Skip to main content

Pope Francis's comments and actions have sent the Opus Dei and right wing Catholics over the edge.  Via Ed Kilgore we learn that no less a Holier than Thou Catholic that Pan Buchanan is urging his co-religionists to be more Catholic than his Holiness.  

In his column, Papal Neutrality in the Culture Wars,"  Buchanan criticized the election of Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky. to Chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Buchanan linked the election to the influence of the Pope's Apostolic Nuncio, who spoke at the conference before the election.

Buchanan is troubled because Archbishop Kurtz "has a master's degree in social work," and succeeds Archbishop Timothy Dolan, one of the leaders of the fight against the contraception mandate in the ACA."

[H]ere is further confirmation His Holiness seeks to move the Catholic Church to a stance of non-belligerence, if not neutrality, in the culture war for the soul of the West.
Yes, God forbid the leader of the Bishops should have gotten a degree in social work.  Whatever could social work have to do with the mission of the Catholic Church.

Pat then ramps up the rhetoric to (his own) 1992 Republican Convention speech levels (of which Molly Ivins famously said, "I liked it better in the original German"):

Our civilization is being de-Christianized. Popular culture is a running sewer. Promiscuity and pornography are pandemic. In Europe, the churches empty out as the mosques fill up. In America, Bible reading and prayer are outlawed in schools, as Christian displays are purged from public squares. Officially, Christmas and Easter do not exist.
Now the only remaining question is the following:
Bears:  Is it really in the woods?

Originally posted to Upper West on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 01:07 PM PST.

Also republished by Street Prophets .

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course, Buchanan's rank racist "ideological" (22+ / 0-)

    version of "Catholicism" is exactly what Pope Francis has been targeting so sharply!

    Yesterday Sarah Palin said the pope was too liberal.

    Now we have a crap explosion from Buchanan.

    What's next from Scalia?

  •  This pope does not serve "Republican Jesus" a/k/a (25+ / 0-)

    Ayn Rand.  Rather, this pope is slowly trying to shift the Church back to a focus on Jesus' New Testament message of social justice and first helping those who cannot help themselves.

    As a result, RWNJ heads are exploding.  And I love it.  Francis may be able to pull off convincing many of the bullshit of the Right Wing, and that conservative Republicanism is squarely at odds with the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.  

    That terrifies religious conservatives.  And it should.  

  •  Correction (15+ / 0-)
    Buchanan criticized the Vatican's latest appointment to head the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Buchanan is deeply troubled by the choice of Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky
    Kurtz was not appointed by the Vatican.  He was elected by his fellow bishops of the USCCB.

    Kurtz does appear, however, to be a bit closer to Pope Francis in his approach than Cardinal Dolan, the now fromer chair, was.  

    As far as the Vatican goes in this case it should be pointed out that the Apostolic Nuncio, essential the Vatican's ambassador to the US and Pope Francis' representative here, told the USCCB in his address the opening day of their meeting, pretty much told the bishops that the problems that exist with the church in this country have happened on their watch, that there is a new sheriff in town and that they need to get with the program.

    It will still probably take a little while for the Francis Effect to filer down to bishops in this country but this is a start.

    “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

    by RoIn on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 01:41:01 PM PST

  •  And Let Us Ask (17+ / 0-)
    Our civilization is being de-Christianized. Popular culture is a running sewer. Promiscuity and pornography are pandemic. In Europe, the churches empty out as the mosques fill up. In America, Bible reading and prayer are outlawed in schools, as Christian displays are purged from public squares. Officially, Christmas and Easter do not exist.
    Who's watch did this occur on?  It occurred during the 35 years of John Paul and Benedict's finger wagging.  After just 8 months as Pope, Pope Francis has seen an increase church attendance.

    Perhaps the old adage is correct -- you really can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

    “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

    by RoIn on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 01:46:37 PM PST

    •  To be fair, I think there was more to JPII than (6+ / 0-)

      finger wagging. And, as I believe you pointed out in another thread, there was more than that to Benedict as well (although in my heart of hearts, I never accepted him as pope precisely because of the finger wagging). That said, Francis is a guy I would love to have over for dinner. Not to discuss anything theological or political or to try to influence him, but just because I get the feeling that I would actually enjoy his company, the way I like to be with my family (well, MOST of my family) and friends. I couldn't say that about either of his predecessors.

      Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

      by journeyman on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 02:27:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There Was (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        journeyman, Aunt Pat, Ahianne
        To be fair, I think there was more to JPII than
        finger wagging.
        There was.  But not a whole lot more in the view of the media and, in the view of people like Pat Buchanan.

        Both JP II and B XVI had social justice stances well to the left of the Democratic party.  Benedict even called for an organization to regulate the global economy.  I've often said that both the right and the left have often done the same thing when it comes to the church -- focus on the sex and ignore everything else.  

        But, because all of  that often took a back seat to the finger wagging (in part because of them and in part because of what the media choose to emphasize) they were embraced by the right who could then ignore the social justice stuff while the condemned others as being "cafeteria Catholics."

        Pope Francis, however, has changed the tone and direction of the conversation in such a way that it has forced the media to look beyond its usual focus.

        “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

        by RoIn on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 03:22:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not just the media he forced. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RoIn, Aunt Pat, Ahianne

          Well, let's just say that "lapsed" isn't as meaningless a modifier as it once was where I am concerned.

          I'm a very logical person, but one thing logic has taught me is that love needs no reason nor can it it be sustained by reason. Love exists outside of reason. Love just is. Accept it or don't.

          I love this guy.

          I can't help myself.

          Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

          by journeyman on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 04:48:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This is a big deal. (10+ / 0-)

    I don't mean Buchanan. I couldn't care less about him, but the reshaping of the hierarchy. If Francis lives long enough, he may make a real difference and this is where that difference will be the most profound and lasting. The louder Buchanan squeals, the more you know Francis is doing something right. God bless Pope Francis. More than that, give him health and long life. We need him around for another twenty years, but he could make a profound impact in five.

    Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

    by journeyman on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 02:17:56 PM PST

    •  Amen! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      journeyman, Aunt Pat

      I've been saying for the past eight months that Pope Francis has been upsetting all the right people!  I can now add Pat Buchanan to the list!

      “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

      by RoIn on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 03:25:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The flood gates open. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rashaverak, Aunt Pat

    I knew that all it took was one nut (Palin) to spout off some nonsense before the flood of hatred poured.

  •  Hey Pat (7+ / 0-)
    If one has the answers to all the questions — that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.
    -Pope Francis I.
  •  I am hoping that both sides in the debate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nuclear winter solstice

    over which side of catholicism represents the totally corrupt institution keep at each others throats until the whole world finally sees through the curtain of lies at the heart of this church and walks away from giving it any legitimacy in this world.

    PS- don't worry.  Kurtz is a real woman hater. He'll fit right in, especially if you've read Francis's latest statements on the nuns and the role of women in the world.  

    •  Up you surface. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RoIn, BachFan, marykk

      Do you have any other interests? Just curious what you do when there are no Pope diaries to troll.

      •  I mostly wait for you to show up. (0+ / 0-)
      •  well I'm not catholic but I was interested in the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zinger99, blueoasis, Fishtroller01

        whole subject and so I was also interested to see someone post what FishTroller01 said and thought there was going to be a complete dialogue about all points of view about the new pope. I mean I'm sort of on FT's side in the sense that I think until there's a clean sweep and people go to jail for the nasty things that have been swept under the rug about the whole church- when I see the pope do that, then I will hope and trust for a future for the church. Short of that, I'm skeptical.
           I was reading the diary, quietly putting up with people loving this pope, but I did expect tolerance for people's opinions from others too. Are you here for a love fest or to examine all sides? (If it's just a pep rally for the church I will quietly exit- not my party.) This is not to say that I endorse anything else FT01 has said anywhere. Just that I first encountered it here and was looking for a deeper response than go away, troll.

        We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

        by nuclear winter solstice on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 03:34:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He never writes about deep sea fishing, I've (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marykk, Ahianne

        noticed, which is what he claims he took his screen name from.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 05:33:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never said that. I said once when I was being (0+ / 0-)

          hounded about this that the name was on my godfather's (uncle's) boat (without the 01).  Really, I am quite surprised that you would fall into the pit with these people who just hate my POV so much they can think of nothing else than throw troll bombs.

          •  I apologize for a measure of confusion. I (0+ / 0-)

            remembered an association with fishing and thought it was you who enjoyed it.

            You need to understand why others might think you chose the name for your expressed interest here. I occasionally look at your comments and they always run 85-95% anti-religion so people's confusion is based on experience.



            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 07:36:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  After some more mulling a thought occurred to me. (0+ / 0-)

            Suppose there was a right wing libertarian atheist, "conservative" fiscally but libertarian on social issues. Suppose this right wing libertarian atheist thought it would be a good joke to troll that "left wing" site Daily Kos with incessant interjections about atheism, both to get a rise out of people and to give the public the impression that DK was rife with atheists.

            What would that person's record look like? I am not saying that you are in fact a right wing libertarian. I am saying that your behavior is indistinguishable from such a person.

            To counter that of course you can put forward all your issue oriented diaries, all the [ACTION] diaries where you hit the streets to support candidates, your meticulously researched diaries on science or policy. Oh, what's that you say?::crickets::



            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Sat Nov 16, 2013 at 05:14:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry for the crickets... (0+ / 0-)

              I spent a whole day playing with my grandchild.

              Yes, I comment on religion alot. And I don't hold any particular sympathy or patience for religious claims. Just like Fred Clarkson writes almost exclusively (almost 100%) about the religious right... or other authors on here write exclusively on other topics. So we all have our focuses and even if 100% of mine are on religion, what's your beef about that?  What I don't do, which seems to be a hobby on here, is go on other people's pages and make guesses about their character based on where they choose to comment and what they choose to say.  And I certainly don't care what they use for online names. What IS your problem with that?

              Libertarian?  Ha!

              So maybe you need to think about why you thought it was necessary to analyze me based on my comments. Don't you think that is most likely a waste of your time? I certainly could do the same with some of the commentors on here, but what would be the point? I don't care what you or Yoshimi or anyone else spends most of your time commenting on, and I strongly believe you have the right to say anything you want... I am not into "troll" accusations at all.   I've been on plenty of non-religious diaries commenting... Rand Paul... Scott Walker... charter schools... vouchers... women's rights...high energy particle physics, etc. etc.  So if you wish you can have your opinion about what I SHOULD BE commenting on and how I SHOULD BE commenting,  but I'm not interested in what you think when it comes to my views or how or where I choose to post them.

              •  Clarkson does extensive research at the interface (0+ / 0-)

                of religion and policy.

                As to why I bothered analyzing your comments? I am quite aware of my reasons. I wanted to be sure that I wasn't being unfair, that perhaps you are actually a positive contributing member of this community in ways that I have not come across by chance. But looking at the data confirmed what others than me have also commented on: you are mostly in diaries about religion, and you mostly make negative comments, which not infrequently spawn diversionary threads.

                What about your reasons for being here? You say that reason trumps all; what reasons do you have for commenting? Rational communication has a few possible goals: sharing information, persuading others, shaping policy, expressing feelings. You've shared your viewpoint - I doubt many are unaware of it at this point. You have persuaded no one (that I am aware of), and are unlikely to in the future. You don't try to shape site policy. I suppose you do express feelings, but I don't see how this is a better venue for that than a diary. So, so far as I can see, it is irrational for you to keep on turning up to piss in people's punch bowls.



                Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 04:30:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Now now... you really need to think about (0+ / 0-)

                  what you are saying and doing here. It certainly is not related to respecting my dignity and my right to post what I wish in a democratic society and my right to choose what topics I wish to comment on. And I don't have an obligation to answer your questions on my reasons for anything. Who do you think you are?  What you really are saying is that religious ideas are like sweet punch that should not be mixed with things like reason, skepticism or criticism.   In your world, it is fine for people to witness their beliefs even if there is absolutely no evidence for them, but not fine for someone to address their interpretations of it and point out that the very source of their ideas also presents the opposite view.  For example, the much overused statements about the character of Jesus (who remains an unevidenced person) being all kind and benign and peaceful and loving are rampant on here. Yet I or anyone else who have thoroughly read those stories can easily point out things done and said by this character that counters all those descriptions. Jesus endorsed eternal torture which is immoral. The Christian concept of "salvation" is divisive and non-inclusive. Prove to me that these statements are not true. Really it is those texts that play with people's heads and make them appear irrational.  You can't say Jesus is all about love and pretend that the harshly judgemental and non-ecumenical side of him doesn't exist. This is the type of stuff I point out. It it makes a person uncomfortable, well, who's problem is that? Now maybe modern liberal Christians have a good sense of morality and inclusiveness etc., but Jesus didn't. At least, he certainly said one thing and often acted differently. Reminds me of the religious right, actually.  Augggh! Blasphemy!

                   Basically you are taking the position that the commentor who makes religious statements has the full right to make them, but I have no right to counter them because I'm the one "pissing in the punch bowl".  Has it ever occured to you that much damage is done in society when people present mythologies as facts? And when someone like me who has stepped out of that world view does so, the damage becomes even more apparent.

                  Face it, Wee Mama, your instinct here is to be protective of religious ideas and to censor those who hold them to the light of reason and skepticism, freethought and criticism.  So who is really "pissing" on something here?

                  •  Ahem: (0+ / 0-)
                    Rational communication has a few possible goals: sharing information, persuading others, shaping policy, expressing feelings. You've shared your viewpoint - I doubt many are unaware of it at this point. You have persuaded no one (that I am aware of), and are unlikely to in the future. You don't try to shape site policy. I suppose you do express feelings, but I don't see how this is a better venue for that than a diary.



                    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                    by Wee Mama on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:10:42 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  F' em (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rashaverak, Andrew F Cockburn, marina

    Pat and his ilk need to leave the church and join up with Westboro Baptist church or something.  I'll stick with this Jesuit trained pontiff any day over these fuckers..

    "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around..."

    by cgvjelly on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 03:04:13 PM PST

  •  Is the Pope Catholic? eom (0+ / 0-)
  •  The Pharisees are angry (4+ / 0-)

    ...at this rebel.  Too much Jesus in him.

    Orwell was an optimist.
    My Home Page

    by RepackRider on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 03:24:41 PM PST

  •  Goes to show (4+ / 0-)

    These people don't hate gays because their religion tells them to, they just want to corrupt their religion to match their own personal biases. Or reality.

  •  Miss Ya, Molly (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bywaterbob, blueoasis, Ahianne, Rashaverak
    Pat then ramps up the rhetoric to (his own) 1992 Republican Convention speech levels (of which Molly Ivins famously said, "I liked it better in the original German")

    "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

    by midnight lurker on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 05:49:19 PM PST

  •  Just watch how this papacy unfolds (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, marina, Rashaverak

    It takes time for a papacy to take root. At the beginning it's mostly messaging & replacing the PR staff. Let's see who Pope Francis appoints as Bishops. If he reaches outside the "career track" most Bishops follow, with their "sponsors" guiding assignments  (very few have any extensive parish or social services experience), then he means to change the future.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 07:41:15 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site