- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
VATICAN CITY, April 21 (Reuters) - Pope Francis, the first Latin American leader of the Roman Catholic Church, has died, the Vatican said in a video statement on Monday, ending an often turbulent reign marked by division and tension as he sought to overhaul the hidebound institution. He was 88, and had recently survived a serious bout of double pneumonia.
“Dear brothers and sisters, it is with profound sadness I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis,” Cardinal Kevin Farrell announced on the Vatican’s TV channel.
“At 7:35 this morning the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.”
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope on March 13, 2013, surprising many Church watchers who had seen the Argentine cleric, known for his concern for the poor, as an outsider.
He sought to project simplicity into the grand role and never took possession of the ornate papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace used by his predecessors, saying he preferred to live in a community setting for his “psychological health”.
He inherited a Church that was under attack over a child sex abuse scandal and torn by infighting in the Vatican bureaucracy, and was elected with a clear mandate to restore order.
But as his papacy progressed, he faced fierce criticism from conservatives, who accused him of trashing cherished traditions. He also drew the ire of progressives, who felt he should have done much more to reshape the 2,000-year-old Church.
While he struggled with internal dissent, Francis became a global superstar, drawing huge crowds on his many foreign travels as he tirelessly promoted interfaith dialogue and peace, taking the side of the marginalised, such as migrants.
Unique in modern times, there were two men wearing white in the Vatican for much of Francis’ rule, with his predecessor Benedict opting to continue to live in the Holy See after his shock resignation in 2013 had opened the way for a new pontiff.
Benedict, a hero of the conservative cause, died in December 2022, finally leaving Francis alone on the papal stage.
Francis appointed nearly 80% of the cardinal electors who will choose the next pope correct as of February 2025, increasing the possibility that his successor will continue his progressive policies, despite the strong pushback from traditionalists.
How do you think calling the recently deceased pope a pedophile would go over with the vast majority of Catholics? This is like the edgy “how old was Aisha when Mohammed married her?” digs, just reformulated for a context where anti-Christian sentiment is acceptable.
Only a few of those comments say, “I’m trans and this is my trauma” but I think a forum of communists should be wary of accepting bigotry so long as it is done by people of a given identity. For example, have you ever met a liberal justifying war crimes by shared identity? Hell, I’ve met self-described communists in communist parties that did that. Thankfully with the latter it blew back on them.
While this is a confused forum that selectively takes itself seriously, I do think it is a good idea to consistently consider the approach you’d want to take when doing irl organizing. If you had an irl audience, would you include the “the Pope is a pedophilr” dig? Would it actually be funny? Would you be self-conscious about alienating members or prospective members? You don’t have to be a Very Serious Communist all of the time, but I do think flippant dismissals and disrespect blesd into offline socialization. And the replies here are far from kind to the parent, who is sharing a concern about irl organizing because they had the impression this was a communist space by people trying to build communism and this thread is discordant with that.
It is not bigoted to call Francis out for his sanctioning of the pedophile cover ups, and his refusal to even allow the punishment of known child abusers (Nevermind punishing them himself, he sanctioned the intervention on their behalf to get them out of punishment). If a Christian is offended by someone pointing out that Francis didn’t do anything to end the church’s official doctrine of covering up sex crimes on behalf of its members, then quite frankly fuck that Christian, but fuck that Christian in particular. Most people, I suspect most catholics too, don’t think the pope should cover up pedophilia, and it is something over which the papacy and Francis himself has been criticised BY CATHOLICS, and pretending that isn’t the case is indicirectly accusing every Catholic of a crime of which they are not guilty.
What I actually referenced: calling the recently deceased pope a pedophile.
Did this deceased pope do the things I accuse him of, or did he not? Are the victims of systemic child abuse by the Catholic Church liars?
If you think the victims aren’t liars, then your objection here is irrelevant. Francis oversaw the systemic cover up of pedophilia, calling him a “pedopope” is just a statement of fact.
If you are calling the victims liars, then you can go fuck yourself.
By what logic does covering up for pedophiles make that person a pedophile? This logic is actually more strained than that of islamophobes that call Mohammed a pedophile, as Hadith is fairly clear on this among all tendencies. This is not consistent or culturally sensitive logic, and it is easy to see why parent saw echoes of New Atheist logic in this thread, as it’s really just about which religions are deserving of flippant dismissal and disrespect and which are not. New Atheists differ in that their logic was amplified by imperialism as islamophobia served a purpose to dehumanize the victims of imperial war. Bits and pieces merged with overt Western reactionaries who rolled it into their race hate.
But let me tell you, this is a bubble for Americans of a certain age, as sweeping anti-catholic sentiments and violence are with us today, they just don’t have obvious material impact in some cities. My Belfast comrades could tell you about it if you were interested, or you could get some of your own.
The widespread sex crimes were horrible, and I think a major reason it took decades to solve was that, instead of debating actual solutions, each side just weaponized it for its pet cause. Traditionalists blamed the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Conservatives blamed tolerance of homosexuality and lack of discipline. Progressives blamed celibacy, male-only priesthood, and opposition to abortion. With all these people foaming at the mouth while yelling at the others, the problem could not be solved.
It that context, I strongly suspect the claim “Francis didn’t do anything to end the church’s official doctrine of covering up sex crimes on behalf of its members” is propaganda. What I know is that there was a decades-old rule that the Church would not share evidence with the State, arguing that was necessary to protect the privacy of the victim and the accused, so the victim had to give a second testimony before the State. But Francis abolished that rule, did he not? And don’t most people who are not conservatives (conservatives believe in Vigano’s conspiracy theories) credit Pope Francis with alleviating the problem? Wikipedia, citing The Guardian and CNN, says “Pope Francis made sweeping changes that allow for greater transparency”. Yes, Guardian and CNN are capitalist, but that only makes them suspect for certain subjects (such as actually existing socialist states). I have never seen anyone accuse The Guardian and CNN of pro-Catholic bias.
So you can plausibly argue that Pope Francis was too slow, but please check your sources and do not grossly inflate his actual errors.
How is calling the Pope a pedophile anti-Christian? He willingly helped cover up known child sex abusers in the Church so he should be rightfully called out for it.
This is like saying calling Netanyahu a genocidal fascist is anti-Semitic and wouldn’t go down well with the majority of Jews. And you can be sure as hell that we will call him that when he kicks the bucket. Pure tone policing that achieves nothing.
How is calling Mohammad a pedophile islamophobic? His marriage to Aisha is indisputable and far more direct than being (an unstated) part if an institutional cover-up. But we can understand that this is culturally insensitive, counter-productive in many contexts, and is used to feed imperialist/fascist violence.
Re: Netanyahu, I’m not sure if that statistic would even be true, but he is not a religious figure at the top of the chain. There is no route to equating an attack on Netanyahu with an attack on Judaism and an insult to all Jews outside of either or both the accuser and reacting parties being actually antisemitic. Which does actually happen, of course - many Zionists, including Jewish ones, make (usually implicitly) antisemitic remarks.
It is true that just because many people are offended, it doesn’t mean the claim is false or non-strategic. But what I’m trying to draw attention to is basic cultural sensitivity and treating each other like comrades, which is not how parent is - or now I am - being treated.
What level of insensitivity to catholics is the appropriate line for Hexbear? Perhaps we should add it to the sidebar.
I am hopeful that at least one person will try to be less edgy and escalatory as a result of this thread.
You talk of mentioning Mohammad’s child marriage being counter-productive in many contexts, but that is exactly what you are doing. No one brought this comparison up except you, a comparison that makes no sense as it occurred two millennium ago in a vastly different society with vastly different social norms to what is accepted by the vast majority of modern society today. Is Mohammad alive today actively running cover for pedophilia while being the head of a massive theocratic institution with the power to sway hundreds of millions? No. But the Pope is (or was, until yesterday).
He is, however, a world leader with massive sway in Western politics, and you’d have to be living under a rock to not see how he constantly equivalates his actions and the actions of the Zionist entity with Judaism.
Just as I’m sure you agree that Netanyahu’s actions should not be associated with Judaism, the Pope’s actions on institutional cover-up of pedophilia should not be associated with Christianity. So why do you think it is anti-Christian to call this out?
So, your idea of treating each other like comrades is ignoring the reactionary ideas and institutional corruption of a present-day theocratic leader and acting like he’s a man of the people? How incredibly un-Marxist of you.
How about showing some sensitivity for the Catholic children who were abused by the Church that the Pope was running cover for?
How about showing some sensitivity for all the LGBT+ people (some of which are on this forum) who were discriminated against by the Church?
It is absolutely childish to say that the material harm that the Church does to people is the same as your feelings being hurt because people are criticizing your geriatric pedo religious leader after he just passed away. It’s the same bullshit conservative Britbong Protestants pulled when Queen Elizabeth II died because it was too “culturally insensitive” to call her out for being a racist imperialist that impoverishes her people.
When is the best time to say this then? I already know the answer of course, but I hope you get the point I’m trying to make.
Calling the Catholic Church an organization actively protecting pedophiles in the modern day is the same as Aisha baiting? Ok lmao
Actually it was calling the recently deceased Pope a pedophile.
Sorry if anyone conflated he who covers for pedophiles with pedophiles and that hurt your feelings, I still don’t see the comparison.
You don’t see the comparison between flippantly calling major religious figures pedophiles? What position does the pope hold in Catholicism, religiously?
And please do your best to be kind and respectful to comrades. The “hurt your feelings” sarcasm is dishonest and uncalled for.
One was actively protecting pedophiles this decade (flippantly?), one is from over a thousand years ago. I think the comparison breaks down. I also think you’re tone policing people who are condemned to eternal damnation by the logic of Catholicism and should step off
How so? What position does the pope hold in Catholicism?
And arranged marriages between adults and children still happen today among a variety of religious and ethnic backgrounds. Among some of those that are muslim, they cite Mohammed and Aisha. This is something you will personally know about if you organize in diverse communities, there will be an uncle from [country] with a 13 year old wife and they are not excluded from community. It is a modern concern, not simply an artifact of “older” times. And yet I don’t go around calling Mohammed a pedophile. I understand the intent of the statement, the impact it has, and that it would cut me off from that community, i.e. it would be antisocial.
This would also apply to most forms of Islam and many other religious and social tendencies. This is not a rational way of thinking about this topic and does not address what I said, but it is trying to emotionally escalate, which is part of the tendency that I am mildly criticizing from this position: be kind and respectful to your comrades and try to understand them.
Good luck organizing the pedophiles, your opinions are noted “comrade”
Please don’t call entire BIPOC immigrant communities pedophiles.
Please. Terrarium was speaking of foreign cultures, like some Muslim cultures, where some men do indeed marry teenage girls. One thing is taking exception to that practice, another is taking a jab at Muhammad (which was his analogy). The latter alienates not only the husbands of teenagers, but alienates that entire culture, and even Muslims from cultures that don’t have this practice.
Hi. I believe you misrepresented the comrade said. Please see my other reply:
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7632787/6256137
Even people who make terrible errors or crimes should only be accused of what they actually did. We should know this better than anyone. Stalin purges, in a terribly difficult context where the whole world attacked the USSR, including real saboteurs and traitors, did kill some 800 thousand (according to Ben Norton in The Grayzone), which is indeed horrible, yet we take great exception with right-wing fanatics who say that Stalin was equivalent to Hitler and killed 12 million “victims of communism” because (they say) he was a power-hungry totalitarian paranoid maniac. Then the right wing fanatics reply that we are splitting hairs, covering up for Georgian Hitler, and that the “details” don’t matter.