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.
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.
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.