FOR DEBATE AND DISCUSSION: These women say they had miscarriages. Now they're in jail for abortion.

[Sunstone]

So Francis probably could order the denial of communion to people who mistreat poor labourers - or who legalize mistreatment of poor labourers - but so far, he hasn't done this.

What do you suppose would be the likely political consequences to the Church of the Pope taking your advice? Do you think any 'interested parties' might seize on such an act in order to smear the Church as 'radical' or 'communist', and do you think the act would give their allegations credibility? Would there be any likely consequences to a sustained smear campaign against the Church in terms of the Church's overall influence on capitalists, CEOs, and politicians? Is denying communion a probable win situation for the Church?

Honestly, I have no answers. I'm not even really interested in the question (because it strikes me as too complex for discussion in this context). It's only that, if I were to genuinely look into the matter, I would at once get some sense or feeling that it was most likely more complex than it might look on paper.

He also has effective control of the assets of the Catholic Church, including the Vatican Bank, which he could use to weild economic influence for policy goals... but he doesn't do this.

I'm not familiar with the operations of the Vatican Bank. Could you be more specific please? I mean, specific relevant to your point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More lip-service, IMO. Maybe he means what he says, but he certainly isn't using all the power he has to address the issue.

For instance, in the past in some instances, communion has been refused to elected officials who vote to legalize abortion. The Catholic Church considers injustice to and defrauding of workers to be - along with abortion - a "sin that cries out to Heaven" that warrants an especially severe response.

So Francis probably could order the denial of communion to people who mistreat poor labourers - or who legalize mistreatment of poor labourers - but so far, he hasn't done this.

He also has effective control of the assets of the Catholic Church, including the Vatican Bank, which he could use to weild economic influence for policy goals... but he doesn't do this.

I suspect the Pope really only wears the crown and gives speeches after Francis has departed in so many ways--in speech--from traditional Catholicism, yet the organization itself doesn't seem to be moving along with the Pope. Maybe it is lip service, as you mention? Maybe Vatican politics play far deeper than what anyone realizes. (Maybe both and some more, I suspect)

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect the Pope really only wears the crown and gives speeches after Francis has departed in so many ways--in speech--from traditional Catholicism, yet the organization itself doesn't seem to be moving along with the Pope. Maybe it is lip service, as you mention? Maybe Vatican politics play far deeper than what anyone realizes. (Maybe both and some more, I suspect)

I think you're right about the "organization" at the upper levels likely to have a lot of senior officials opposed to the Pope. He's likely to have some allies, but old men tend to be set in their ways.

Some of the Pope's speeches are likely to be efforts to bring pressure on that Old Guard by bypassing them in order to appeal to the masses, so to speak. Things are typically quite complicated in those situations. As the new leader, you might want to fire Jones, but Jones is Smith's best friend, and Smith is your ally. You can't fire the bad apples because the bad apples are buddies with the good apples.

The same goes for policies. You want to do X, but X is opposed by both Jones and Smith. If you do X anyway, you will lose Smith as an ally and strengthen Jones. Stuff like that is routine. So you end up making speeches hoping that both Jones' and Smith's followers will listen and bring pressure on them to give a little on X. You don't like it, but sometimes that's all you can do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some of the Pope's speeches are likely to be efforts to bring pressure on that Old Guard by bypassing them in order to appeal to the masses, so to speak. Things are typically quite complicated in those situations. As the new leader, you might want to fire Jones, but Jones is Smith's best friend, and Smith is your ally. You can't fire the bad apples because the bad apples are buddies with the good apples. Stuff like that is routine.

That is an interesting point. Machiavelli wrote of church positions in relation to various kings, but the question of how these same sort of political relations must play out in the Vatican, I'm not aware of anything about it's an organization of humans, and you don't get top spot or the surrounding highspots without playing politics. Could it be Francis is really only a PR puppet?

 

[Sunstone]

That is an interesting point. Machiavelli wrote of church positions in relation to various kings, but the question of how these same sort of political relations must play out in the Vatican, I'm not aware of anything about it's an organization of humans, and you don't get top spot or the surrounding highspots without playing politics. Could it be Francis is really only a PR puppet?

I don't know a lot about Francis other than that he was a bishop and an outspoken social and political critic in Argentina at a time and place when priests could be made to disappear for being outspoken critics of the local elites. To think of him as faking his views for this or that nefarious reason is to refuse to recognize that he has put himself at risk to express them. After all, he wasn't always a bishop, and therefore a little less touchable. Hence, I suppose he does not see himself as a mere figurehead. But again, he has an Old Guard to fight.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To think of him as faking his views for this or that nefarious reason is to refuse to recognize that he has put himself at risk to express them.

I would be surprised if he is faking it. But in so many ways he vocalizes a departure from things the organization seems to not really be acting on. For this reason I wonder if he may have been elected to put a pro-social and inviting face on the Church, to inprove their image in the public light without doing much to address the reasons they have garnered such negativity in the first place.

 

[Sunstone]

I would be surprised if he is faking it. But in so many ways he vocalizes a departure from things the organization seems to not really be acting on. For this reason I wonder if he may have been elected to put a pro-social and inviting face on the Church, to inprove their image in the public light without doing much to address the reasons they have garnered such negativity in the first place.

Call me 'cynical' if you must, but I would not be surprised if at least a few of the cardinals who voted for him weren't thinking similar thoughts. Hard to say how much of a factor that might have been, how many cardinals were thinking that way, but it is plausible that something along those lines was a factor in the decisions of at least some cardinals. Maybe in the form of "We need a new face, and besides, we can always hamstring him on the bureaucratic level if he gets out of hand." But I'm not a mind-reader in real life. I only play one on the internet.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Call me 'cynical' if you must, but I would not be surprised if at least a few of the cardinals who voted for him weren't thinking similar thoughts. Hard to say how much of a factor that might have been, how many cardinals were thinking that way, but it is plausible that something along those lines was a factor in the decisions of at least some cardinals. Maybe in the form of "We need a new face, and besides, we can always hamstring him on the bureaucratic level if he gets out of hand." But I'm not a mind-reader in real life. I only play one on the internet.

I'm cynical enough to not call it mind reading but just looking at what is there. A Pope, who by all Catholic and Popely standards is radical in some issues, an institution that really just seems to let the leader speak while they continue to do their own thing. Francis says arms manufacturers can't be Christian, says a atheist with a good conscience can go to Heaven, and he has a reputation for actually caring for the poor, but the Vatican doesn't really seem to have changed. It's still greedy. It's still corrupt. It still spreads dangerous information and doesn't necessarily associate with the best people. As far as it looks to me, Francis could condemn Hitler all he wants, the Vatican would still welcome Hitler with open arms.

 

[stvdv]

Just my cents. I am almost always wrong about nearly everything.

Yet, having said that, I believe this is clearly on the Pope's shoulders

I even once (or twice) wrote an email to the Pope, reminding Him of these things.

 

[stvdv]

‘Seven months pregnant, Manuela, a mother of two, said she miscarried at her modest home in rural El Salvador. But the police, and a judge, didn't believe her. They charged and convicted her for aggravated homicide, sentencing her to 30 years in prison.

But Manuela only served two of those years. In 2010, she died alone in a hospital of Hodgkin's lymphoma, a disease her lawyers say caused her to miscarry.

What a horror story. Justice failed again.

More than 140 women have been charged under El Salvador's total ban on abortion since 1998, incarcerated for up to 35 years in some of the world's most notorious prisons...

And again, and again.....and again.

...For more than 20 years, El Salvador — a tiny Central American country struggling with brutal gang violence and a record-high homicide rate — has completely banned abortion, including in situations when the procedure could save the patient's life. The total ban was lobbied for by the Roman Catholic Church, an institution that became particularly powerful in the country after its devastating civil war...’

Read more here: These women say they had miscarriages. Now they're in jail for abortion.

Seems "Hell on Earth", created by "Human Devils on Earth" IMHO.