Since ascending to the throne of St. Peter last spring, Pope Francis has been showered with praise by an unlikely cohort, the American secular media.
“Even atheists love the pope,” one recent CNN article announced. “The awesomeness that is Pope Francis,” a Daily Beast headline affirmed. His selection this week as Time magazine’s vaunted person of the year completed the canonization. “I may not be religious, but I damn sure love this pope,” avowed one Twitter user, echoing the remarks of countless others. Undoubtedly, small talk about Catholicism in waiting rooms and grocery-store checkout lines will see an exponential increase this week.
The popular read on Francis is that he represents a welcome break from grim-faced pontiffs of yore — a raw, refreshingly modern reflection of Catholic virtue. In proclaiming that his overriding spiritual concern is care for the poor, Francis has infused the Vatican with long-awaited humility and grace after years of scandal.
During the first few months of his papacy, a trickle of anecdotes illustrating Francis’ everyman frugality (he drives a used car!) and shunning of opulent wares (he doesn’t wear that big hat!) moved pundits once skeptical of the church to profess their admiration. It began when he forwent the lavish apostolic apartments to live in the Casa Santa Marta, a more discreet guesthouse where he could mingle with visiting clergymen. USA Today reported in June that journalists were so “delighted” with Francis’ first address to media that their “applause and popping flashbulbs brought to mind a glitzy Hollywood event.” Some even “kissed the pope’s ring.”
Then in November came the apostolic exhortation in which Francis advanced a critique of “unfettered capitalism” and declared “no to a financial system which rules rather than serves.” What followed was nothing short of an avalanche of affection from the left. Reporters from liberal media outlets exulted. “This is a pope that is willing to say things that other popes haven’t said in contemporary time,” enthused Ed Schultz of MSNBC. “And it strikes right at the heart of Republican policies, and the conservatives, they just can’t take it.”
Meanwhile, right-wing pundits hyperventilated about Francis’ alleged Marxism. Said Rush Limbaugh, “It’s sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth.”
But in declaring that Francis heralded some unprecedented rupture in Roman Catholic thought, both sides got it wrong.
Francis has managed to fashion himself as something fresh and appealing, but he did not become Time’s person of the year by radically reimagining anything. He did it by mastering the art of gesture and symbolism. Herein lies the crucial component to understanding Francis’ image: his keen eye toward public relations as matter of theology.
Francis’ rapid transformation into universally celebrated celebrity figure — despite promulgating familiar church doctrines under a more easygoing guise — is ultimately a testament to the current Vatican PR operation, headed by former Fox News reporter Greg Burke. A member of the ascetic Opus Dei order, Burke is wedded to lifelong celibacy and professional communications services. Prior to Fox, Burke did a stint as the Rome correspondent for — you guessed it — Time magazine.
Let them eat pope
Francis’ predecessor Benedict XVI also issued numerous strongly worded rejections of market absolutism — but didn’t have the benefit of Burke’s media savvy. So when Benedict condemned the “selfish and individualistic mentality” as expressed by “unregulated financial capitalism,” there was conspicuously less fanfare in response.
Even by conservative Catholic standards, anxieties about a sudden rising socialistic tide in Vatican City are comically overblown. The renowned Catholic writer George Weigel has noted that Francis’ pronouncements are “in full continuity” with the teachings of his predecessors.
Indeed, where Francis might differ from previous popes is in his total devotion to orienting the church as a vehicle of evangelization — that is, converting nonbelievers to Catholicism. His much lauded exhortation is not quite a call to arms or a “j’accuse”; it’s structured as counsel for Catholics on how to most effectively combat “the onslaught of contemporary secularism” and spread God’s word.
“It is imperative to evangelize cultures in order to inculturate the gospel,” Francis writes. Critiquing the depredations of global capitalism is therefore just one tool in the proselytizer’s toolbox. The poor, he adds, “have a special openness to the faith” on account of their destitution.
A primary reason liberals, particularly American ones, have been so eager to embrace Francis is the papacy’s perceived pivot away from crude preoccupation with hot-button social issues — homosexuality, abortion, ordination of women — to a more inclusive message grounded in economic justice. But such logic rests on the faulty premise that there exists a clean divide between social issues and matters of economic justice.
This fallacy extends far beyond the church: it is a tediously commonplace misunderstanding in contemporary U.S. political discourse.
Francis calls for renewed attention to economic privation precisely because he believes doing so will eventuate in the flourishing of traditional Catholic mores. As the Notre Dame political theorist Patrick Deneen has observed, Francis posits a “deep underlying connection between an economy that highlights autonomy, infinite choice, loose connections, constant titillation, utilitarianism and hedonism and a sexual culture that condones random hook-ups, abortion, divorce” and so forth.
In Francis’ telling, it is the current economic system that has contributed to the proliferation of these deviances, chief among them a public conception of marriage “as a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will.” (Presumably, amending marriage to accommodate same-sex couples is one such frivolous modification.) Our “throwaway culture”, in which life is devalued and debased, he laments, is to blame for permissive attitudes toward abortion. The endless plaudits about Francis’ purported concern for the vulnerable notwithstanding, it is difficult to envision how vulnerable women and the LGBT community would prosper in his ideal universe.
Francis does not inveigh against capitalism principally because it creates needless suffering. He criticizes it because, by his lights, it inhibits the “just ordering of society and of the state,” thereby weakening the moral authority of Catholicism and acceding to the idolatries of materialism.
In other words, he contends that a fairer distribution of wealth would allow for more efficient conversion of God-fearing, churchgoing believers. This, again, is quite in keeping with the admonitions of past pontiffs.
Burke correctly surmised that in an era of austerity and continued economic misery, a leader who takes on austere appearances would win favor with the public — no major doctrinal alterations necessary. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book: former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for instance, stripped his office of fine Persian carpets to secure a few favorable headlines. Most important, it works.
“I mean, the pope scores goals, you know?” Burke said at lecture in London last May. “The pope scores goals for us ... The people are just eating this stuff up.”
Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editorial policy.
The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Al Jazeera nails it.

Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Cool story, Faisal.D1B wrote:Al Jazeera nails it.![]()
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
JoltinJoe wrote:Cool story, Faisal.D1B wrote:Al Jazeera nails it.![]()
Francis’ rapid transformation into universally celebrated celebrity figure — despite promulgating familiar church doctrines under a more easygoing guise — is ultimately a testament to the current Vatican PR operation, headed by former Fox News reporter Greg Burke. A member of the ascetic Opus Dei order, Burke is wedded to lifelong celibacy and professional communications services. Prior to Fox, Burke did a stint as the Rome correspondent for — you guessed it — Time magazine.
- andy7171
- Firefly

- Posts: 27951
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:12 am
- I am a fan of: Wiping.
- A.K.A.: HE HATE ME
- Location: Eastern Palouse
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Which is more important to read? The large bolded or the bolded underlined?
"Elaine, you're from Baltimore, right?"
"Yes, well, Towson actually."
"Yes, well, Towson actually."
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
This one:andy7171 wrote:Which is more important to read? The large bolded or the bolded underlined?
http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/165" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Three women who were sexually abused as children by prominent Sydney priest Finian Egan have confronted the 78-year-old in court and have slammed the Catholic Church for harbouring him in the priesthood for five decades.
- Pwns
- Level4

- Posts: 7344
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
- I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
- A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
That piece could use some more facts and less speculation and non sequiturs.
Celebrate Diversity.*
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
- GannonFan
- Level5

- Posts: 19233
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
If it did, D1 wouldn't have used it. Speculation and non sequitur lead to more bolder (and bolded underlined) passages.Pwns wrote:That piece could use some more facts and less speculation and non sequiturs.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Nice cop out.GannonFan wrote:If it did, D1 wouldn't have used it. Speculation and non sequitur lead to more bolder (and bolded underlined) passages.Pwns wrote:That piece could use some more facts and less speculation and non sequiturs.
Refute it.
Dude nailed it.
Quoted prominent catholic and former pope.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Where did Gannonfart go?
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Pwns wrote:That piece could use some more facts and less speculation and non sequiturs.
Really. Refute it.
- 89Hen
- Supporter

- Posts: 39283
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
- I am a fan of: High Horses
- A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
It is an op-ed piece D. The only facts presented are that Greg Burke worked for Time and Pope Francis was named Time MOTY. Other than that all he seems to be saying is that he is still the head of the Catholic Church as hasn't radically changed the direction of the church. Did you really think Catholics thought he had, or that they would follow a completely different course?D1B wrote:Pwns wrote:That piece could use some more facts and less speculation and non sequiturs.
Really. Refute it.

Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Self-serving oversimplification. Try again.89Hen wrote:It is an op-ed piece D. The only facts presented are that Greg Burke worked for Time and Pope Francis was named Time MOTY. Other than that all he seems to be saying is that he is still the head of the Catholic Church as hasn't radically changed the direction of the church. Did you really think Catholics thought he had, or that they would follow a completely different course?D1B wrote:
Really. Refute it.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Weak stuff. The Fox news accusation is ridiculous. Francis gets slammed on Fox News all the time (one of the reasons I like himD1B wrote:Joe?
Much better story just came out in the New Yorker by James Carroll. Pretty balanced, discusses Francis, warts and all (the way I think Francis would prefer). Really makes the case, though, that Francis' concern for the poor is genuine and flows from his regret resulting from his ineffectiveness earlier in his clerical career in his dealings with priests who were active in assisting the poor. He came to understand that his priests were right, he was wrong, and he had not given them enough support.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
The reference, really the point of the piece, to Fox News dealt with his new Image Crafter, who is doing an outstanding job.JoltinJoe wrote:Weak stuff. The Fox news accusation is ridiculous. Francis gets slammed on Fox News all the time (one of the reasons I like himD1B wrote:Joe?). Andrew Napolitano just called him "naive" the other day.
Much better story just came out in the New Yorker by James Carroll. Pretty balanced, discusses Francis, warts and all (the way I think Francis would prefer). Really makes the case, though, that Francis' concern for the poor is genuine and flows from his regret resulting from his ineffectiveness earlier in his clerical career in his dealings with priests who were active in assisting the poor. He came to understand that his priests were right, he was wrong, and he had not given them enough support.
Thought you hated the New Yorker?
Anyway, brilliant messaging and PR work on the part of the Vatican. Sex abuse scandals are exploding all over the world and they're keeping everyone focused on their new Tom Brady.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Not a huge fan of the limo liberal editorial board at the New Yorker, but I read the magazine anyway. It has some genuinely good content too, and its articles are always well written. Much better than Vanity Fair which I don't like all that much, but I read on occasion too.
I subscribe and read the NY Times every day, and I hate that paper. But again, there are often good articles in it.
You have to read everything with a critical eye. All three of these publications have some excellent content here and there, despite their sanctimonious editorial biases.
I subscribe and read the NY Times every day, and I hate that paper. But again, there are often good articles in it.
You have to read everything with a critical eye. All three of these publications have some excellent content here and there, despite their sanctimonious editorial biases.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Just curious, why don't you apply the same critical eye on the Amazon-like river of bullshit that spews forth from the Vatican on a daily basis?JoltinJoe wrote:Not a huge fan of the limo liberal editorial board at the New Yorker, but I read the magazine anyway. It has some genuinely good content too, and its articles are always well written. Much better than Vanity Fair which I don't like all that much, but I read on occasion too.
I subscribe and read the NY Times every day, and I hate that paper. But again, there are often good articles in it.
You have to read everything with a critical eye. All three of these publications have some excellent content here and there, despite their sanctimonious editorial biases.
I read Slate, Vanity Fair occasionally, The Atlantic, Smithsonian and Catholic Haters Monthly.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
But I do. Nothing except that which is stated ex cathedra as an infallible teaching of the Church needs to blindly accepted. And I don't think that's ever happened in my lifetime.D1B wrote:Just curious, why don't you apply the same critical eye on the Amazon-like river of bullshit that spews forth from the Vatican on a daily basis?JoltinJoe wrote:Not a huge fan of the limo liberal editorial board at the New Yorker, but I read the magazine anyway. It has some genuinely good content too, and its articles are always well written. Much better than Vanity Fair which I don't like all that much, but I read on occasion too.
I subscribe and read the NY Times every day, and I hate that paper. But again, there are often good articles in it.
You have to read everything with a critical eye. All three of these publications have some excellent content here and there, despite their sanctimonious editorial biases.
I think Francis has proven more capable in expressing himself and giving overall context to Church instruction because, unlike his immediate predecessors, he has been in the trenches, and has not been a theology professor. He understands the media and how they convey ideas far more than his predecessors ever did.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Agree. Francis' handlers have done a great job manipulating the media. However, Benedict was a total loser, so the bar was set pretty low. The battered, pissed off and embarrassed catholic community was and is ravenous for change, and as Al Jazeera eloquently pointed out in this post - even if it's purely cosmetic.JoltinJoe wrote:But I do. Nothing except that which is stated ex cathedra as an infallible teaching of the Church needs to blindly accepted. And I don't think that's ever happened in my lifetime.D1B wrote:
Just curious, why don't you apply the same critical eye on the Amazon-like river of bullshit that spews forth from the Vatican on a daily basis?![]()
I think Francis has proven more capable in expressing himself and giving overall context to Church instruction because, unlike his immediate predecessors, he has been in the trenches, and has not been a theology professor. He understands the media and how they convey ideas far more than his predecessors ever did.
Francis/Fox News Inc. are shooting fish in a barrel.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
I disagree. It's not PR. Francis is like the Jesuits I've known. They've been out in the trenches. They see the Church's mission, as a collective group, as a mission of social justice.D1B wrote:Agree. Francis' handlers have done a great job manipulating the media. However, Benedict was a total loser, so the bar was set pretty low. The battered, pissed off and embarrassed catholic community was and is ravenous for change, and as Al Jazeera eloquently pointed out in this post - even if it's purely cosmetic.JoltinJoe wrote:
But I do. Nothing except that which is stated ex cathedra as an infallible teaching of the Church needs to blindly accepted. And I don't think that's ever happened in my lifetime.![]()
I think Francis has proven more capable in expressing himself and giving overall context to Church instruction because, unlike his immediate predecessors, he has been in the trenches, and has not been a theology professor. He understands the media and how they convey ideas far more than his predecessors ever did.
Francis/Fox News Inc. are shooting fish in a barrel.
Francis' predecessors were theologians who grew up in a church persecuted by the Nazis and (in JP II's case, the Communists. They governed with a siege mentality. They viewed the Church as under attack by social forces and reacted accordingly. They kept quiet bad news out of fear of a hostile media. They saw demands for gay marriage as an attack against the Church's teaching.
Francis reacts differently. He may not agree with gay marriage, but he doesn't view the movement as a movement against the Church. He's not afraid of the world. To the extent the Church has enemies, Francis grasps that the Church is bigger, better, and stronger than any of its enemies. As always, the Church will prevail, because Christ promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church.
Matthew 16:17-19
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Nice story.JoltinJoe wrote:I disagree. It's not PR. Francis is like the Jesuits I've known. They've been out in the trenches. They see the Church's mission, as a collective group, as a mission of social justice.D1B wrote:
Agree. Francis' handlers have done a great job manipulating the media. However, Benedict was a total loser, so the bar was set pretty low. The battered, pissed off and embarrassed catholic community was and is ravenous for change, and as Al Jazeera eloquently pointed out in this post - even if it's purely cosmetic.
Francis/Fox News Inc. are shooting fish in a barrel.
Francis' predecessors were theologians who grew up in a church persecuted by the Nazis and (in JP II's case, the Communists. They governed with a siege mentality. They viewed the Church as under attack by social forces and reacted accordingly. They kept quiet bad news out of fear of a hostile media. They saw demands for gay marriage as an attack against the Church's teaching.
Francis reacts differently. He may not agree with gay marriage, but he doesn't view the movement as a movement against the Church. He's not afraid of the world. To the extent the Church has enemies, Francis grasps that the Church is bigger, better, and stronger than any of its enemies. As always, the Church will prevail, because Christ promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church.
The church was not under siege by the Nazi's. After all Hitler was catholic. Your church signed an agreement with Hitler basically guaranteeing its protection and most of its existing freedom, including provisions to continue to levy church taxes and be informed if Hitler's government were to pull their subsidies for the church. The church was a valuable partner of Hitler and legitimized the Nazi's for the world.
When the Vatican sacks its massive Public Relations programs and lawyers, including Francis' Fox News guy, I might believe you.
When Francis starts dealing with the ongoing and rapidly increasing world wide pedophile scandal, I might believe you.
In a previous post you said Francis recently learned the value of service to the poor, after a lifetime of eschewing it. Now all of a sudden, he St. Francis.
-
Beardown
- Level1

- Posts: 161
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:58 pm
- I am a fan of: Northern Colorado
- A.K.A.: BigSkyBears
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Prove it with historical scholarship. I want proof from a real historian. A book or scholarly article with lots of footnotes or endnotes please. No "popular" history either. Nothing from the trade publications like Penguin Publishing or something you can pick up at Barnes and Noble. Something that's been through peer review and published by Harvard Press, Oxford Press, etc.D1B wrote:Nice story.JoltinJoe wrote:
I disagree. It's not PR. Francis is like the Jesuits I've known. They've been out in the trenches. They see the Church's mission, as a collective group, as a mission of social justice.
Francis' predecessors were theologians who grew up in a church persecuted by the Nazis and (in JP II's case, the Communists. They governed with a siege mentality. They viewed the Church as under attack by social forces and reacted accordingly. They kept quiet bad news out of fear of a hostile media. They saw demands for gay marriage as an attack against the Church's teaching.
Francis reacts differently. He may not agree with gay marriage, but he doesn't view the movement as a movement against the Church. He's not afraid of the world. To the extent the Church has enemies, Francis grasps that the Church is bigger, better, and stronger than any of its enemies. As always, the Church will prevail, because Christ promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church.
The church was not under siege by the Nazi's. After all Hitler was catholic. Your church signed an agreement with Hitler basically guaranteeing its protection and most of its existing freedom, including provisions to continue to levy church taxes and be informed if Hitler's government were to pull their subsidies for the church. The church was a valuable partner of Hitler and legitimized the Nazi's for the world.
When the Vatican sacks its massive Public Relations programs and lawyers, including Francis' Fox News guy, I might believe you.
When Francis starts dealing with the ongoing and rapidly increasing world wide pedophile scandal, I might believe you.
In a previous post you said Francis recently learned the value of service to the poor, after a lifetime of eschewing it. Now all of a sudden, he St. Francis.Joe, that's public relations, the sole result of image crafting.
I want real scholarly proof or else I'll consider this B.S. anti-religious crap you spew all the time on this board.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Here you go, Asshole:


Concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich with Supplementary Protocol and Secret Supplement
July 20, 1933
Ratified 10 September 1933
His Holiness Pope Pius XI and the President of the German Reich, moved by a common desire to consolidate and promote the friendly relations existing between the Holy See and the German Reich, wish to permanently regulate the relations between the Catholic Church and the state for the whole territory of the German Reich in a way acceptable to both parties. They have decided to conclude a solemn agreement, which will supplement the Concordats already concluded with individual German states (Länder) [6], and will ensure for the remaining states (Länder) fundamentally uniform treatment of their respective problems.
For this purpose His Holiness Pope Pius XI has appointed as his Plenipotentiary His Eminence the Most Reverend Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, his Secretary of State and the President of the German Reich has appointed as Plenipotentiary the Vice-Chancellor of the German Reich, Herr Franz von Papen, who, having exchanged their respective mandates and found them to be in good and proper form, have agreed to the following Articles:
-
Beardown
- Level1

- Posts: 161
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:58 pm
- I am a fan of: Northern Colorado
- A.K.A.: BigSkyBears
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
Yes, an agreement because Hitler promised full cooperation with Catholic and Protestant churches. But I want scholarship on this matter. What were the repercussions? Interpretations, etc. I recommend Thomas Bokenkotter's, A Concise History of the Catholic Church. His chapter on the Church and Nazism is well done.D1B wrote:Here you go, Asshole:
Concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich with Supplementary Protocol and Secret Supplement
July 20, 1933
Ratified 10 September 1933
His Holiness Pope Pius XI and the President of the German Reich, moved by a common desire to consolidate and promote the friendly relations existing between the Holy See and the German Reich, wish to permanently regulate the relations between the Catholic Church and the state for the whole territory of the German Reich in a way acceptable to both parties. They have decided to conclude a solemn agreement, which will supplement the Concordats already concluded with individual German states (Länder) [6], and will ensure for the remaining states (Länder) fundamentally uniform treatment of their respective problems.
For this purpose His Holiness Pope Pius XI has appointed as his Plenipotentiary His Eminence the Most Reverend Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, his Secretary of State and the President of the German Reich has appointed as Plenipotentiary the Vice-Chancellor of the German Reich, Herr Franz von Papen, who, having exchanged their respective mandates and found them to be in good and proper form, have agreed to the following Articles:
Remember, Hitler duped the U.S., Brits, and Moscow during his rise to power. It wasn't just the church.
Re: The fallacy of papal change under Pope Francis
In 1989, your pope apologized for inaction in stopping killing of Jews. He also apologized for your church's historical role in fostering hatred against the jews. The blame for two thousand years of antisemitism falls squarely on the catholic church.Beardown wrote:Yes, an agreement because Hitler promised full cooperation with Catholic and Protestant churches. But I want scholarship on this matter. What were the repercussions? Interpretations, etc. I recommend Thomas Bokenkotter's, A Concise History of the Catholic Church. His chapter on the Church and Nazism is well done.D1B wrote:Here you go, Asshole:
Remember, Hitler duped the U.S., Brits, and Moscow during his rise to power. It wasn't just the church.
The cowardice of the church before, during and after the war was breathtaking.
