Pope Leo XIV is facing backlash from a leading clergy abuse survivors group, which accuses him of repeatedly turning a blind eye to sexual abuse allegations.
I’ve seen a lot of people call this guy ‘progressive’ so far and I do not even remotely see it. He’s quoted as being anti-gay, anti-trans, thinks women being in church positions will cause more problems than they solve, put a pedophile up in a church and then is accused of refusing to investigate two other pedophiles. And he’s progressive how, exactly? Because he told off Trump and JD Vance? The absolute bare minimum to not be a horrible person?
True. However the default implication is progressive from the thing that came just before it, not something that came 300 years before it. This dude is obviously more progressive than like Pope Pius the Third or something but it’s outright regressive in comparison to Francis. Also, he’s accused of protecting pedophiles on a number of occasions. I feel like that is kind of like a neutron bomb when it comes to any claim that they’re progressive or a good person.
Eh, idk. Francis was caught multiple times in closed-door meetings using the f-slur. However relatively progressive you may present yourself to the world, I just don’t think you become head of one of the largest, oldest religious organizations in the world by being truly progressive.
An institution like the catholic church doesn’t change overnight. It couldn’t or it would lose its legitimacy and therefore its followers. Many US catholics have already started to push back. Some things take time. Frankly the pope being at least “comfortable” with gays probably did more to help change some minds than any amount of protesting has.
That said - protecting pedos was and is horrific. it’s not “progressive” one way or the other to condemn that.
My whole point is that this dude isn’t progressive but, if anything, regressive. You then talk about how progress is needed for the church but then how the progress from Francis was too much?
Also doesn’t address, remotely, the point that calling this Pope progressive is either a lie or a delusion, depending on how much you believe it.
My whole point is that this dude isn’t progressive but, if anything, regressive.
Your whole point is wrong. That’s why you’re confused.
Compared to the “conservative wing” of the Catholic church he’s quite progressive. That’s why I said “it’s relative”. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to be smoking a joint at a pride parade while distributing condoms.
You then talk about how progress is needed for the church but then how the progress from Francis was too much?
You’re very “black and white” with your reasoning. You will find it hard to understand with that attitude. For some conservatives in the Catholic church it was definitely “too much”. But for others it was not. And there will be some in the middle who will be potentially swayed. For yet others it will be a welcome recognition of their point of view. What did you expect?
People are more easily convinced of a point of view by people they know and trust. If you’re a middle-of-the-road Catholic who now sees The Pope blessing homosexuals then maybe you start to accept the idea. “Guess it’s not so bad if the Pope even does it.” To the Fox News I-went-to-Sunday-school-once-as-a-kid-and-now-I’m-Catholic crowd that will be a bridge too far.
Progressive implies in comparison to what came before. This dude is not progressive in what comes from before. It is regressive behavior. The church took 3 steps forward and 2 back. This is called regression.
You’re very “black and white” with your reasoning.
No, I’m being forward and backward with my reasoning.
I’m not continuing this conversation. We’re going in circles. I am not going to call a dude who protected pedophiles ‘progressive’, full stop. Nor will I really respect anyone who does.
Progressive implies in comparison to what came before. This dude is not progressive in what comes from before. It is regressive behavior. The church took 3 steps forward and 2 back. This is called regression.
You’re using your definition of “progressive” and applying it to the way other people are using the same word though. That’s not how communication works. It’s like you’re trying to misunderstand.
The guys who would go back to pre-Vatican II Catholic Church are some weird fucks. They want the return to the mass in Latin and probably want to conduct inquisition-style torture on anybody not comforming to their weirdo dogma.
I don’t really feel very good about judging people subjectively based on their beliefs or culture. Like I get it, but I hate giving people excuses for being objectively garbage and bad for society.
And like it’s the pope and he’s at best a pedophile enabler so fuck him.
I heard that he went with the name Leo because Leo 13 was very pro union, pro labor, pro worker. Put that up with being a homophobic, misogynistic, diddler-protector and he is still quite progressive as compared to the current Overton window that’s representing US politics.
From what I’ve read, he does hold some progressive opinions, such as on immigration. He also holds some conservative opinions, like homosexuality being bad. I don’t think it’s fair to call him either. However, from what I’ve heard he is about as “progressive” as we could have hoped for from this process this time. I think hoping for anything good from something like Catholicism is foolish. The best you can normally hope for is that they just don’t get in the way.
I’m guessing you’ve seen the Reddit threads about him? The commenters display the exact behavior you describe lol.
Somewhat related: It’s funny, I came to Lemmy because of the Reddit API fiasco, but stayed because I prefer the culture here. Sometimes I’ll visit Reddit (during major news stories, or for niche topics) and man, does it feel so off lol
I’ve seen a lot of people call this guy ‘progressive’ so far and I do not even remotely see it. He’s quoted as being anti-gay, anti-trans, thinks women being in church positions will cause more problems than they solve, put a pedophile up in a church and then is accused of refusing to investigate two other pedophiles. And he’s progressive how, exactly? Because he told off Trump and JD Vance? The absolute bare minimum to not be a horrible person?
“progressive” is a relative term.
True. However the default implication is progressive from the thing that came just before it, not something that came 300 years before it. This dude is obviously more progressive than like Pope Pius the Third or something but it’s outright regressive in comparison to Francis. Also, he’s accused of protecting pedophiles on a number of occasions. I feel like that is kind of like a neutron bomb when it comes to any claim that they’re progressive or a good person.
Eh, idk. Francis was caught multiple times in closed-door meetings using the f-slur. However relatively progressive you may present yourself to the world, I just don’t think you become head of one of the largest, oldest religious organizations in the world by being truly progressive.
An institution like the catholic church doesn’t change overnight. It couldn’t or it would lose its legitimacy and therefore its followers. Many US catholics have already started to push back. Some things take time. Frankly the pope being at least “comfortable” with gays probably did more to help change some minds than any amount of protesting has.
That said - protecting pedos was and is horrific. it’s not “progressive” one way or the other to condemn that.
Your comment is confusing the hell out of me.
My whole point is that this dude isn’t progressive but, if anything, regressive. You then talk about how progress is needed for the church but then how the progress from Francis was too much?
Also doesn’t address, remotely, the point that calling this Pope progressive is either a lie or a delusion, depending on how much you believe it.
Your whole point is wrong. That’s why you’re confused.
Compared to the “conservative wing” of the Catholic church he’s quite progressive. That’s why I said “it’s relative”. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to be smoking a joint at a pride parade while distributing condoms.
You’re very “black and white” with your reasoning. You will find it hard to understand with that attitude. For some conservatives in the Catholic church it was definitely “too much”. But for others it was not. And there will be some in the middle who will be potentially swayed. For yet others it will be a welcome recognition of their point of view. What did you expect?
People are more easily convinced of a point of view by people they know and trust. If you’re a middle-of-the-road Catholic who now sees The Pope blessing homosexuals then maybe you start to accept the idea. “Guess it’s not so bad if the Pope even does it.” To the Fox News I-went-to-Sunday-school-once-as-a-kid-and-now-I’m-Catholic crowd that will be a bridge too far.
The pope leads the church - but no man rules alone.
Bro, we literally just had this conversation.
Progressive implies in comparison to what came before. This dude is not progressive in what comes from before. It is regressive behavior. The church took 3 steps forward and 2 back. This is called regression.
No, I’m being forward and backward with my reasoning.
I’m not continuing this conversation. We’re going in circles. I am not going to call a dude who protected pedophiles ‘progressive’, full stop. Nor will I really respect anyone who does.
You’re using your definition of “progressive” and applying it to the way other people are using the same word though. That’s not how communication works. It’s like you’re trying to misunderstand.
But Relative to what, he’s not progressive relative to his predecessor.
Relative to the conservative wing of Catholicism. They make being anti-gay and anti-abortion look pedestrian in comparison.
The guys who would go back to pre-Vatican II Catholic Church are some weird fucks. They want the return to the mass in Latin and probably want to conduct inquisition-style torture on anybody not comforming to their weirdo dogma.
Speaking as an ex-Catholic, can’t agree more
I don’t really feel very good about judging people subjectively based on their beliefs or culture. Like I get it, but I hate giving people excuses for being objectively garbage and bad for society.
And like it’s the pope and he’s at best a pedophile enabler so fuck him.
I heard that he went with the name Leo because Leo 13 was very pro union, pro labor, pro worker. Put that up with being a homophobic, misogynistic, diddler-protector and he is still quite progressive as compared to the current Overton window that’s representing US politics.
You should have seen the conservative candidate…
From what I’ve read, he does hold some progressive opinions, such as on immigration. He also holds some conservative opinions, like homosexuality being bad. I don’t think it’s fair to call him either. However, from what I’ve heard he is about as “progressive” as we could have hoped for from this process this time. I think hoping for anything good from something like Catholicism is foolish. The best you can normally hope for is that they just don’t get in the way.
I’m guessing you’ve seen the Reddit threads about him? The commenters display the exact behavior you describe lol.
Somewhat related: It’s funny, I came to Lemmy because of the Reddit API fiasco, but stayed because I prefer the culture here. Sometimes I’ll visit Reddit (during major news stories, or for niche topics) and man, does it feel so off lol
Amongst from personal friends. Queer friends. That blows my mind.
Progressive as in he does hate and pro-paedophilia with a smile, maybe?