NatakuNox@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 15:45
collapse
Right! That move got him on the short list of possible popes. If the church actually made any remediation towards their victims they would be broke. And since they can’t make things right from their past actions they’ll never stop doing those acts. Organized religion will always lead to corruption and abuse.
Stamets@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 13:55
nextcollapse
I’ve seen a lot of people call this guy ‘progressive’ so far and I do not even remotely see it. He’s quoted as being anti-gay, anti-trans, thinks women being in church positions will cause more problems than they solve, put a pedophile up in a church and then is accused of refusing to investigate two other pedophiles. And he’s progressive how, exactly? Because he told off Trump and JD Vance? The absolute bare minimum to not be a horrible person?
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 09 May 2025 14:02
nextcollapse
“progressive” is a relative term.
Stamets@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 14:06
nextcollapse
True. However the default implication is progressive from the thing that came just before it, not something that came 300 years before it. This dude is obviously more progressive than like Pope Pius the Third or something but it’s outright regressive in comparison to Francis. Also, he’s accused of protecting pedophiles on a number of occasions. I feel like that is kind of like a neutron bomb when it comes to any claim that they’re progressive or a good person.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 09 May 2025 15:32
nextcollapse
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.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 09 May 2025 16:00
collapse
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.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 09 May 2025 16:13
collapse
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.
Eh, idk. Francis was caught multiple times in closed-door meetings using the f-slur. However relatively progressive you may present yourself to the world, I just don’t think you become head of one of the largest, oldest religious organizations in the world by being truly progressive.
ms_lane@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 14:51
nextcollapse
But Relative to what, he’s not progressive relative to his predecessor.
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 15:00
collapse
Relative to the conservative wing of Catholicism. They make being anti-gay and anti-abortion look pedestrian in comparison.
ferretfacefrankburns@lemmy.ca
on 09 May 2025 23:09
collapse
The guys who would go back to pre-Vatican II Catholic Church are some weird fucks. They want the return to the mass in Latin and probably want to conduct inquisition-style torture on anybody not comforming to their weirdo dogma.
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 23:16
collapse
I don’t really feel very good about judging people subjectively based on their beliefs or culture. Like I get it, but I hate giving people excuses for being objectively garbage and bad for society.
And like it’s the pope and he’s at best a pedophile enabler so fuck him.
arotrios@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 14:35
nextcollapse
ChickenAndRice@sh.itjust.works
on 09 May 2025 14:51
nextcollapse
I’m guessing you’ve seen the Reddit threads about him? The commenters display the exact behavior you describe lol.
Somewhat related: It’s funny, I came to Lemmy because of the Reddit API fiasco, but stayed because I prefer the culture here. Sometimes I’ll visit Reddit (during major news stories, or for niche topics) and man, does it feel so off lol
Amongst from personal friends. Queer friends. That blows my mind.
Quill7513@slrpnk.net
on 09 May 2025 15:57
nextcollapse
progressive for a pope. as a cardinal he did not actively rape kids, just passively tolerated that his peers were doing it. i’m sorry but the bar is in hell. the new pope sucks because the pope must suck to maintain the hegemonic order of the world’s most powerful organized religion. if a potential pope was actually a good person as we conceptualize one, they wouldn’t have ever involved themselves in the power squabble of the clergical hierarchy.
our estimation is this pope is pretty good in the context of being a pope. he is still, however, a pope. it’s like how in america our options in november were “passively tolerates atrocity” or “enacts atrocity”
The new pope holds opinion that are counter to what the old pope did. The old pope was progressive because he pushed the church forward. The new pope is regressive because he’s dragging it backward.
I’m not having this conversation anywhere else in this thread. Y’all can bend over backwards trying to justify that he is progressive but he aint. Full stop, simple, flat, you don’t get to argue it. By simple definition of progressive and regressive, this pope is not PROgressive. He is REgressive. He is bringing the church BACKWARDS. His opinions are counter to what Francis pushed for in a lot of cases and, oh yeah, HE FUCKING PROTECTED PEDOPHILES.
And trying to split hairs that “Oh he was a cardinal then!” is objectively insane when it is pedophilia. I do not give a fuck whether or not you get given a silly hat or not, you’re still someone who protected pedophiles. The last pope didn’t have that direct accusation.
I’m all the way the fuck out from this entire posts thread.
Quill7513@slrpnk.net
on 09 May 2025 16:26
collapse
yeah nah. i’m advocating for stripping the catholic church of its power since this is the best it can do. like. we’re honestly on the same page that this guy sucks but your takeaway about what i’m saying should be done is off the mark of what i’m actually saying
Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml
on 09 May 2025 19:04
nextcollapse
Progressive as in he does hate and pro-paedophilia with a smile, maybe?
Cethin@lemmy.zip
on 09 May 2025 20:05
nextcollapse
From what I’ve read, he does hold some progressive opinions, such as on immigration. He also holds some conservative opinions, like homosexuality being bad. I don’t think it’s fair to call him either. However, from what I’ve heard he is about as “progressive” as we could have hoped for from this process this time. I think hoping for anything good from something like Catholicism is foolish. The best you can normally hope for is that they just don’t get in the way.
frog_brawler@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 23:57
collapse
I heard that he went with the name Leo because Leo 13 was very pro union, pro labor, pro worker. Put that up with being a homophobic, misogynistic, diddler-protector and he is still quite progressive as compared to the current Overton window that’s representing US politics.
Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca
on 09 May 2025 13:56
nextcollapse
As is tradition.
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
on 09 May 2025 14:04
nextcollapse
I am surprised God is still hiring real humans? Why not just an AI pope? Does God not care about efficiency?
massive_bereavement@fedia.io
on 09 May 2025 14:24
nextcollapse
The Sun is an actively terrible rag, and the Telegraph is right-wing. Anything named “the liberty beacon” is automatically under suspicion.
The Independent is a bit conservative but generally reliable, and I’m not familiar with the Sun Times.
Obviously the story has a factual basis, but I just want to see more reliable outlets reporting on it.
nokturne213@sopuli.xyz
on 09 May 2025 15:51
collapse
Feel free to perform your own Internet search and click on a link you like. I picked a handful of the many stories about it. There had been links posted yesterday alleging this from before he was pope but even searching by his dead name only brings up the current articles now.
Bassman27@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 14:43
nextcollapse
So we lasted less than 24hours before allegations 😂
DemBoSain@midwest.social
on 09 May 2025 14:51
nextcollapse
They all did. Don’t look to the Catholic church for morality.
match@pawb.social
on 09 May 2025 14:54
nextcollapse
Was there a cardinal who wouldn’t do this?
superkret@feddit.org
on 09 May 2025 14:59
nextcollapse
In Catholic Church politics, he was the middle-of-the-road candidate.
On the one side, he protected priests who sexually abused children.
But on the other side, he was never caught diddling kids himself.
A true moderate.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 16:02
collapse
I hate that this sounds a little sarcastic but it’s absolutely true.
Punchshark@lemmy.ca
on 09 May 2025 15:12
nextcollapse
The catholic church is the biggest pedophile ring in the world
Freshparsnip@lemm.ee
on 09 May 2025 15:14
nextcollapse
It’s frustrating that the news on tv never mentions this, they only say positive things about him
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 18:36
collapse
almost like there’s a white Christian bias in the mainstream media.
I know! make the next pope black or a woman!
toomanypancakes@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 15:15
nextcollapse
It would probably take an actual miracle for an anti-pedophile pope to be elected.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 18:34
collapse
same for any current president too, sadly.
georgesc@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 16:08
nextcollapse
Peruvian non practicing Catholic here; from what I can gather, both mainstream and alternative (meaning independent, not meaning alternative-facts) in Peru have been afire over this.
Afaik the accusations seems to be a revenge hit-job done by a cult/faction (the sodalites/los sodalicios) that just recently were disbanded by pope Francis itself, with some even being excommunicated.
This sect is/was rolling in money, so bad that they even have companies in the caiman islands; they ofc seem to have also corrupted judges, other non cult priests and politicians and that explains the failure of secular justice.
yournamehere@lemm.ee
on 09 May 2025 16:14
nextcollapse
i think he did much worse than look away.
comador@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 17:30
nextcollapse
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
on 09 May 2025 18:15
nextcollapse
The environment - so trusting of Trump, so distrustful of clergy - is so charged that one needs only say that priest did something and it takes on a life of its own.
I don’t know this priest. I didn’t know the last Pope.
But I bet a real investigation will show what happened more than rumours planted on Facebook while a despot needs a diversion and a villain.
InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
on 10 May 2025 00:13
nextcollapse
The environment isn’t trusting .
The media is amplifying all FUD from anyone except Trump.
If you’d read the article you will see that this is a report from a network of church abuse survivors and the person speaking has first hand evidence from speaking to Prevost. If you discount them, you are basically saying that witness statements count for nothing. You are silencing the victims.
You will also know that Prevost blocked the ‘real investigation’ you claim you want and this is core to the point of the article.
Glytch@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 19:35
nextcollapse
He’s also threatening to excommunicate any priest who follows Washington’s mandatory reporting law.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
on 09 May 2025 23:15
nextcollapse
Which shows where their priorities are.
Not in the greater good.
Not even in the common good.
Their priorities are, as always, been in protecting, defending, and hiding pedophiles… especially pedophile priests and other officials.
Doctors, Teachers, Therapists, Etc all have a moral and legal imperative to protect children from harm and abusers. Why is it the catholic church fights so hard to argue it doesnt?
threaded - newest
Well, this is what I would expect from any/every catholic pope, so…
He has all the qualifications!!
Right! That move got him on the short list of possible popes. If the church actually made any remediation towards their victims they would be broke. And since they can’t make things right from their past actions they’ll never stop doing those acts. Organized religion will always lead to corruption and abuse.
I’ve seen a lot of people call this guy ‘progressive’ so far and I do not even remotely see it. He’s quoted as being anti-gay, anti-trans, thinks women being in church positions will cause more problems than they solve, put a pedophile up in a church and then is accused of refusing to investigate two other pedophiles. And he’s progressive how, exactly? Because he told off Trump and JD Vance? The absolute bare minimum to not be a horrible person?
“progressive” is a relative term.
True. However the default implication is progressive from the thing that came just before it, not something that came 300 years before it. This dude is obviously more progressive than like Pope Pius the Third or something but it’s outright regressive in comparison to Francis. Also, he’s accused of protecting pedophiles on a number of occasions. I feel like that is kind of like a neutron bomb when it comes to any claim that they’re progressive or a good person.
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.
Eh, idk. Francis was caught multiple times in closed-door meetings using the f-slur. However relatively progressive you may present yourself to the world, I just don’t think you become head of one of the largest, oldest religious organizations in the world by being truly progressive.
But Relative to what, he’s not progressive relative to his predecessor.
Relative to the conservative wing of Catholicism. They make being anti-gay and anti-abortion look pedestrian in comparison.
The guys who would go back to pre-Vatican II Catholic Church are some weird fucks. They want the return to the mass in Latin and probably want to conduct inquisition-style torture on anybody not comforming to their weirdo dogma.
Speaking as an ex-Catholic, can’t agree more
I don’t really feel very good about judging people subjectively based on their beliefs or culture. Like I get it, but I hate giving people excuses for being objectively garbage and bad for society.
And like it’s the pope and he’s at best a pedophile enabler so fuck him.
You should have seen the conservative candidate…
<img alt="" src="https://i.imgflip.com/3gn5us.jpg">
I’m guessing you’ve seen the Reddit threads about him? The commenters display the exact behavior you describe lol.
Somewhat related: It’s funny, I came to Lemmy because of the Reddit API fiasco, but stayed because I prefer the culture here. Sometimes I’ll visit Reddit (during major news stories, or for niche topics) and man, does it feel so off lol
Amongst from personal friends. Queer friends. That blows my mind.
progressive for a pope. as a cardinal he did not actively rape kids, just passively tolerated that his peers were doing it. i’m sorry but the bar is in hell. the new pope sucks because the pope must suck to maintain the hegemonic order of the world’s most powerful organized religion. if a potential pope was actually a good person as we conceptualize one, they wouldn’t have ever involved themselves in the power squabble of the clergical hierarchy.
our estimation is this pope is pretty good in the context of being a pope. he is still, however, a pope. it’s like how in america our options in november were “passively tolerates atrocity” or “enacts atrocity”
sigh
The new pope holds opinion that are counter to what the old pope did. The old pope was progressive because he pushed the church forward. The new pope is regressive because he’s dragging it backward.
I’m not having this conversation anywhere else in this thread. Y’all can bend over backwards trying to justify that he is progressive but he aint. Full stop, simple, flat, you don’t get to argue it. By simple definition of progressive and regressive, this pope is not PROgressive. He is REgressive. He is bringing the church BACKWARDS. His opinions are counter to what Francis pushed for in a lot of cases and, oh yeah, HE FUCKING PROTECTED PEDOPHILES.
And trying to split hairs that “Oh he was a cardinal then!” is objectively insane when it is pedophilia. I do not give a fuck whether or not you get given a silly hat or not, you’re still someone who protected pedophiles. The last pope didn’t have that direct accusation.
I’m all the way the fuck out from this entire posts thread.
yeah nah. i’m advocating for stripping the catholic church of its power since this is the best it can do. like. we’re honestly on the same page that this guy sucks but your takeaway about what i’m saying should be done is off the mark of what i’m actually saying
Progressive as in he does hate and pro-paedophilia with a smile, maybe?
From what I’ve read, he does hold some progressive opinions, such as on immigration. He also holds some conservative opinions, like homosexuality being bad. I don’t think it’s fair to call him either. However, from what I’ve heard he is about as “progressive” as we could have hoped for from this process this time. I think hoping for anything good from something like Catholicism is foolish. The best you can normally hope for is that they just don’t get in the way.
I heard that he went with the name Leo because Leo 13 was very pro union, pro labor, pro worker. Put that up with being a homophobic, misogynistic, diddler-protector and he is still quite progressive as compared to the current Overton window that’s representing US politics.
As is tradition.
I am surprised God is still hiring real humans? Why not just an AI pope? Does God not care about efficiency?
The last AI priest was baptising with Gatorade.
It has electrolytes!
It’s what original sin craves.
Can an AI rape kids?
Nope, guess the Catholic church is still in the lead on the Evil Bastards scoreboard!
What is Youtube Algorithm
Same old same old.
So… Business as usual, I suppose?
Isn’t it a requirement of the job to pimp kids?
Par for the course
Mediaite is a blog. I’d be interested in some journalism from a more solid source tho.
independent.co.uk/…/pope-leo-catholic-vatican-sex…
www.the-sun.com/…/pope-leo-sex-abuse-cover-up/
thelibertybeacon.com/pope-leo-xiv-looked-the-othe…
telegraph.co.uk/…/sex-abuse-heart-of-catholic-chu…
…suntimes.com/…/pope-leo-cardinal-robert-prevost-…
The Sun is an actively terrible rag, and the Telegraph is right-wing. Anything named “the liberty beacon” is automatically under suspicion.
The Independent is a bit conservative but generally reliable, and I’m not familiar with the Sun Times.
Obviously the story has a factual basis, but I just want to see more reliable outlets reporting on it.
Feel free to perform your own Internet search and click on a link you like. I picked a handful of the many stories about it. There had been links posted yesterday alleging this from before he was pope but even searching by his dead name only brings up the current articles now.
So we lasted less than 24hours before allegations 😂
They all did. Don’t look to the Catholic church for morality.
Pobody’s Nerfect? 🤷♀️
(Heavy /s)
Was there a cardinal who wouldn’t do this?
In Catholic Church politics, he was the middle-of-the-road candidate.
On the one side, he protected priests who sexually abused children.
But on the other side, he was never caught diddling kids himself.
A true moderate.
I hate that this sounds a little sarcastic but it’s absolutely true.
The catholic church is the biggest pedophile ring in the world
It’s frustrating that the news on tv never mentions this, they only say positive things about him
almost like there’s a white Christian bias in the mainstream media.
I know! make the next pope black or a woman!
Sounds like he’s upholding Christian Values.
It would probably take an actual miracle for an anti-pedophile pope to be elected.
same for any current president too, sadly.
Peruvian non practicing Catholic here; from what I can gather, both mainstream and alternative (meaning independent, not meaning alternative-facts) in Peru have been afire over this. Afaik the accusations seems to be a revenge hit-job done by a cult/faction (the sodalites/los sodalicios) that just recently were disbanded by pope Francis itself, with some even being excommunicated. This sect is/was rolling in money, so bad that they even have companies in the caiman islands; they ofc seem to have also corrupted judges, other non cult priests and politicians and that explains the failure of secular justice.
i think he did much worse than look away.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/81e0daef-a85b-41c6-b2bb-3b704b70c0e6.webp">
This song will never be not relevant
The environment - so trusting of Trump, so distrustful of clergy - is so charged that one needs only say that priest did something and it takes on a life of its own.
I don’t know this priest. I didn’t know the last Pope.
But I bet a real investigation will show what happened more than rumours planted on Facebook while a despot needs a diversion and a villain.
The environment isn’t trusting .
The media is amplifying all FUD from anyone except Trump.
If you’d read the article you will see that this is a report from a network of church abuse survivors and the person speaking has first hand evidence from speaking to Prevost. If you discount them, you are basically saying that witness statements count for nothing. You are silencing the victims.
You will also know that Prevost blocked the ‘real investigation’ you claim you want and this is core to the point of the article.
He’s also threatening to excommunicate any priest who follows Washington’s mandatory reporting law.
Which shows where their priorities are.
Not in the greater good.
Not even in the common good.
Their priorities are, as always, been in protecting, defending, and hiding pedophiles… especially pedophile priests and other officials.
Doctors, Teachers, Therapists, Etc all have a moral and legal imperative to protect children from harm and abusers. Why is it the catholic church fights so hard to argue it doesnt?
No more tax exemption. Even better, ban them.
Couldn’t you make this article no matter who they picked?
The previous pope didn’t have this problem.
pbs.org/…/pope-francis-faces-accusation-of-ignori…
Hmm. Maybe never was too strong a word.
Pretty sure he did…
Isn’t that what you do when you’re a member of a pedophile ring?
I mean, you don’t make it to the top of the mafia without being a gangster
That’s a feature, not a bug.
Right? Find me a single priest who isn’t a kiddy diddler or who hasn’t protected one. I’ll wait.
I thought it was called a job requirement.
He’s just a priest, nothing really can come of him
Thus answering the question “Is the Pope Catholic?”
That was quick.
In other words: he’s fit for the job
For the pope I’d be concerned if he didn’t support harboring sexual abuse.
I expected nothing more from Christians.