More of the same

The crowning of a new Pope always brings to mind the old Notorious BIG line:

Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis. When I was dead broke man I couldnt picture this

He’ll feed the poor (which is good), but he won’t ask why they’re poor (which would be bad).

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Does this mean you think the national review worthy of more serious consideration than it gets from satirist sites? SadlyNo!

Blessed be the money-changers, for they shall inherit the earth.

Only 8 comments in, and Rich Puchalsky wins the thread. Well played.

According to a tweet from Erick Erickson, having leftists killed by death squads is a feature, not a bug.

And if you’re Erick Erickson of RedState, Bergoglio’s behavior during the 1970’s is a point in his favor.

US complicity working with death squads in Iraq

And in other news, the Pope is Catholic.

“He’ll feed the poor (which is good), but he won’t ask why they’re poor (which would be bad).”

And he’ll wash the feet of AIDS victims, but condoms are a no-no. I’ve even heard him described as a “compassionate conservative,” which means, I suppose, that when desperately ill women come to Catholic hospitals in need of therapeutic abortions, he’ll say no really nicely.

“I’ve even heard him described as a “compassionate conservative. . .”

Oh shit. Now we’re screwed.

“Really? The new Pope is against poverty?”

Yes – such a discovery for those at NR! I wonder what will happen when the NR folks discover that the pope preaches from a book that’s not too fond of excessive wealth…

There’s a bit of interesting discussion on the topic here (from a guy who is as theologically conservative as they come):

http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2010/02/yes-put-damn-condom-on-already.html

Catholic doctrine is that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ and the sacraments, right? The majority of the world population is not Catholic or even broadly Christian. Why does the Catholic church try to prescribe policies from religious tradition for the whole world instead of just the faithful? Using a condom is not going to inflict extra-double-damnation on the unsaved. And if you take away the religious component, the arguments against non-procreative sex are underwhelming.

And Goldberg converted to Catholicism, right? (Or is he Protestant?) I mean he had choices. He could have joined a church more in line with his politics. I assume his decision wasn’t the result of complex theological reasoning? I really can’t see how the average neo-con can reconcile their politics with their Catholicism. (Apart from on one or two social issues)

Re: And if you take away the religious component, the arguments against non-procreative sex are underwhelming.

Well, first of all, the arguments aren’t against non-procreative sex, they’re against sexual acts that are wilfully rendered nonprocreative. Taking advantage of the natural infertile window (i.e. through NFP) is perfectly A-OK. I don’t personally, think there’s a huge moral difference between NFP and the pill (condoms are a different situation), since they both take advantage of natural cycles in the body (the pill, by simulating the hormonal changes associated with pregnancy). Some people do, however. But there’s definitely no disapproval of having sex *at times that you know to be infertile*.
It’s also not a religious argument, it’s a philosophical one, and there are some non-Catholic Christians who agree with it.

I seem to remember the NRO arguing in the run up to Iraq that JP2 could be excused for oppossing the war, as it’s in the job brief to (generally) adopt a thoughtful position on such things.

There’s this aswell from that dungeon of stupidity:

“I think you will find that when Pope Francis speaks of social justice, he is not using it as a code word for centralized control of the economy by the state, the way progressives use it.”

I’m pretty sure that is precisely what he means, more or less. This is Catholic social teaching 101 right? And since when has the Catholic Church been opposed to centralised control of anything?
It’s been a long time since I’ve taken a religious education class, but..

The technocratic wing of the Catholic Church have finally taken power!

Salient @32

“Humble zealotry” would be someone who’s humble as an individual but zealous in their cause, I suppose. Not so contradictory.

And the Vatican Bank has been enmeshed in scandal for decades; it’s not just the National Review hoping for more transparency there.

Gotta love how the NR thinks “counting poverty as a social ill” (you know, like most of the planet) is something in need of clarification and caveats. Rather revealing.

I haven’t read NR since they brushed off the flotilla deaths with a cheap jibe about how more people died in a French heat wave.

Re: “A Pope from Latin America will be a bulwark against the inroads Islam is attempting to make into that continent.”

More so Pentecostalism, actually. Secularism too, but to a less extent than in North America or Europe.

“OK. I don’t personally, think there’s a huge moral difference between NFP and the pill (condoms are a different situation)”

You are kidding right? Poe’s law must be in operation.

Hector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

MPA Victoria,

Ah, ok.

With me, you can generally assume sincere extremism.

The National Review editors are concerned that we might be faced with the resurrection of liberation theology and praxis of the sort Ratzinger was instrumental in silencing in his former role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Leonardo Boff having written a biography of St. Francis (1981, in English, 1982) in which the saint’s life and faith are linked to “leaving imperialism” and the “integral liberation of the oppressed.” Moreover, Boff reminds Catholics that “Poverty is not only a problem of moral conscience; it is fundamentally a political problem.” The editors can’t bear to be reminded that “Today’s dominant classes, successors to the slave owners as well as the slave traders (English, Portuguese, Dutch, and North American), have inherited a profound scorn for the poor. They consider them to be socially disqualified [think of the reaction of actual and aspiring neo-liberal elites to the Bolivarian revolution]; they avoid contact with them, going around them, insensitive to their misery.” The editors can’t bear to contemplate the fact that the poverty Francis is not only the “voluntary” sort motivated by vicarious identity and solidarity, but rather “the fruit of impoverishing and exploitative mechanisms. To accept poverty in solidarity with the poor implies opting for social justice, commiting oneself to the poor in the integral liberation of all for a more just and fraternal society.” The editors refuse to acknowledge that “we are living in a society of classes with antagonistic interests. Objectively, the poor are poor because the way society is organized, since they have the strength to work but not the capital, they are placed on the margin.” Boff explains to his readers the categorical need for the “structural change of society” [hard to imgine that without State direction or support or sans any ‘determinate political program’]. The Church must come out in full support of “movements that are born of the base–free unions, people’s associations” that defend those without power, including a defense of their culture and rights. The editors, insecure and fearful, are loath to admit that “Freedom is never freely granted; it must be attained in an arduous process of freedom.” As Boff writes, “Everything in Francis invites practice: exire de saeculo, leaving the imperial system in an alternative act that makes more real devotion toward others, more gentleness with the poor, and greater respect for nature.” The “spirit and way of life” of Francis of Assisi not a mere “formula, idea, or ideal,” but made manifest in practice, individually and collectively.

#45 The official line is that is double bonus point, 2 Francis for the price of one.

Now, the guy is extremelly conservative (surprise, not), anti – all what the church is against (what a shock, no), took a bit of time to tell us non-believers that we are all preaching to the devil in his first speech (sudden betrayal, etc…)…

BUT if you are willing to look for the positives he is:

1 – On record saying that fighting poverty is important. Very. Very much. Which is… well, the guy was against Liberation Theology so it may very well be standard RCC “I preach nice and run a charity” approach, who knows.

2 – Is recognized for being austere and not liking the display of ostentation and riches that normally are hand in hand with all the upper echelon positions in the RCC.

So, if you want to force a bit of hope on the issue and given that the whole “he may have been a collaborator with the Junta” seems a murky issue that may, or not, be propaganda of the Kirchners, you can kinda sorta maybe probably just have a tiny little bit of hope that he is going to be an tiny little bit “better” than Ratzinger.

But you really have to go and wish hard for a very low return of interest on your hope investment, so to say.

Best comment comes (as happens with moderate frequency) from Dave Bonta’s via negativa.

Re: it may very well be standard RCC “I preach nice and run a charity” approach, who knows.

Roman Catholic social teaching about economics is, you know, a bit more complex than that. (I’m not Roman Catholic, to make it clear).

– On record saying that fighting poverty is important. Very. Very much.

Bully for him. Bit difficult to be for helping poor people whilst simultaneously be against women having the ability to plan their families. Unless of course you don’t count women as members of the group ‘people’, subgroup ‘poor’. Which describes the Catholic stance quite well actually.

While I’m no expert on the topic, I thought there’s long been ample evidence that economic and social development, i.e., a meaningful increase in individual and collective welfare and well-being, leads to (or tends to lead to) a decrease in fertility rates (Amartya Sen, for one, has long argued along these lines). Of course women (and men), may thereby proceed to engage in “family planning” of one kind or another, but I doubt focus on family planning in the first instance sans any socio-economic development will lead to reduced fertility rates (I suspect there’s empirical evidence on this), given the increase in social and economic “security” more children are believed to bring to poor households.

Since my previous comment sounds very aggressive, I’ll rewrite it in a less snarky fashion :
I think that all women, poor or not, should have access to contraceptives, and that RC policy about this is very stupid.
But, I think that it is not fair to frame this as something against poverty.

P.S.O’Donnell:
… I thought there’s long been ample evidence that economic and social development, i.e., a meaningful increase in individual and collective welfare and well-being, leads to (or tends to lead to) a decrease in fertility rates…. I doubt focus on family planning in the first instance sans any socio-economic development will lead to reduced fertility rates (I suspect there’s empirical evidence on this), given the increase in social and economic “security” more children are believed to bring to poor households.

In general, I think that’s right (though like you I’m not an expert). Textbooks refer to “the demographic transition”: i.e. with economic/social development, rising incomes etc, death rates fall first while fertility rates remain high, then fertility rates eventually fall (at which point the ‘transition’ has occurred). That’s the general model, but I’m sure there are local variations and that other factors than generic ‘development’ definitely matter, notably for instance the education level of women and girls in poorer countries. It’s pretty well documented, I believe, that the more education women have, the smaller families they tend to have.

As a practical matter, I rather doubt the new Pope’s opposition to contraception, continuing the opposition of his predecessors, will matter that much, if at all, in terms of affecting demographic trends. Take Mexico: a very Catholic country and one in which, I believe, fertility rates have fallen quite drastically over the last 20/25 years or so. (At least that was the case last time I was aware of the figures, some several yrs ago.) Clearly economic and social development, broadly defined to include women’s access to education, is v. important in driving fertility. (That said, I believe everyone should be able to obtain contraception if they want it, even if v. poor families choose to have lots of children for the reasons P.O’Donnell states.)

LFC,

I think it’s more education, and women’s education specifically, than ‘economic development’ more broadly. Every major region outside Africa and the more backward parts of the Muslim world are at, below, or rapidly approaching replacement fertility right now.

Mexico is at replacement level if not below, Latin America in general is right around replacement (plus or minus a bit depending on the country), and some countries are already below. East and Southeast Asia hit replacement quite awhile ago for the most part, and India is close to replacement level right now at 2.7 births per woman. (South India is below replacement, but the overall fertility rate is pulled up a bit by states like Bihar and UP in the north). Even the less backward (i.e. non-Gulf) Middle East countries have gone through the transition (Iran is below replacement level, for example).

Religion actually doesn’t seem to have that much of an effect, outside of small subcultures like Mormons and Hasidic Jews.

P.s. “outside of small subcultures like Mormons and Hasidic Jews”

Actually, Orthodox Jews in general; Hasidic Jews are a subset of Orthodox. Sorry to split hairs.

Btw, anecdotal: I was in India briefly ~20 yrs ago as a tourist — one of the first questions I was often asked, e.g. by a rickshaw or taxi driver, was “do you have children?” and then the guy would proceed to tell me proudly how many children he had. (I wonder whether that wd still be the case today.)

I think it’s more education, and women’s education specifically, than ‘economic development’ more broadly.

The Philippines has 1600 higher education institutions, almost all of which have some bullshit Catholic family-planning course in their curricula.

Argentine Atheist reporting in…

I seriously don’t have much hope in Francisco, not because of him but because the church is nearly impossible to reform and I doubt he will be able to. His austerity speech about being humble and against opulence might fly with Argentine catholics but in the Vatican? half the place is gold platted! you might as well give chastity rings at spring break.

Now the whole dirty war thing, well lets just say that its our “swift boat” case: Francisco here for better or worse was the only guy with the balls to criticize the Kirchners from the very beginning for their unabashed corruption and faux-progressive policies that did nothing to help the poor.

And he was right: right now Buenos Aires is full of homeless people, entire families, and you can blame previous administrations all you want but the kirchners have been in power for 10 years, and with the biggest commodities boom in 100 years.

But there’s poor people everywhere and the economy is going to shit while the gap between the poor and the super-rich is astronomical, which the Kirchners might agree with since their own fortune grew 900%, and mind you they were already very rich.

But if you mess with the Kirchners you mess with the entire state propaganda apparatus, which includes thousands of “ñoqui” paid to create fake accounts in social networks and run massive smear campaigns. The holes in the stories are evident: the old pictures are laughable, one actually shows a guy that looks a lot like Francisco…………except it was taken 30 years ago when the Pope was still in his 40s. The guy in the picture was much older and its been dead for a while.

On the other hand if Francisco had supported the Kirchners you would actually see them covering up any suggestions of past misdeeds. After all Barone a despicable character that makes Gleen Beck look good had quite a career during the Dirty War publishing pro-military propaganda and news while denying any coverage to families of state terror victims.

Now he (and many, many others like him) serve the kirchners, thus his past is “forgotten”

From what I can tell, the main problem with the Kirchner’s’ policies is that they spent to get out of a depression, which is good policy, but then kept their foot on the gas pedal after the recovery, which is not. Much of that spending seems to gave been on areas of questionable value. Argentina also seems to be in the middle of a commodities boom, which means that the government cannot be entirely credited with improvements since 2002.

The government also seems to be nationalizing things right and left, and while I actually agree that some services should be nationalized, I am not convinced that they will be well run, as the Argentine government has a history of being incompetent and corrupt that long predates the Kirchner’s.

Inflation also seems to be a big problem there, and I remember hearing that the government actually banned economists from reporting the real inflation rate, which is much higher than the official one. This also illustrates that the Kirchner’s have an authoritarian streak, which seems to have become much more prominent in the last few years.

However, I am also not Argentinean, so I could be wrong as well.

“meant”, sorry

At the primary and secondary education levels the Department of Education, in 2010, ran their controversial pilot sex-education program by the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines. That year the program was to be pilot-tested in almost 160 schools.

Indeed, lupita is correct, and those interested in Catholic social teachings generally should at the very least begin here: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching.cfm

As to the indispensable and urgent role of the State in helping the poor and vulnerable, the Church’s teachings are unequivocal: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/option-for-the-poor-and-vulnerable.cfm

As it states above: “[W]hen there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. [….] The obligation to provide justice for all means that the poor have the single most urgent economic claim on the conscience of the nation. [….] The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximization of profits; the preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion; the production to meet social needs over production for military purposes.”

Finally, “Pope John Paul II in his encyclical on labor, Laborem Exercens (1981) asserted the fundamental principle of ‘the priority of labor over capital.’ While in actual fact capital has organized itself against labor in our society, John Paul II insists that capital exists to serve labor: ‘There is a need for ever new movements of solidarity of the workers and with the workers…The Church is firmly committed to this cause, for it considers it to be its mission, its service, a proof of its fidelity to Christ…’

[It should be irrelevant, but although I was raised a Catholic, I am no longer a member of the Church.]

Katherine@55

Unless of course you don’t count women as members of the group ‘people’, subgroup ‘poor’. Which describes the Catholic stance quite well actually.

The Church does count poor women and women in general as people. I understand that some people are passionate about contraception but I do not think it helps the cause to reinvent a reality in which Dilma Rousseff, Cristina Fernandez, and Nancy Pelosi are present in Rome for the installation of a man as the new head of a 1.2 billion church that considers half its members as animals.

Those are nice principles, but does the church actually do anything to back them up, or make them prominent. John Kerrey was threatened with being (or perhaps was) denied communion because he supported abortion rights. Has anyone been similarly threatened for supporting policies that increase poverty? Frankly, most of the Catholics I know, do not seem to support these policies as applied to poor people.

*certain* disenfranchised groups..the poor basically

The Church’s stock-in-trade is not charity, but hypocrisy.

rf: complexity and contingency should be acknowledged

Agreed, very much agreed. But, much easier to intend, than to do. I certainly cannot do it, adequately to satisfy myself. I was brought up as a Catholic, and have seen it a bit from the inside, so to speak. There’s a whole parallel cultural universe of (conservative) Catholic thought and doctrine, fully supported by separate schools and universities and a long, sophisticated intellectual history of apologetics and agonistes, which doesn’t so much want to repeal the Enlightenment, as to deny that it took place as billed. From the (conservative) Catholic viewpoint, the Enlightenment philosophes usurped the Catholic moral magisterium, while libeling the Church unfairly as superstitious, prejudiced and cruel, when (in the Catholic view), the Church was the original champion of fundamental moral human equality, as well as Truth and rationalism over superstition, and humane mercy over arbitrary cruelty. Institutes of post-Protestant Reformation Catholic Reform (aka Counter-Reformation, which turned into a Counter-Enlightenment) — like the Jesuits — are especially dedicated to these mirror-image intellectual frameworks, mirror-images to the common assumptions and definitions of secular humanism and political liberalism and social democracy. Superficially, moral absolutes clothed in the rationalizations of natural law assume similar forms to the consequentialism of utilitarian calculation and social contract rights, but their logics are subtly different; you cannot count on similar-sounding intentions at the beginning of any statement, assenting at the end to the same ends. Its “concern for the poor” is not the same as either liberalism or social democracy might envision or espouse, just as its “conservatism” isn’t the same as the naked greed and self-congratulation of Romney’s Mormonism or some evangelical’s Prosperity Gospel. We should be as cautious about mistranslation, as we would be if Pope Francis was speaking an alien language, but using the same sounds and letters, because it might as well be a foreign language.

While it’s probably a fair generalization that Catholicism in North America is conservative, there are vigorous pockets of different and more radical forms of faith by those in the Catholic Worker tradition and others avowedly inspired by Liberation Theology (I’ve known and know individuals of both orientations), or what has been called the “Catholic peace tradition” in a book by Ronald Musto. Think too, for example, of the work of Father Boyle and Homeboy Industries in Los Angeles.* Some of my co-bloggers at Religious Left Law are of this type, while the Mirror of Justice blog represents the more conservative side of the spectrum (with a few exceptions). I have relatives outside of Chicago who are Catholics committed to the tenets of Liberation Theology and endeavor to embody those commitments in their daily lives and in the context of politics here in the states. For a nice introduction to the to main alternatives of Catholicism in the US, see Phillip Berryman’s Our Unfinished Business: The U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Letters on Peace and the Economy (Pantheon Books, 1989), as well as the writings of the late Penny Lernoux, especially her book, People of God: The Struggle for World Catholicism (Penguin, 1990), which puts the North American differences within the larger battle going on within Catholicism itself.

* See: http://www.religiousleftlaw.com/2012/04/cultivating-hope-compassion-at-homeboy-industries-.html

It’s also worth pointing out that the fertility rate in the Philippines is about 3.2 children per woman, which while high by regional standards, and probably too high for a country as crowded as the Philippines, is also *way* below what it was in the past, and trending downwards.

Yes, I believe birth control was recently legalized.

Philippine birth control law takes effect Posted at 01/17/2013 4:05 PM | Updated as of 01/17/2013 10:14 PM

MANILA – A controversial birth control law came into effect in the Philippines Thursday after more than a decade of bitter opposition from the influential Catholic church, with women saying the change came as a relief.

The government is still threshing out how to implement the law, which proponents say will help moderate the nation’s rapid population growth, reduce poverty and bring down high maternal mortality.

But Catholic groups have already shifted their battle to the courts, questioning the law’s constitutionality. The church, which counts 80 percent of Filipinos as followers, disallows the use of artificial contraceptives.

Hector_St_Clare@90

Not all of the hierarchy was at fault, but I think that the majority were.

The Latin American Episcopal Conference (CELAM) is certainly the majority of the Latin American hierarchy and it supported liberation theology in 1968. It was Pope Paul VI who sent Cardinal Antonio Samoré as head of a commission to Latin America to fight it.

Then Pope John Paul II commissioned Cardinal Ratzinger to continue the fight. Notwithstanding, in 1979, CELAM was able to incorporate the concept of a “preferential option for the poor”. It was also John Paul who would not listen to Archbishop Óscar Romero and condemn El Salvador’s regime for its support of death squads. It was John Paul who sent Cardinal Pio Laghi as envoy to Argentina to play tennis with one of the leaders of the junta and then to Washington where he placed the likes of Cardinal Bernard Law in key positions.

So no, it was not the majority of the Argentinean hierarchy or the Latin American hierarchy that supported repression in their countries. It was Pope Paul VI. It is Pope John Paul II. It was Pope Benedict XVI. It was Cardinal Samoré. It was Cardinal Laghi. And while they worked 40 year together with Washington to fight their common enemy the “Marxists”, they turned a blind eye to torture and assassination, to financial scandals and pedophiles.

79: “The Church does count poor women and women in general as people.”

That’s good to know, but it’s still possible to wonder:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/world/europe/08vatican.html

“A senior Vatican cleric on Saturday defended the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a 9-year-old girl who had an abortion in Brazil after being raped. The child was pregnant with twins.”

@Suzanne 95
Unless all the doctors were female I don’t see how this support your allegation that the church doesn’t threat women as people, only that they have an extreme stance against abortion.
In facts if the twins were female the implication is the opposite.

“Quorum” should be ” with “

Re: The Latin American Episcopal Conference (CELAM) is certainly the majority of the Latin American hierarchy and it supported liberation theology in 1968. It was Pope Paul VI who sent Cardinal Antonio Samoré as head of a commission to Latin America to fight it

I was talking more about the Argentine church specifically (which I believe was more conservative than the church establishment in, say, Brazil or Peru) than about the Latin American more generally. And of course, supporting liberation theology in the abstract is different than taking a concrete stand in favour or against a particular government. You may be right, however. Like i said, my ideological commitments are pretty much in a Christian-socialist direction, and I’d be delighted to learn that I was wrong, and that the Argentine church did the right thing in the 1970s. I just want to make sure we aren’t painting a more rosy picture than is justified by the facts. And I don’t think we disagree much on the broader question of whether Christianity can be a force for social justice.

The presence of women at the Pope’s installation says absolutely nothing about how the Catholic Church views women.

I meant it the other way around: The presence of Rousseff and Fernandez says very much about how women and Latin Americans view the Church. If indeed you are interested in Latin American women having greater access to contraception and legalized abortion, then treating them as idiots who cannot tell when a person or institution treats them as inferior, but a Western woman easily can, will not serve your cause.

All it shows is that the Pope is powerful and important.

It shows that most Latin Americans are Catholic.

The US is powerful and important, has drones, and controls a global financial system that can crash, and has crashed, Latin American countries at a moment’s notice. And yet, Brazil masterminded the collapse of WTO talks, Argentina reneged on its debt, Latin America created a regional organization to counter US influence, and throughout the region leftist governments have been elected. Given the great progress towards independence and sovereignty in the region, the notion that Latin Americans just go with the flow with the powers that be, including those that view them as sub-human, is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Finally, perhaps the aspect of the Church’s teachings that most resonates in Latin America is its emphasis on the dignity of all human persons. This is why so many, including clergy, have risked their lives and livelihoods during four decades of repression at the service of an unholy alliance between the Vatican and Washington.

Lupita,

Your wasting your time arguing with Katherine, she appears to be one of those Foucaultian feminists who populate our e
Ivy League English departments, and who believe that abortion rights are the hill they choose to die on.

Hector – don’t presume you know me. I’m am not American, not an academic, nor did I study English at university.

I do however think that the Catholic Church is an institution that oppresses women and considers them less than men. This isn’t exactly a radical view, although I do have plenty of those too.

You’ll note, if you take a second to see past your disdain for “Foucaultian feminists” that I did not mention abortion. I talked about contraception.