Interview With Pope Francis In America Magazine

[Apotheoun]

Just a side note... at my supposedly Catholic high school, the students (and staff, actually) who were fully behind Catholic teachings were outnumbered a hundred to one, minimum. That is absolutely not an exaggeration. Unfortunately I think the people of the Church need evangelization as much as the rest of the world. :(

I agree. The Church needs to evangelize people who are nominally Catholic, but who in many cases believe in nothing, or worse are actually opposed to the Church while still attending services.

[Lilllabettt]

Not a try.  Assuming you position on abortion, I don't see any moral difference between your swooning over Kissinger's realpolitik or Bush's foreign policy and somebody being pro-choice.  

 

It is a try, because I defeated you on the question of the  badness of the NARAL graphic. You had nothing to say in reply so you pivoted to another issue, in your case realpolitik.  Perhaps expecting me to take the bait engage on that? But we were discussing the NARAL graphic werent we.
 

[4588686]

It is a try, because I defeated you on the question of the  badness of the NARAL graphic. You had nothing to say in reply so you pivoted to another issue, in your case realpolitik.  Perhaps expecting me to take the bait engage on that? But we were discussing the NARAL graphic werent we.
 

 

 

No, we were discussing that.  Then you injected your claim that people who are pro-choice are the moral equivalent of Nazis or slave-owners.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There are a lot better enemies to be gotten then some gay teenager in Oklahoma who gets treated like poo every day in school.  Like Goldman Sachs.  Or the arms industry.  But those would be enemies with real power.  Best to stick to single mothers and gay kids.  

Catholics consider abortion murder. 
Catholics believe gay marriage is unnatural.

These two beliefs present major obstacles to whatever changes we could expect the pope's statements to have on Catholics. Even if Catholics paid more attention to other moral issues, there's no way that these two would just fade into the background. While this Pope hasn't talked about abortion in relation to the holocaust yet, his whole killing Jesus rhetoric isn't going to make people act any differently. It just sounds better on paper. 

How about gay marriage? Let's say the Pope's statements make a huge difference. Gay people will continue being judged regardless of how lovingly Catholics talk about/act towards them. Not only is their sexuality deemed unnatural, but it also restricts them from joining the priesthood or getting married. This presents a huge problem for many gay Catholics who, no matter how accepting the Church is of them, will still have problems coming out to their parents who expect them to follow one of these two callings. It can also create situations in which gay people deny their sexuality, as they feel it makes them abnormal and not useful to the Catholic community. The best thing Pope Francis could do, if he could even get away with it, is to distance the Church from the legality of this issue by adopting a winchesteronian view of government. 

 

Edited September 21, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[4588686]

Sure Hasan, but there were no illusions over the positions of JPII or Benedict. They were very expressive in their explanations when dealing with matters of contention, treating them with utmost delicacy. They never isolated the issues against the whole of the gospel, and always with charity, but yet again they were mocked and ridiculed. Perhaps you know what Francis personally believes, but in effect he is willing to no longer fight over these issues. He is willing to accept that abortion, contraception, same sex marriages, etc, will continue. In essence, he is retreating to higher ground. This is why the likes of pro-abortion groups are thanking Francis, it's not like they admire him for his religiousity.

 

Abortion rights groups are composed of individuals.  Many of whom were raised Catholic but feel completely unwelcome in the Church.  

 

NARAL did not endorse or thank Pope Francis.  The communication's department in NARAL composed a graphic.  Why?  Probably because they see it as an opportunity to not look like they are dogmatically hostile to the Church.  Was there much thought put in behind it?  Probably not.   

Edited September 21, 2013 by Hasan

[Maggyie]

 

 

NARAL did not endorse or thank Pope Francis. 

 

 

Their thank you note was signed, Pro Choice Women Everywhere.

 

I think the two groups "Pro Choice Women Everywhere" and "NARAL" have significant overlap, don't you?

 

 

 

 

 

[4588686]

Their thank you note was signed, Pro Choice Women Everywhere.

 

I think the two groups "Pro Choice Women Everywhere" and "NARAL" have significant overlap, don't you?

 

 

Yes.  I mean that NARAL as an organization was not endorsing Pope Francis.  The communication department put it out.  It literally means nothing.  Except what you project upon it.  

[Vincent Vega]

Yes.  I mean that NARAL as an organization was not endorsing Pope Francis.  The communication department put it out.  It literally means nothing.  Except what you project upon it.  

Come on, isn't that a little disingenuous? If a higher-up in the GOP sent a letter of support to the Klan on party letterhead, would it be reasonable to expect people to say, "Well, I mean, he doesn't speak for the party as a whole." No, that's preposterous -- they'd catch all kinds of flak (rightly so), heads would roll, apologies would be made, etc.

 

Until/unless NARAL redacts the graphic (assuming this was sent out via the official NARAL twitter, which I understand it was) and reprimands the individual who went rogue and posted it without authorization, I think it is perfectly acceptable to suppose that the organization as a whole support the message.

[Norseman82]

Many of whom were raised Catholic but feel completely unwelcome in the Church.  

 

 

There was a church sign I saw once that read something on the order of "If you feel far away from God....who moved?". 

[4588686]

Come on, isn't that a little disingenuous? If a higher-up in the GOP sent a letter of support to the Klan on party letterhead, would it be reasonable to expect people to say, "Well, I mean, he doesn't speak for the party as a whole." No, that's preposterous -- they'd catch all kinds of flak (rightly so), heads would roll, apologies would be made, etc.

 

Until/unless NARAL redacts the graphic (assuming this was sent out via the official NARAL twitter, which I understand it was) and reprimands the individual who went rogue and posted it without authorization, I think it is perfectly acceptable to suppose that the organization as a whole support the message.

 

 

That would be a problem because it is indicative of support for the Klan within the GOP.  What is this indicative of?  

 

NARAL did not put it out on the twitter feed.  It was placed on the facebook site. 

[Maggyie]

That would be a problem because it is indicative of support for the Klan within the GOP.  What is this indicative of?  

 

NARAL did not put it out on the twitter feed.  It was placed on the facebook site. 

 

Okay, twitter vs facebook, what is the difference.

 

Use my example. Phillip Morris puts out a facebook graphic that says "Dear Mr President of the American Cancer Society: Thank you. Signed, Smokers Everywhere."

 

What is that indicative of, that Philip Morris is doing that?

[4588686]

Okay, twitter vs facebook, what is the difference.

 

Use my example. Phillip Morris puts out a facebook graphic that says "Dear Mr President of the American Cancer Society: Thank you. Signed, Smokers Everywhere."

 

What is that indicative of, that Philip Morris is doing that?

 

 

That Philip Morris' communication department felt there was some utility to be gained by composing that graphic.  

Edited September 21, 2013 by Hasan

[Vincent Vega]

That would be a problem because it is indicative of support for the Klan within the GOP.  What is this indicative of?

This is indicative of NARAL support of Pope Francis and his words or actions, meaning that one of the two entities involved have erred greatly, since they hold diametrically opposed views.

 

NARAL did not put it out on the twitter feed.  It was placed on the facebook site.

Okay, my mistake. Was the it official mouthpiece of the organization, or a supporter-run entity?

Edited September 22, 2013 by USAirwaysIHS

[4588686]

This is indicative of NARAL support of Pope Francis and his words or actions, meaning that one of the two entities involved have erred greatly, since they hold diametrically opposed views.

 

 

Pope Francis believes that women who have had an abortion should be treated cruelly by society? 

[Maggyie]

That Philip Morris' communication department felt there was some utility to be gained by composing that graphic.  

 

Yup.

 

And NARAL's communications dept (aka NARAL, since really the marketing team is not somehow separate from them) felt there was some utility in composing this graphic.

 

So the Pope's words are being used to further NARAL's agenda.