King of Contradictions

It seems that the Pope is looking to earn himself a title similar to one commonly ascribe to Jesus. Instead of the "King of Kings" Francis is vying for the "King of Contradictions." His stance on cracking down on frivolous pampered clergy really does seem to be just a matter of PR window dressing. The Religious News Service headlines for February 10th unintentionally provided an excellent visual reference:

Notice the juxtaposition of "Ousted 'Bling Bishop' makes soft landing in Vatican" with "Pope Francis faces a big week in his effort to reform the Vatican." Umm, what reform? The German Bishop was supposedly fired for his flagrant misuse and abuse of funds. Problem with that line s that he wasn't actually fired. Just so we are clear about the message I will quote a National Catholic Reporter piece from March 2014.

"Pope Francis on Tuesday effectively fired a German bishop who had attracted controversy for extraordinary expenses on a new diocesan center, sending a signal that he is willing to oust bishops who do not align with his vision of a 'poor church for the poor.'"

What really occured was that the Pope set him aside while a new cushier position could be created for this corrupt asshole. According to the "Ousted..." piece shown above, "The post was created for Tebartz-van Elst and has the hallmarks of a “make-work” job because the Vatican couldn’t figure out what else to do with the prelate." What's wrong with doing what they said they'd do: fire his greedy ass.

This, by the way, is just another example of Francis contradiction. Another recent one includes his statements like "Pope Francis Says Catholics Don't Need To Breed 'Like Rabbits'" being quickly followed by "Couples Who Choose Not To Have Children Are 'Selfish,' Pope Says" I have pointed it out before and I'll keep pointing it out that this Pope is only set apart from his predecessors in style. When it comes to substance he really is indistinguishable from other popes.



An "ordinary" Jesus?

It is true that people find it easier to relate to those individuals who more like them rather than less like them. That does seem to be a part of human nature. So, for marketing/public relations purposes much of what Kevin Emmert writes about in "You Need a More Ordinary Jesus" does make sense. However, it only makes sense in that specific context.

It is rather entertaining that this piece appears on Christianity Today's website. Promoting Jesus as a sort of every-man is not all that new. It is very problematic from a philosophical and theological perspective. This is what amuses me so much. If you think about it critically for more than a minute the innate contradiction of this approach should be blatantly obvious. To virtually any Christian the most import aspect and message of the Jesus figure is the resurrection. Coming back from the dead is about as far from ordinary as you can get. And, through your death and resurrection "saving" all humanity is an equally extraordinary feat.

Accepting all the supernatural elements infused in the Jesus figure is rather preposterous but it is equally foolish to try to trick yourself into believing that stripping out all those elements somehow makes the reputed messiah more palatable to current and/or potential followers. How? Who really expects the guy next-door to be a savior of all humankind? If you are looking for a messiah wouldn't you want a bigger-than-life figure to serve that function?

Sorry Mr. Emmert but a "more ordinary Jesus" is just as alien and untenable as a fully supernatural one.

Synod Silliness

It is nice to see that at least a few people are paying more attention to details during the latest round of "Pope-a-palooza." Far too many are still being incredibly naive and delusional about the Synod Pope Francis has been heading. Many of the reports in the mainstream media have taken the minor step of pointing out that the document being talked about is "preliminary." Sadly, virtually none of the mainstream sources have acknowledge that it is at this point strictly a matter of rhetoric. A few sources have even confused this report as having actual substance. The subtitle to a Salon piece read "The Church issued a document indicating a profound shift in doctrine on civil marriage and homosexuality." It is not only misleading but blatantly false. The "document" in question is a draft and does not contain anything that will alter official doctrine or practices.

One of the most talked about phrases from the draft that relates to the church's views on homosexuals is about the “gifts and qualities to offer.” Few have really looked at what that really means. Many of the mainstream sources are still bending over backwards to make it seem like this is a major breakthrough for homosexual rights. They have used terms like "earth shaking" and "revolutionary." It isn't. Even if it is taken at face value, which there is little reason to do so, it is at best a very, very tiny step in the right direction. Again, there is nothing to indicate a change in doctrine or policy. There is nothing to bar the church from continuing to lobby against homosexual right on a variety of fronts (marriage, adoption, workplace, housing, etc.). Homosexuality is still viewed as a sin. Basically, it is the equivalent of the clergy smiling at homosexuals while explaining they are welcome to sit in the pews, donate to the church, serve as volunteers for the church, but that they will still be receiving a one way ticket to hell from the church.

I still don't see how the current Pope is that different from his predecessors. There isn't any reason to see this latest round of reporting as an intentional move to generate positive PR for the church after decades declining membership and increasing criticism.

Below is a short list of some of the more intersting pieces floating around about the synod.

At the Vatican, a Shift in Tone Toward Gays and Divorce (New York Times, 10/13/14)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/world/europe/vatican-signals-more-tolerance-toward-gays-and-remarriage.html

Vatican urges Catholics to recognize “gifts” same-sex couples have to offer (Salon, 10/13/14)
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/vatican_urges_catholics_to_recognize_gifts_same_sex_couples_have_to_offer/

A new welcome for gay Catholics in the church (CNN Belief Blog, 10/13/14)
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/10/13/a-new-welcome-for-gay-catholics-in-the-church/

Under conservative assault, Vatican backtracks on gay comments (CNN Belief Blog, 10/14/14)
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/10/14/under-conservative-assault-vatican-backtracks-on-gay-comments/

Never Mind, Catholic Church Will Probably Just Keeping Hating Gays Like Always (Wonkette, 10/14/14)
http://wonkette.com/563359/never-mind-catholic-church-will-probably-just-keeping-hating-gays-like-always

Everyone Keeps Falling for the Catholic Church's Good Cop/Bad Cop Routine (Slog, 10/14/14)
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/10/14/everyone-keeps-falling-for-the-catholic-churchs-good-copbad-cop-routine

Initial Report From Vatican on Families Is Criticized (New York Times, 10/16/14)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/world/europe/initial-report-from-vatican-on-families-is-criticized.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Decent intentions can still be arrogant and negative

I would emphasize "decent" since I can't completely tell what Nicole Fulgham's intentions are from the interview Jonathan Merritt conducted in "What Christian parents need to know about America’s schools" or from the video embedded in the piece. There are a few instances where it seems like her support for education is conditional on its ability to proselytize for Christianity.

Even if that is not the case I do have some concerns about Fulgham's approach. With or without implied, or worse overt, indoctrination she makes it clear that her message is geared toward Christians. This is disturbing. Does she think non-Christians don't care about their children or education in general? Her constant repetition of "Christian children" and "Christian parents" seems to be very arrogant, bigoted, and misguided. Everyone should be concerned about the well-being of children and of education. If this is the message she is trying to get a cross she is doing a shitty job. At times it does seem like she wants to exclude, even discourage, non-Christians from being involved.

Whether her intentions are good, at this point I'd give her the benefit of the doubt, the results are not likely to be so wonderful. I can't imagine that her manner of presenting issues and concerns won't automatically alienate most non-Christians. Sadly, I can easily see her doing more harm than good

Changing the debate, really?

Despite all the verbiage used by Sarah Bailey in her Religious News Service piece "Gay, Christian and … celibate: The changing face of the homosexuality debate" this whole mass of bullshit can be summed up in one word: suppression. Bullshit is also a pretty good encapsulation. A lot of people may agree that encouraging celibacy is more humane than most of the "ex-gay therapy" programs being used but that doesn't mean it is in itself humane or acceptable. It isn't. It certainly does not change the "debate".  It still amounts to a select group of theistic busy-bodies seeking to impose their ridiculous nonsense on others, in this case homosexuals. I fail to see how suppressing homosexuality among homosexuals is in any way a new approach to something that is not a problem and should not be a matter of debate. In the end this seems to be more about pretending that suppression and harassment of homosexuals isn't bigotry.

If they think that homosexuality is a problem then the solution is simple. They shouldn't participate in any sexual acts involving their own gender. What other consenting adults do in private is generally of no concern to anyone else. We have a variety of laws dealing with public sexual acts that apply to all preferences already. Problem solved. These assholes should mind their own fucking business.

Better PR Doesn't Equal a Revolution

I really didn't expect the mainstream media's love affair with Pope Francis to end just because the facts refute their favored view of him. However, I also didn't expect such a ridiculous piece to come from the BBC. Of all the mainstream outlets the BBC is usually one of the better ones. "Pope Francis gives Catholic Church gentle revolution" is chock full of bullshit. Most of the changes referenced are either completely imagined or exaggerated far beyond the superficial nature of them. The main piece of evidence that there has been any sort of revolution, gentle or otherwise, is that Francis is making the Church more palatable. People's perception of the Catholic Church has improved. Improvements in public relations does not qualify as a "revolution." The church has not actually changed. Not even a little.

Still Spinning Francis

This past week there was another round of disingenuous misleading wave of fawning over Pope Francis. I would preface this post with a clarifying statement of my own. I am not opposed to positive coverage of the Pope any more than I am oppose to the Pope actually reforming the Catholic Church's approach to non-believers. That said, it has yet to be demonstrated that the Pope is actually making any effort to improve relations with non-believers. The media coverage of an open letter Pope Francis published through the Italian news paper la Repubblica has been blatantly skewed to reinforce the preferred story line that this Pope is a reformer and is making a concerted effort to reach out to atheists.

There are two things virtually every outlet has either glossed over or outright ignored. First, the only way Francis' "outreach" can be characterized as "friendly" is by redefining the term itself. It would be nice if it were true but it can only be true if "friendly" means not being overtly hostile. I've read and re-read two separate translations (I have included links below) of the letter in question and fail to see its tone as friendly. I would describe it as being neutral at best.

The more important detail that has been spun to the point that it seems like it should have its own gravity is the purpose of the letter. Most have portrayed it as another example of Francis offering a gesture of acceptance and/or friendship. Actually, if you read it it is clearly a theological response to a previously published open letter by an atheist. The piece has far more to do with answering criticisms. The Pope's main intent seems to be to make the Church seem reasonable and civil. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is a PR ploy.

There are, of course, other problems with the letter. If you read with any interest in critical thinking a variety of issues emerge. If it really was meant as a way to reach atheists it fails miserably. Virtually everything he comments on that could be interpreted as friendly is immediately justified by scripture/doctrine. This, to me, makes it feel impersonal and even authoritarian. I do not get a sense that he wants to play nice with atheist because it is the right thing to do but rather because it fits his interpretation of various religious doctrines (assuming his rhetoric is sincere in the first place).

A lot of what he writes also seems to refute the media portrayals of him. Telling atheists to "obey their conscience" seems to imply two things. The Pope seems to think we don't already do so. Really? What does he think we follow? Bronze age superstition laden mores don't mean shit to me. This also makes him seem far more arrogant than humble. As the head of the Catholic Church it makes some sense for him to tell Catholics what they should be doing. How does telling atheists how they should behave support the favored "humility" story line? If his idea of reaching out to atheists is constantly droning on about scripture and doctrine rather than the values that may be held in common Francis is going to fail no matter how sincere he might be. And, as I've pointed out before, rhetoric alone will not accomplish anything no matter how pleasant and welcome it may be.

The La Republica translation
Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: "An open dialogue with non-believers"
http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/09/11/news/the_pope_s_letter-66336961/

The Zenit translation
Pope Francis' Letter to the Founder of "La Repubblica" Italian Newspaper
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-letter-to-the-founder-of-la-repubblica-italian-newspaper

"Wasting food is like stealing from the poor"

I don't disagree with some of the things Pope Francis touched on during a speech he gave this past week. I just happen to find it rather amusing, in a twisted way, that comes from such a pampered individual. The last paragraph of the short Religious News Service piece, "Pope Francis: Wasting food is like stealing from the poor", tries to deflect legitimate criticism of the Pope's seeming hypocrisy with a rather superficial excuse.

"The Argentine pope has been a vocal advocate for the poor since his election to the papacy in March, and has personally practiced austerity at the Vatican, living in a guesthouse rather than in the papal apartments and cutting down on elaborate vestments and liturgies."

A have a sneaking suspicion that their idea of austerity and mine are very different. I'm not familiar with the "guesthouse" but I doubt it is anything less than luxurious. I'd also point out that every time I've seen him in the media the same pomp and circumstance that has surrounded every Pope I've seen in my lifetime has remained the same. All you have to do is look at the photograph that is included in the story and the idea of "austerity" becomes a blatant joke.

Even the most basic temporary staging can be quite pricey. I'd be willing to bet the value of that dais in the photo could feed a third world village for a few months. Throw in the value of the Pope's outfit and the five other individuals surrounding him and you can feed that same village for a handful of months more. This is all before getting into the Vatican's menu. Anyone who thinks these spoiled jerks dine on tuna fish sandwiches and mac-n-cheese or that they pay attention to the amounts heaped on their plates is an idiot.

When religious leaders start behaving in a more respectable manner rather than just offering empty rhetoric I might consider taking them as sincere and decent. Till then I see no reason not to call them out as liars and hypocrites. All evidence seems to support my rather low opinion of them.

Empty Rhetoric?

Over the past week Pope Francis has gotten a lot of attention for himself over comments about atheists. Though, I appreciate his admitting that we are decent people I was not really all that impressed. After all, it is no different from praising someone for admitting that water is wet. The fact that it generated so much attention is the more notable point. It reveals just how narrow minded and bigoted society can be.

It should also be noted that there are two major assumptions being made by media and society as a whole in regard to the Pope's attention grabbing homily.
1. he is sincere in his statements
2. his statements will translate into practice
As I have previously written ("New Pope, Same as the Old Pope 4/21/13) there are reasons to suspect that this Pope's outreach is simply a public relations ploy. So, though I would like to believe he is being sincere and will actively seek to end the practice of marginalizing and demonizing non-believers I am not going to go on those assumptions.

If the Pope is sincere he should announce some type of policy that would forbid church employees/representatives from smearing atheists. Publicly apologizing for all the nasty shit the church has done and continues to do would be a notable gesture as well.

Just a few of the pieces from this past week:

Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html

Heaven for atheists? Pope sparks debate
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/heaven-for-atheists-pope-sparks-debate/

Atheists Like What They See In Pope Francis' New Openness
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/atheists-like-what-they-see-in-pope-francis-new-openness_n_3329548.html

Can there be any question that Catholicism is political?

This past week it was announced that the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops would be using a right-wing media flack for his spokesperson. A former adviser of Sarah Palin will now serve as the mouthpiece of the Catholic church in the US. The USCCB is already a far right cabal of politicians that market themselves as spiritual leaders. The use of a far right pundit only seems to confirm it even further. Given the track record of Kim Daniels it seems all but a forgone conclusion that any pretense at claiming to be honest and ethical is a deceitful ploy. I would also assume that the USCCB is preparing to interfere in public policy even more than they already do.

Hipster Jesus

The first thing that popped into my head when I came across this latest PR campaign of the Catholic church was a scene from the movie Dogma. The sketch that has George Carlin as a bishop pitching "Buddy Christ" is still incredibly funny but doesn't seem quite so absurd now. It also occurred to me that Jesus is the theological equivalent of a Ken doll. Christian theologians, clergy, and laity routinely dress the Christ figure up in whatever garb suits them without so much as a second thought. They ascribe whatever words and deeds fit the persona they want to believe in. It doesn't seem to be contradictory or an outright fabrication simply because the scriptures are so amorphous they can be made to justify whatever a believer wants to project onto their messiah action figure.

Setting aside the surrealistic/absurdist humor there are reasons to view this campaign in a more serious manner. I find it hard to believe that the Catholic hierarchy real thinks of Jesus as "the original hipster." According to the Penguin dictionary a hipster is "somebody who is keenly aware of and interested in new trends and unconventional patterns." The Catholic church has never been one to promote rebellion and non-comformity. So, why are they promoting this image? The simple answer is marketing. It is a PR ploy. A rather ridiculous one in light of what has preceded it. No amount of imaginary clothing can adequately cover the church's recent attack on its own nuns or the temper tantrum it has been throwing over insurance coverage of contraception for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

This hipster image, like the intentions of the hierarchy, is disingenuous. I have no doubt that it is all about keeping up the church's numbers in order to retain its power and influence. So long as the average believer and a complacent media are content to play dress up it will probably work, at least partially. This isn not so funny since the real world has real problems that fairy tales and folklore won't help solve.

Grow up!

New Pope, Same as the Old Pope

How shocking is it that the media continues to prattle on about Pope Francis being some sort of reformer? Delusions mixed with wishful thinking is certainly nothing new to either the media or religion but is getting to be rather irritating. In the past few weeks Pope Francis has provided even further indication that he will be following the same path as those who came before him. There are two unofficial yet very telling policies that he has now confirmed to be ongoing.

Francis will continue both the attack on Nuns and the stage shows referred to as the "Courtyard of the Gentiles." These were initiated under Benedict for expressly political and public relations purposes. I fail to see how either of these can be viewed as reform. Attacking nuns is particularly baffling. That the Vatican is narrow minded is not surprising but being blind to this degree is astonishing even to someone as critical of the church as myself. The best I can come up with is that this is a weird extension of the approach many Christians take with the Bible. Cherry picking what you prefer to see and then self-deluding about what you don't like is a terrible way to view anything. Many of the "positions" the Nuns are supposed to have taken actually fit within some mainstream interpretations of the Gospels. Does the Pope really want to be seen as attacking the Gospels or a group of women the public sees as virtuous?

The Courtyard bullshit I can at least see as an internally rational move on the Holy Sees part. Appearing to be grossly bigoted is generally not well received by the public in general even when it is aimed at a distrusted and disliked minority. That does not, of course, mean that there is any substance to the Pope's claim to be reaching out to non-believers. From what little I have found about the upcoming stage shows in Mexico they seem to be following the same pattern as those already held in Europe (there's little information on those either).

The European PR shows involved atheists who were so touchy-feely that the only possible reason for having them on stage was to serve as props. All they seemed to do is affirm those positions the church wanted to be presented (ex. no conflict between science and religion). A few of the "atheists" were rather questionable since I could not find any public statement or hints as to their non-belief. It would not be the first time individuals have posed as atheists, through ignorance or intent. It also is not surprising since when Benedict announce the formation of the Courtyard he made it clear that any atheist who had ever criticized the church in any way would not be allowed to participate.

If you think about it for more than a minute it becomes quite obvious that PR is the only real reason for the Courtyard. If the Vatican truly wanted "dialogue" why wouldn't they make an effort to find individuals that atheists want to represent them? There are numerous organizations, not just atheist, that would be willing to conduct polls to find such representatives. The Vatican insisting on handpicking the "atheist" speakers is a red flag. It also should occur to most that if any atheist has been uninterested or unwilling to criticize religion then they probably are not all that interested in talking about it either.

There is no significant difference between this Pope and the last.

Pope and the Nones

The idea that the Pope is going to play nice with the Nones, especially atheists, is a bit far fetched. I will be pleasantly surprised if he lives up to his rhetoric. Alessandro Speciale's Religious News service piece (reposted on HuffPo), "Pope Francis: 'Nones' Can Be 'Allies' For The Church", seems to take it as a foregone conclusion. He may not have had a hand in how this short article was titled but I'm sure he saw it before it got put out. The title does give a hint as to the motivation. I'd point out that it states that Nones can be allies to the church rather than vice-versa.

I do not assume that Pope Francis is sincere. In fact, I assume the opposite. If he really wants to make friend with atheists he could start by apologizing for his predecessor. Benedict in a handful of speeches blamed atheists* and secularist for the worlds cruelty and injustice. He could really take a positive step by pledging that the church will stop demonizing non-believers. I have been to plenty of masses and can remember numerous occasions where "non-believers", "unbelievers", "the faithless", etc.. were used as pejoratives. Somehow I do not think that is going to happen.

Basically, he's looking to spruce up the Church's image.

*It is important to note that he specifically chose the term atheist(s) rather than atheism. In other words, he was attacking the people not the ideas.

The Vatican and Fox News

I don't think it's necessary to say much about this one beyond how appropriate it seems that the Vatican is using a Fox News correpondent for PR purposes. One factually dubious right wing group of scumbags shilling for another batch of lying hypocritical scum bags. They could not have chosen better.