A book I was just reading told a story of how the Massachusetts church was trying for a long time to build more affordable housing, and basically got blocked out by NIMBYs and white patriarchy. So, given recent media, I’ve found them to sometimes be okay.
I don’t think we should be surprised their pro-zionists in the Bible Belt are psychopaths molesting children though.
It’s weirdly cloying, right? Amid all the negative press, the catholic church is on the whole responsible for a shocking amount of good in the world. Personally, a catholic hospital waiving the cost of a (really extravagant) medical disaster is both the only reason I’m still alive and not living in crippling debt as a result. Sometimes they do, in fact practice what they preach, and that’s awesome.
That ain’t the big-c Church, though. Their socially regressive attitude alone has inflicted more harm than all the good they’ve ever done, and that’s just one of the minor things they’re responsible for. It’s important to keep in mind that individuals doing good works don’t represent the absurdly draconian institution they’re a part of.
It’s all just fluff and disingenuous crap. Take the last one, Francis. He pretended to be soooo humble because he slept in a nice cottage still in the disgustingly opulent Vatican instead of the even nicer pope bedroom. As an absolute monarch he had the power to dismantle the entire system and give away the wealth to the previous victims of the church to make amends. But he didn’t. This one will say a bunch of nice stuff about migrants, but when the rubber hits the road nothing will change. And they’ll still force every one of their poor members to pay a 10% income tax while burying more gold in the Vatican.
It’s an old conservative scare-mongering line that’s really cemented itself in the cultural consciousness - the idea that the pope is an absolute ruler and all catholics must do as he says was spread around (well, throughout all of history but specifically in the US) to turn people against JFK, a catholic. We can’t have a catholic president, that’ll put the pope in charge of the country!!
Reality is that the pope has a shitload of soft power and could start to implement reparations least at some level (and yeah, utterly dick move not to have done that, Frank…). Broad picture, canon law is beyond arcane and there’s plenty of restrictions on the actual “money spending” powers of the papacy. The requirement for charity is probably the biggest one, but there’s also the requirements for upkeep of the various shrines/churches/sites(?)/the holy see (obvs) as well as having to provide support for the many many agents of the church.
Appreciating that the Church will be anti-republican and leaning ever so slightly more into liberalism can exist alongside the Church’s history.
I’ll never be pro-religion, but we n ed to take a win when we can.
A book I was just reading told a story of how the Massachusetts church was trying for a long time to build more affordable housing, and basically got blocked out by NIMBYs and white patriarchy. So, given recent media, I’ve found them to sometimes be okay.
I don’t think we should be surprised their pro-zionists in the Bible Belt are psychopaths molesting children though.
It’s weirdly cloying, right? Amid all the negative press, the catholic church is on the whole responsible for a shocking amount of good in the world. Personally, a catholic hospital waiving the cost of a (really extravagant) medical disaster is both the only reason I’m still alive and not living in crippling debt as a result. Sometimes they do, in fact practice what they preach, and that’s awesome.
That ain’t the big-c Church, though. Their socially regressive attitude alone has inflicted more harm than all the good they’ve ever done, and that’s just one of the minor things they’re responsible for. It’s important to keep in mind that individuals doing good works don’t represent the absurdly draconian institution they’re a part of.
It’s all just fluff and disingenuous crap. Take the last one, Francis. He pretended to be soooo humble because he slept in a nice cottage still in the disgustingly opulent Vatican instead of the even nicer pope bedroom. As an absolute monarch he had the power to dismantle the entire system and give away the wealth to the previous victims of the church to make amends. But he didn’t. This one will say a bunch of nice stuff about migrants, but when the rubber hits the road nothing will change. And they’ll still force every one of their poor members to pay a 10% income tax while burying more gold in the Vatican.
One guy vs a globe of catholics? I realize he’s supposed to be the voice of god and all, but… I just don’t believe this.
It’s an old conservative scare-mongering line that’s really cemented itself in the cultural consciousness - the idea that the pope is an absolute ruler and all catholics must do as he says was spread around (well, throughout all of history but specifically in the US) to turn people against JFK, a catholic. We can’t have a catholic president, that’ll put the pope in charge of the country!!
Reality is that the pope has a shitload of soft power and could start to implement reparations least at some level (and yeah, utterly dick move not to have done that, Frank…). Broad picture, canon law is beyond arcane and there’s plenty of restrictions on the actual “money spending” powers of the papacy. The requirement for charity is probably the biggest one, but there’s also the requirements for upkeep of the various shrines/churches/sites(?)/the holy see (obvs) as well as having to provide support for the many many agents of the church.
The capital R is very important in your comment.