on the numerous sexual abuse cases that precede this one

[cbayer]

22. There have actually been some significant actions, but no mass exodus.

I believe the zero tolerance policy is being taken very seriously.

Since I have posted nothing about the cardinals that would indicate anything other than some calm interest, I think your assessment of me being giddy and immature is really uncalled for.

[Cartoonist]

25. see post 3

giddy is as giddy does. I interpret it that way.

[cbayer]

30. "[The new cardinal selections] have the potential of changing things up."

Not giddy and not immature, but not at all surprising that you would interpret it that way.

OTOH, talking about trying to keep yourself from barfing because you didn't like what you just read is generally seen in adolescent boys.

[Cartoonist]

32. adults barf too

[hrmjustin]

33. I will admit to be disappointed but I am still hopeful.