Kim Davis and the Pope, Volume MCMDXXVIII of ‘I am not a homophobe’

October 2, 2015 • 8:15 am

by Grania Spingies

Regular contributor Pliny The In Between has created a new satirical poke at the strange logical contortions from the school of Special Pleading.

All That Glitters Is Not Gold

As Jerry noted recently, there is nothing particularly liberal about the Pope’s position on anything; not unless you apply a really low standard to what liberal is: his organization bars women from all high level management positions, in spite of his saying “women are more important than men because the church is woman” (whatever that is supposed to mean). Uttering the phrase “who am I to judge?” is on charitable interpretation only basic human decency on the question of homosexuality, it is not liberal. When put in context of the entire of the entire comment the tone takes a certain slide towards the Right:

A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will—well, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation—we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.

That is not a liberal position. That is a I’ll tolerate you so long as you don’t ask for legal equality position. Not so liberal now, eh?

I’m still unsure if I understand exactly why the media fawns so much over religious leaders; but then they also fawn over the Kardashians (and I hate that I had to investigate who they are, thanks America) so perhaps that isn’t the right question.

Perhaps the question is: when did sounding like a mostly decent human being rather than a Westboro Baptist Church representative suddenly get re-branded as liberal?

 

95 thoughts on “Kim Davis and the Pope, Volume MCMDXXVIII of ‘I am not a homophobe’”

  2. The pope is compared to other popes and not to ordinary mortals like you and me. From that perspective, he’s pretty liberal. The media say: “Bergoglio is liberal.” What they actually mean is: “For a pope, Bergoglio is liberal.” The papal office is ofcourse by definition unbelievably arrogant.

    And don’t forget the church needed someone radically different from Ratzinger. Whoever the 266th pope was going to be, he was going to be construed as the opposite of Ratzinger.

    1. Good point. Also, compared to Ratzinger, it’s not that hard to look liberal.

      I also think this is part of the phenomenon I’ve mentioned in relation to Ben Carson – if someone has a warm and fuzzy voice and manner, they’re assumed to be a nice person. Just like Carson, there’s a lot of intolerance and bigotry behind the friendly bedside manner.

      And don’t forget that in the US accepting climate change science counts as a liberal position! For most of us that’s as normal as accepting evolution by natural selection, but then the US is a bit of an outlier there too.

      1. The self titled “Right-To-Life” is a loaded and ultimately false identifier. What they areally are interested is in forced birth. Not the long term survival of the baby or costs needed to raise a child. Only in birth. So they need to be called what they are, “Forced Birth”.

        The same with the misuse of terms like “Liberal” and “Progressive” which with few of the real thing on the Corporate media, it is left up to the right, Right and Reich Wingers to tell us what they consider “Liberal”. Depending on how far to the Right they are the more those not as fanatical will be judged Liberals, Democrats as Socialists which in their mind is just Communist by any other name.
        There are plenty of Right wing Democrats out there. We have one in the Whitehouse.

        1. No moderates are left in the Republican Party. I think they have joined the Democrats in theier Right Wing turn following the Republicans who can hardly be identified as ones. More like the Dixiecrats of old who joined them back int the late 1960′ -70’s.

        2. Forced birth is a good description for them. I’ve never called them right-to-life myself, as I don’t think that’s what they are, especially as many (but not all of course) of them are also pro-death penalty. I use the term anti-choice.

      2. Not entirely true. If you consider Republicans “conservative” and Democrats “liberal” then you’d have to consider almost half of the voting Americans to be conservative. The U.S. has made enormous environmental advances in the last 40-50 years. That couldn’t have happened if only liberals were concerned about environmental issues. You make the same mistake that many make in painting all conservatives with the same brush. Many conservatives have the same goals as many liberals, but they are also concerned about overspending by the government. The U.S. now has a national debt of over $17 Trillion. Sometimes a conservative lawmaker may vote against an environmental bill because he or she doesn’t think the program can be funded. For this he or she gets branded as a Neanderthal who rejects the idea of climate change.

        I am disappointed and continually surprised by polls that show so few Americans accepting evolution and climate change and so many considering themselves religious. If Americans are so ignorant and backwards how is it that they’re so successful? Something doesn’t add up. I personally think that the culture in the U.S. includes a dislike for being asked a bunch of personal questions and people generally distrust those doing the polling. Many Americans are wary of telling anyone that they don’t believe in god or that they accept and support science and so they lie when polled. I think I would, but I’m never asked what I think.

  3. The American media tends to characterize people on a relative as opposed to an absolute scale. This is most apparent in politics. Certain Republican politicians are now labelled by the media as “moderates” while perhaps ten years ago they would have been characterized as far right-wing, which by any objective standard they are. Retiring U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner is an example. They are called moderates because on occasion they see the need to compromise on legislation and not fight to shut down the U.S. government. These people are in contrast to the Tea Party wing of the Republican party who are crazy loons, whose only goal is to shut down the government, no matter what the consequences, in pursuit of ending social programs, cutting taxes for the rich, and instituting the social programs of the Christian right. Ted Cruz of Texas is an example.

    Likewise, the current pope is characterized by the media as liberal, but this is only in contrast to his predecessors, with whom he differs little in substance. But, his media savvy has fooled the press (which is not difficult to do).

    Low information people usually fail to notice the difference between relative and absolute characterizations of public figures.

    1. “Low information people”
      Thanks. I’ve been looking for that term, or a term to use for that meaning. It works well. Not too insulting and quite explanatory of attitudes. I know, or know of, lots of Low information people.

      1. I also connote “low information people” to willfully ignorant people with an ardent proclivity towards confirmation bias.

        1. ‘Low information voters’ is how Bill O’Reilly characterizes those who don’t watch his show and don’t agree with his positions on the issues. Just sayin’. 🙂

          I think it’s one of the ways he stays popular – he tells people how smart they are for watching his show. Incidentally, that patronising arrogance is also one of the reasons I could no longer stomach it.

      2. I define a “low information person” as one who lacks sufficient reliable data (willfully or not) to render an informed judgment on a topic.

        1. It was found that the average Fox “news” watcher thinks they are most informed but on testing have less than the no news following person.

  4. The Pope saying – Who am I to judge, is about like John Roberts or Antonin Scalia saying the same thing.

    Maybe more like Earl Scheib saying – What do I know about painting cars.

  5. It boils down to the church mixing various concessions to liberalism while having some rigid lines drawn in the sand (amongst the “footprints in the sand” if you’ll excuse the expression.)

    In the earlier statement, the Pope was clear that he opposed the “homosexual lobby” which apparently he sees as more threatening to society’s well-being than Hobby lobby.

    1. Hobby Lobby is essentially a religious based organization who also sells things. Christian enough for the Pope to be on their side. (He will gladly convert them from Calvinism to Catholicism if he dast.)

  6. “Sounding like a mostly decent human being” branded as liberal is appropriate. No need to mislead by adding a word like “compassionate” as George W. Bush did in his first presidential campaign, promoting so-called “compassionate conservatism.”

    1. I always find that quite telling – it’s a tacit admission that conservatism isn’t compassionate, despite claims to the contrary.

      1. The claims were weak and hardly believed like the way Limbaugh around that time joked about it as if it wasn’t serious, and it wasn’t.

  8. The supposed meeting lasted 15 minutes, which is way too much time to grant, what four?,annulments. Add in time to discuss catholic enlightenment. Still way too much time: what science has taught us about the natural world vs what religion has taught us about d*g. A gazzillion to zero!! Thanks for that Jerry!!

    1. Since Kim Davis isn’t Catholic I doubt she cares whether the Catholic Church considers her later marriages valid.

      1. Is ms. Davis aware that the pope is catholic? Is the pope aware that she is not?

  9. The Masons? LOL. This Pope is still a Pope, whether he is kinder and gentler, he still sits in the woods.

  10. “women are more important than men because the church is woman”

    What?! All hail the uterus, for therein lies the future of our brainwashed faith.

    This rhetoric is deeply abusive on so many levels. Women and children run away form the pointy hat.

    1. No! I’m with Grania! I had to look them up to. It was annoying to have to waste my time in that way. 🙂

      1. Whoops – I mean too – I’m clearly channeling a Kardashian. (I had to spell the K word in full – my tablet didn’t recognize what I wanted!)

          2. I prefer the Cardassians only because they are the kind of men our crypto-fascist leaders and wannabes want to take us to. Mass murder without fear or remorse. What Stalin had, what Hitler wanted. Strong men of iron, cruel, intrepid and fearless, lacking that organ of compassion that Ayn Rand wanted in her adherents. Psychopaths but charming, intelligent, regal, sophisticated and clean. Not the messy ones who kill and mutilate children.

          4. Yeah, and I actually would watch a show that was a Dukat and Garak sitcom or reality show. 😉

        1. I knew that Merilee! Didn’t mean to give you a hard time or anything! Sorry. 🙁

  12. The pope is just another CEO of a BIG business.

    He’s selling life-after-death to those who abide by ‘his’ antiquated rules, suffer gladly and contribute financially.

    It’s amazing that people actually buy this religious stuff.

  13. Yes, it’s true that the current Pope is same as the earlier Popes — no substantive changes.

    But this was interesting:

    “Charles Pierce nailed it: The Vatican confirms Pope Francis was “ratf*cked” into meeting Kim Davis”
    http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/the_vatican_confirms_that_pope_francis_was_ratfcked_into_meeting_kim_davis/

    Here’s the opening portion of this article:

    On Thursday, Charles Pierce speculated that the pope was “ratfucked” into meeting Kim Davis, and as conspiratorial as his speculation seemed at first, Vatican spokesman Reverend Federico Lombardi largely confirmed it in a statement released Friday morning.

    Pierce wrote that we must “stipulate that there are more than a few members of the Church’s permanent bureaucracy, both within the Clan Of The Red Beanie and without, who are not happy that this gentleman got elected Pope, and who are not happy with what he’s done and said since he was.” If you are one of those people “and you’re looking to ratfuck the pope’s visit to the United States, and to his agenda in general, you’d be looking to put him in a box.”

    “So, how would you do that?” Pierce asked, before answering, “I’d arrange for the pope to meet Davis, but not as an American culture war celebrity, but as a devout Christian whose faith is under vague assault.” Then, “with the pope safely back in Rome, I’d leak the news to a conservative Catholic website and wait for the inevitable explosion.”

    1. The Salon article is just a summary of Pierce’s original in Esquire.

      http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a38440/pope-francis-swindled-kim-davis-meeting/

      I wouldn’t at all be surprised if Pierce’s conspiracy theory holds water. But that just means that Bergolio is a bumbling incompetent who can’t even be arsed to read some news headlines from the country he’s visiting. And we’re supposed to believe that such a person is the personal representative of an all-powerful all-knowing superhuman demigod with direct authority over humanity?

      No matter what the story, the Pope is a complete fuckup. Either he’s a fuckup for being a raging homophobe trying to pretend he’s okay with the gays that pray the gay away; or he’s a fuckup for lacking even minimal competence in his administrative position.

      …of course, that’s not an exclusive “or”….

      b&

      1. I’m now seeing reports that the Vatican is saying the pope didn’t have a private audience with Davis – he only met her in a receiving line situation, and that he didn’t say he supported her.

        He’s also saying the only person he had a private audience with is a gay man and his mother.

        I saw it on TV. I’ll try and find a link.

      2. If his conspiracy idea holds it wouldn’t be the first time that others want to sink a pope, or kill him to get their way. We have seen it in the past.

        Even so it was a bad idea and hurt Francis’ standing. He is still above the Inquisition Pope Ratzinger to be sure, not that it is saying much for Popes in general.

  14. “…nothing particularly liberal about the Pope’s position on anything;..”
    I’d add that there’s nothing particularly conscientious about Kim Davis’ objections, either.

        1. Oh, it’s a favorite told amongst ten-year-old boys. Little boy asks a girl if he can put his finger in her bellybutton. After some wheedling, she agrees and he does — but then she exclaims that that’s not her bellybutton. He replies that it’s okay, because it’s not his finger, either….

          b&

  15. I’ve just had an idea that seems, on the face of it, to show how male homosexuality could be a genetically successful strategy, for women anyway (ironically). Shoot me down please somebody before I get too carried away. It’s subtle but still seems too simple not to have been thought of before!

    The argument which seems to stump every scientist is the notion that because gays have fewer children than heterosexuals, this feature cannot be genetic, gays would simply die out. Now just let’s play a machiavellian mind game for the moment. Remember that women and men are always playing a genetic war of the sexes so, let’s look at the situation in which ancient (100,000 years ago) men and women evolved and adapted. For a woman, if her offspring were fathered and reared by two gay guys, this would be a tremendously successful outcome for her progeny – they would almost be like cuckoos in the nest without even having to heave out any siblings. A family of three carers would have obvious advantages for the children compared with the conventional two. In addition, there may be little barrier for the woman to also have a conventional heterosexual husband and concomitant brood of children, of which only perhaps two, on average, are likely to survive. In other words she gets an extra bite of the hereditary cherry for her own genes.

    Remember this is a strategy for women in this war of the sexes and consequently she has little thought for the gay men’s genetic competitiveness. She just has to give rise to some gays within her own genes – admittedly for future generations of women to take advantage of. However, there is an intriguing idea proposed by Sykes in his 2003 book, Adam ‘s Curse.

    The ultimate in sexual antagonism is the idea that the inheritance of male homosexuality might be via mitochondrial DNA. This material is outside of the nucleus containing the chromosomes and is passed down the female line. Apparently it is ‘selfish” in that it would prefer a female-only species, and Sykes suggests that male homosexuality might be an example of mDNA sabotaging masculinity (c.f., the beehive in which sterile males work for the queen). There is currently little evidence to support this theory but it remains a possibility. (Prof Glenn Wilson)

    It is not absolutely necessary for the genetic predisposition of women to have the odd gay child be carried in the mitochondria. Wherever it does reside the strategy just has to work a little better than having no such strategy.

    1. Homosexuality words as a governor, though not very well for humans, of population. Where they itch is scratched with no new ones created. Interesting that so many religions rule against it and in favor of only approved sexual contact for reproductive outcomes.

  16. We’ve been concentrating on the factors around the pope’s meeting with Davis here, but there’s the other part of Pliny the Inbetween’s (once again) excellent cartoon – the Church’s attitude to women, contraception and especially abortion.

    It’s absolutely unconscionable how Catholic doctors and hospitals, backed by the RCC, destroy the lives of so many women because of their dogma.

    In the 21st century women are allowed to die in the richest and most powerful country in the world because a foetus, which usually can’t survive either, cannot be removed not for medical reasons, but because of the ‘eternal soul.’ And it doesn’t even matter if you or your doctor believe in that bit rubbish – the hospital is owned by an organisation that does.

    Woman are not the Church. They’re the means of churning out more believers, because it’s only by maintaining the numbers the Church and a bunch of celibate men can retain power.

      1. I was referring to the US, with their large number of hospitals owned by the RCC in which they enforce their rules on all patients. There are other countries with stuff to answer for to in this regard, but this is a US website, so I stuck to that country.

      2. No other country is as rich or as powerful. However the core is being eaten away by the few with th most to make us a neo-feudal world of nations once again. The past 40 years we have started to regress to pre-Middle Class times. Which is why we can be rich yet more of us are getting poorer all of the time.

    2. They’re the means of churning out more believers, because it’s only by maintaining the numbers the Church and a bunch of celibate men can retain power.

      And by saying “Woman are the Church” he is surreptitiously admitting this, no?

  17. I just realized that MCMDXXVIII is not a legal Roman numeral construction.

    M=1000
    CM = 1000-100 = 900
    Since D is 500, it is out of place following MCM (1900)
    If the D is turned into L then the number represents 1978.

    (or am I out of school too long to remember?)

      1. I think he meant 1978 (L instead of D) as that would make sense in regards to the title.

  18. Thing is, left/right and conservative/liberal are relative rather than absolute scales. They can be measured along different axes (economic and social) and shift over time.

    The platform of the Communist Party USA in the first half of the 20th century, for example, was based on unemployment insurance, social security, a graduated income tax, and equal rights for black citizens — positions that have moved so far into the mainstream that they are accepted (at least nominally) by today’s rightwing. On the other hand, the Republican Party (which used to have a liberal, Rockefeller wing) has moved so far to the right that a formerly fringe character like Barry Goldwater (the GOP presidential candidate in 1964) would today be labeled a RINO.

    Pope Francis is certainly more liberal (or less conservative, if you prefer) than his four immediate predecessor (although its hard to say about John Paul I, since he served for only 33 days) — which is to say, than every pope since John XXIII (who was clearly more “liberal” than the Piuses that preceded him).

    The pertinent question now is whether Francis is going to be a real reformer like Juan 2-3. John spent the first few years of his papacy changing the Church’s mental outlook — reaching out to Jews, Greek Orthodox, Protestants, and Muslims — before instituting substantive policy changes designed to drag the Church into the modern world with the Second Vatican Council. (Unfortunately, John died a few months into Vatican II, before his work could be finished, and although Paul VI continued the council in deference to his saintly predecessor, his heart was never really in it the way John’s was.)

    My sense is that Francis is sincere when he speaks out on economic, environmental, and some social issues. We’ll see if he follows though with policy changes. Keep in mind, however, the precarious situation Francis finds himself in. The current Church hierarchy is larded with archconservatives appointed by John Paul II in his waning years and with Benedict holdovers. The Kim Davis debacle may well turn out to be an example of the potential treachery Francis faces from within. (We’re talking about the same Church, after all, that has had six popes from the Medici and Borgia families and once went six decades with one pope in Rome and another in Avignon, so treachery is nothing new.)

      1. There was an east/west schism over ecclesiastical difference in the 11th century which split the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I was referring to is a period in the 14th century during which there were competing popes residing in Rome and in Avignon, France. This resulted from a political rift between the Church hierarchy in Rome and the French royal family. It is sometimes called the “Western Schism” (although there was no sectarian split in the Church) and those who held the Avignon papacy are sometimes referred to as “antipopes.”

          3. I’m groping for a witty riposte.

            Oops–shouldn’t use “grope” in a post about the Pope.

  20. The pope’s use of the phrase “conscious objector” here is a perfect example of the slimy mis-appropriation of a well-understood phrase in the interests of deluding people into having sympathy for the woman.

    Here Mrs. Davis (perhaps Mrs.^3 or Mrs.^4 depending on whether the count is the number of husbands or the number of marriages) carries out an activity the equivalent of the following: A man joins the army, goes along to the theatre of war, then behaves there in a way which actively thwarts the war effort of the army to which he belongs. That man would normally be called a traitor, not a conscientious objector. The latter could often deserve sympathy, the former seldom.

    1. Exactly. Why I had mentioned in an earlier posting on this – the use of conscientious objector to describe Mrs. Davis is an insult to all the actual objectors who refused to fight or carry guns in war.

      1. A common tactic of the Right Wing Christains here to misused well known terms in other contexts in the effort to elide to them the same meanings. A trick of propaganda. The better to confuse people even more if they pick up on its use like the use of “homeland” here by our govt.

  21. The RCC will always be what it is, there is no other position it can take or hold, although it can ‘appear’ to change it never can or will.. All it is good for is bagging until they cease to exist. I feel no compunction to explain why here, others do it better, but just like the Kardorkians it would be a complete waste of your time.
    They do have something in common, they are both into the glam, bling and BS.
    The real ‘confrontation’ if I can put it like that, is on the ground, every opportunity I get to persuade believers of this folly of an illusion, this lie, that science is killing off is where the action is. Quietly creating doubt and uneasiness with this centuries old (religious)monolith.
    “Everybody knows this is nowhere” I think that is a Neil Young line.

  22. The Vatican says Davis’s shysters are lying.
    Here are the headlines and links:

    Vatican Says Kim Davis ‘Exploited’ the Pope

    http://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/10/02/vatican-disputes-kim-daviss-version-papal-meeting

    Pope Francis personally arranged meeting with gay couple

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/pope-francis-personally-arranged-meeting-with-gay-couple/

    Liberty Counsel: The Vatican Is Lying About Pope’s Kim Davis Meeting

    http://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/10/02/liberty-counsel-claims-vatican-lying-about-popes-kim-davis-meeting

Comments are closed.