Yeah, he really was decent for a pope. And I think he might have been more decent as a pope if he had his way entirely. He really seemed like he wanted more compassion and change than he was able to make happen.
I agree. Though the pragmatist in me also thinks it’s for the better for things to change slowly, as bad as that feels. It kinda feels like social progress moving too quickly just results in more intense backlash.
Broader culture has to be able to keep up with the change and if it outpaces them it seems like people reject the changes and it can cement the problems in place as people dig their heels in :/
I appreciate that he pushed things forward though. There’s a lot more change still that needs to happen- I’m not holding my breath but I really hope the next pope actually carries that forward.
Yeah, there’s always a lot of flex in social movement. The harder you push, the further you get; but unless the system resilient enough to most adapt, it snaps, or it rebounds. Neither of which is a reliable form of change.
To me, once lives are no longer on the line on the big scale, it’s better to ease up and push for change gently from the bottom up rather than forcefully from the top down.
It doesn’t fix problems as fast, but once they get fixed, the populace’s inertia will serve up keep the changes as the status quo. Since the kind of changes that Francis was making were the kind that work from the bottom up, despite him being a power, I look at his changes as the result of the work already done, rather than something that was supposed to be the vanguard of change.
But, like you said, moving slow means that there’s going to be people getting ground down by the system as it exists. Even once you get past the point where people are dying frequently by way of violence or gaps in the system, there’s still going to be death, and suffering, until things change completely. But if you don’t slow down once that goal is met, the serious enemies of humane change will fight harder and nastier.
You end up with a worse situation overall by pushing until a system breaks. You get the crazies making desperate moves instead of being gradually worn away.
From what I’ve seen elsewhere he appointed ~80% of the voting cardinals so there’s a better chance than usual that new pope will be at least relatively liberal.
Also kind of fucks with progressives, though. Lots of people would accuse them of racism when progressive christians critize a conservative black pope.
e.g. because they actually agree with conservative catholic policies. It’s not necessarily clear to outsiders whether those accusations have any merit.
And it’s possible to be flawed and still have compassion. Should he have done better? Absolutely. But he was better than the pope before him, and the one before that, alllll the way back.
It’s okay to recognize the good in a person while also recognising the bad.
However, this is c/lemmybewholesome and it wouldn’t have been appropriate for me to bring up the bad in a top level comment.
It’s fine in child comments, imo, but if a community is geared around things being uplifting and positive, a top level comment should stay focused on those things. It’s one of those things where if I have to say something that drags down the overall thread, I shouldn’t say it at all. So I focused on the good side of things.
And, again, I did say that he was decentfor a pope. I acknowledged that he had flaws indirectly in as friendly a way as possible by phrasing things that way
I hope the next pope revives one of the classic pope names, there are so many good ones to choose from. Pelagius, Viligius, Damasus… I can’t take any more Pauls, Benedicts, Pius, Innocents, Clements etc.
Yeah, he really was decent for a pope. And I think he might have been more decent as a pope if he had his way entirely. He really seemed like he wanted more compassion and change than he was able to make happen.
I agree. Though the pragmatist in me also thinks it’s for the better for things to change slowly, as bad as that feels. It kinda feels like social progress moving too quickly just results in more intense backlash.
Broader culture has to be able to keep up with the change and if it outpaces them it seems like people reject the changes and it can cement the problems in place as people dig their heels in :/
I appreciate that he pushed things forward though. There’s a lot more change still that needs to happen- I’m not holding my breath but I really hope the next pope actually carries that forward.
Yeah, there’s always a lot of flex in social movement. The harder you push, the further you get; but unless the system resilient enough to most adapt, it snaps, or it rebounds. Neither of which is a reliable form of change.
To me, once lives are no longer on the line on the big scale, it’s better to ease up and push for change gently from the bottom up rather than forcefully from the top down.
It doesn’t fix problems as fast, but once they get fixed, the populace’s inertia will serve up keep the changes as the status quo. Since the kind of changes that Francis was making were the kind that work from the bottom up, despite him being a power, I look at his changes as the result of the work already done, rather than something that was supposed to be the vanguard of change.
But, like you said, moving slow means that there’s going to be people getting ground down by the system as it exists. Even once you get past the point where people are dying frequently by way of violence or gaps in the system, there’s still going to be death, and suffering, until things change completely. But if you don’t slow down once that goal is met, the serious enemies of humane change will fight harder and nastier.
You end up with a worse situation overall by pushing until a system breaks. You get the crazies making desperate moves instead of being gradually worn away.
Nobody can’t change an institution like the Vatican in a few years, but I guess he tried.
Hopefully the new one will not be a conservative one.
From what I’ve seen elsewhere he appointed ~80% of the voting cardinals so there’s a better chance than usual that new pope will be at least relatively liberal.
Damn, that’s a massive conflict of interest. If the Pope can appoint the voting Cardinals, what keeps him from staying on the chair till he…oh.
I kind of want the next one to be a traditional African Roman Catholic partly to mix it up a bit, and partly because it fucks with racists.
You just know they will call it a DEI hire
Also kind of fucks with progressives, though. Lots of people would accuse them of racism when progressive christians critize a conservative black pope.
only a conservative would think that lol.
Damn, I learned something new about myself today!
Why would progressives accuse them of racism thoughI’m dumb, completely misread the comment
Progressives would be those accused, not accusing. Or is there something wooshing above me?
e.g. because they actually agree with conservative catholic policies. It’s not necessarily clear to outsiders whether those accusations have any merit.
deleted by creator
I mean, I did say for a pope there.
And it’s possible to be flawed and still have compassion. Should he have done better? Absolutely. But he was better than the pope before him, and the one before that, alllll the way back.
It’s okay to recognize the good in a person while also recognising the bad.
However, this is c/lemmybewholesome and it wouldn’t have been appropriate for me to bring up the bad in a top level comment.
It’s fine in child comments, imo, but if a community is geared around things being uplifting and positive, a top level comment should stay focused on those things. It’s one of those things where if I have to say something that drags down the overall thread, I shouldn’t say it at all. So I focused on the good side of things.
And, again, I did say that he was decent for a pope. I acknowledged that he had flaws indirectly in as friendly a way as possible by phrasing things that way
You make a good point. I’ve deleted my comment. I was out of line bringing it to this community. My bad.
No worries, I totally understand where you were coming from.
He did approve blessing same sex marriage which is an improvement compared to the previous pope who called it evil, so he was compassionate compared to that.
But yeah, standards for popes are very very low.
The previous pope was a Nazi, I can’t even remember the guy’s pope name, just his real name. Fuck Ratzinger.
…we just called him evil pope…
Pius number something. Pious… yeah. Missed that mark.
I hope the next pope revives one of the classic pope names, there are so many good ones to choose from. Pelagius, Viligius, Damasus… I can’t take any more Pauls, Benedicts, Pius, Innocents, Clements etc.
The last one broke ground with his name/title. I liked it.
Wasn’t there a pope called Leo?
Decent for a pope isn’t saying much when he wasn’t decent as a person. Homophobic slur using piece of shit he was behind closed doors.
How do you know this? Or do you just assume?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-28/pope-francis-uses-homophobic-slur-in-closed-door-meeting/103903046
The article says he might not have realised the word he used was derogatory. Just for context, for the tl:dr crowd
Yes and then he apologized and then did it again a couple weeks later
Oh wow I didn’t know that part of the story.
Which is an assumption.