Opinion of Pope Francis

[McNukes™ #NYCMMWasAHero]

    I used to think the hate he got was overblown, but the recent Pan-Amazon Synod imbroglio has convinced me that it is completely deserved. I voted "Pachamama".

I understand why that would be, but speaking for myself, the Pan-Amazon Synod actually solidified me in my conviction that the haters are looking for any and every excuse to lambast him, regardless of whether it's semi-reasonable (the Pachamama stuff, for my take on which see one of my posts on the first page of the "Haunting message from indigenous Amazonian" thread) or obvious BS (the idea that the synod was somehow "communist"). I voted "Pachamama" too.

    Is that the post where you said that he was told they were representations of the Virgin Mary? If he actually bought that as an explanation, then I don't really see how he is fit to be pontiff. A leader in the faith needs to be capable of discerning the true faith from idolatry. I try to limit the extent to which I comment on Catholic matters since I am not one, but stuff like this reifies why I am not one.

Okay, I'll bite--what exactly about the statues makes them unacceptable as representations of the Virgin Mary, keeping in mind that Catholic Marian iconography and Eastern Orthodox Marian iconography are not the same?

     Iconography of the Virgin Mary presents her as dressed in a distinctly conservative fashion, which itself carries important theological reasons, as well as the symbolism of the choice of dress. I get there are variations in these representations of her, but I am curious to know if there are genuine icons where she is just completely naked.

I don't think it's necessarily heretical, but it's certainly not a good thing. Mary is the Sacred Virgin, the Mother of God. There has been nude religious artwork in the past; however, I don't know any example of Marian artwork like this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Okay. So.

First of all, here is Pope Francis's Angelus address from the day the Synod closed (that is, two days ago). This is the closest thing to an official papal explanation of this farce that we're liable to get, and it supports the Marian interpretation. What the point was of having the buffoons in the Dicastery for Communications trot out the "generic non-religious pro-life symbol" explanation was, I do not know. Much as I generally support Francis, he definitely doesn't hire "only the best people".

As to the question of depicting Mary in states of undress, I'm sorry to be so blunt about something like this, but it makes a difference whether the statue is nude or merely topless. Apparently there are photographs of it other than the commonly circulated ones where you can see a thin skirt of some description. I've seen some news sources describe the statue as nude and others describe it as topless. Assuming it's merely topless, nursing Maries have a long history in Western Christian iconography; next to none of it is from the last few hundred years (with a couple of exceptions such as this drawing I saw on Tumblr recently), because within the last few hundred years women's breasts have developed a sexual connotation in Western culture and art that they didn't have previously. If breasts don't have this sexual connotation in Amazonian culture (either writ large or in whatever specific culture in the Amazon produced the statues), there's nothing unprecedented about this culture depicting Mary topless.

If the statue is meant to be completely nude, then there isn't really any precedent for that that I'm aware of, but an image being nonstandard or not comporting with previous artistic norms doesn't automatically make it a pagan idol. This Crux article (which is dismissive of the Marian interpretation) describes a "middle" position of seeing the statues as merely an in-poor-taste embrace of indigeneity for the sake of indigeneity, and I think that's a reasonable takeaway. "This doesn't look Catholic, but I don't know enough about Amazonian culture to dispute it" (to paraphrase the meme from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) is a sentiment I've actually heard from a lot of people I know; I think that's a reasonable takeaway too. Goodness knows it wouldn't be the first time Pope Francis has made support for Third Worldist cultural and artistic ideas a higher priority than it probably should be. (I'd remind people, though, that John Paul II was also "liberal"-leaning on interfaith issues, and indeed did things like kissing Qur'ans and putting Buddhist statuary in the 1986 Assisi prayer meeting that at the time invited criticism similar to the Pachamama stuff now.)

Is this sort of thing a valid reason for people with conservative or traditionalist sensibilities to dislike Francis or think that he isn't a very good pope? Among other things, yeah, that's fair. Is it sufficient grounds to conclude that he's a crypto-pagan infiltrator who's bringing the abomination of desolation into the walls of the Vatican? That, I think, is (as the great secularist Carl Sagan said) an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

[afleitch]

It's the 'Nursing Madonna' for the 21st Century. Exposure mistaken for gratuitous voyeurism.

[TJ in Oregon]

Okay. So.

First of all, here is Pope Francis's Angelus address from the day the Synod closed (that is, two days ago). This is the closest thing to an official papal explanation of this farce that we're liable to get, and it supports the Marian interpretation. What the point was of having the buffoons in the Dicastery for Communications trot out the "generic non-religious pro-life symbol" explanation was, I do not know. Much as I generally support Francis, he definitely doesn't hire "only the best people".

As to the question of depicting Mary in states of undress, I'm sorry to be so blunt about something like this, but it makes a difference whether the statue is nude or merely topless. Apparently there are photographs of it other than the commonly circulated ones where you can see a thin skirt of some description. I've seen some news sources describe the statue as nude and others describe it as topless. Assuming it's merely topless, nursing Maries have a long history in Western Christian iconography; next to none of it is from the last few hundred years (with a couple of exceptions such as this drawing I saw on Tumblr recently), because within the last few hundred years women's breasts have developed a sexual connotation in Western culture and art that they didn't have previously. If breasts don't have this sexual connotation in Amazonian culture (either writ large or in whatever specific culture in the Amazon produced the statues), there's nothing unprecedented about this culture depicting Mary topless.

If the statue is meant to be completely nude, then there isn't really any precedent for that that I'm aware of, but an image being nonstandard or not comporting with previous artistic norms doesn't automatically make it a pagan idol. This Crux article (which is dismissive of the Marian interpretation) describes a "middle" position of seeing the statues as merely an in-poor-taste embrace of indigeneity for the sake of indigeneity, and I think that's a reasonable takeaway. "This doesn't look Catholic, but I don't know enough about Amazonian culture to dispute it" (to paraphrase the meme from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) is a sentiment I've actually heard from a lot of people I know; I think that's a reasonable takeaway too. Goodness knows it wouldn't be the first time Pope Francis has made support for Third Worldist cultural and artistic ideas a higher priority than it probably should be. (I'd remind people, though, that John Paul II was also "liberal"-leaning on interfaith issues, and indeed did things like kissing Qur'ans and putting Buddhist statuary in the 1986 Assisi prayer meeting that at the time invited criticism similar to the Pachamama stuff now.)

Is this sort of thing a valid reason for people with conservative or traditionalist sensibilities to dislike Francis or think that he isn't a very good pope? Among other things, yeah, that's fair. Is it sufficient grounds to conclude that he's a crypto-pagan infiltrator who's bringing the abomination of desolation into the walls of the Vatican? That, I think, is (as the great secularist Carl Sagan said) an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Nathan, I think part of the problem here wasn't just the use of, um, non-standard imagery, but also the complete lack of any willingness to address what the intent of doing so was. It should have been obvious from the outset that the very strange ceremonies the Holy Father was going to be taking part in would definitely raise some eyebrows at the least. But the powers that be apparently think it is beneath them to offer an account of their actions when people are scandalized by them, and we end up with the Pope himself referring to the statues as Pachamama and then simply batting away the idolatry charge without explanation. It seems rather wild to think the Holy Father is actually worshiping carved wooden images of a pagan goddess, but what seems less wild is that doing so is being tolerated by the Vatican for political reasons. It is a part of human nature to react with anger when we see something we don't understand. Provided there is a defensible explanation here, the Church's leadership couldn't have done much worse in showing it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Okay. So.

First of all, here is Pope Francis's Angelus address from the day the Synod closed (that is, two days ago). This is the closest thing to an official papal explanation of this farce that we're liable to get, and it supports the Marian interpretation. What the point was of having the buffoons in the Dicastery for Communications trot out the "generic non-religious pro-life symbol" explanation was, I do not know. Much as I generally support Francis, he definitely doesn't hire "only the best people".

As to the question of depicting Mary in states of undress, I'm sorry to be so blunt about something like this, but it makes a difference whether the statue is nude or merely topless. Apparently there are photographs of it other than the commonly circulated ones where you can see a thin skirt of some description. I've seen some news sources describe the statue as nude and others describe it as topless. Assuming it's merely topless, nursing Maries have a long history in Western Christian iconography; next to none of it is from the last few hundred years (with a couple of exceptions such as this drawing I saw on Tumblr recently), because within the last few hundred years women's breasts have developed a sexual connotation in Western culture and art that they didn't have previously. If breasts don't have this sexual connotation in Amazonian culture (either writ large or in whatever specific culture in the Amazon produced the statues), there's nothing unprecedented about this culture depicting Mary topless.

If the statue is meant to be completely nude, then there isn't really any precedent for that that I'm aware of, but an image being nonstandard or not comporting with previous artistic norms doesn't automatically make it a pagan idol. This Crux article (which is dismissive of the Marian interpretation) describes a "middle" position of seeing the statues as merely an in-poor-taste embrace of indigeneity for the sake of indigeneity, and I think that's a reasonable takeaway. "This doesn't look Catholic, but I don't know enough about Amazonian culture to dispute it" (to paraphrase the meme from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) is a sentiment I've actually heard from a lot of people I know; I think that's a reasonable takeaway too. Goodness knows it wouldn't be the first time Pope Francis has made support for Third Worldist cultural and artistic ideas a higher priority than it probably should be. (I'd remind people, though, that John Paul II was also "liberal"-leaning on interfaith issues, and indeed did things like kissing Qur'ans and putting Buddhist statuary in the 1986 Assisi prayer meeting that at the time invited criticism similar to the Pachamama stuff now.)

Is this sort of thing a valid reason for people with conservative or traditionalist sensibilities to dislike Francis or think that he isn't a very good pope? Among other things, yeah, that's fair. Is it sufficient grounds to conclude that he's a crypto-pagan infiltrator who's bringing the abomination of desolation into the walls of the Vatican? That, I think, is (as the great secularist Carl Sagan said) an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Nathan, I think part of the problem here wasn't just the use of, um, non-standard imagery, but also the complete lack of any willingness to address what the intent of doing so was. It should have been obvious from the outset that the very strange ceremonies the Holy Father was going to be taking part in would definitely raise some eyebrows at the least. But the powers that be apparently think it is beneath them to offer an account of their actions when people are scandalized by them, and we end up with the Pope himself referring to the statues as Pachamama and then simply batting away the idolatry charge without explanation. It seems rather wild to think the Holy Father is actually worshiping carved wooden images of a pagan goddess, but what seems less wild is that doing so is being tolerated by the Vatican for political reasons. It is a part of human nature to react with anger when we see something we don't understand. Provided there is a defensible explanation here, the Church's leadership couldn't have done much worse in showing it.

I agree; I'm extremely displeased with the way Vatican spokespeople (at every level) handled this, and I've made that displeasure known two or three times now. There's a culture among Francis's people of half-assedly withholding sensitive or ambivalent information from potentially unsympathetic sectors of the Catholic public (the so-called "Benedict letter" that the last Communications prefect was forced out over is another great example), and it's probably my biggest problem with his papacy so far, even though I'm broadly in sympathy with his aims myself.

[Calthrina950]

FF. Even though he's adhered to traditional Catholic doctrines on subjects such as abortion and gay marriage, he's nevertheless proven to be a very humane, humble person who seems to have a deep concern for others. He has abstained from many of the luxuries that have been indulged in by his predecessors, he has called attention to many of the pressing issues such as income inequality and climate change, and he has made efforts to combat the sexual abuse problems within the Church (though more definitely needs to be done).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Okay. So.

First of all, here is Pope Francis's Angelus address from the day the Synod closed (that is, two days ago). This is the closest thing to an official papal explanation of this farce that we're liable to get, and it supports the Marian interpretation. What the point was of having the buffoons in the Dicastery for Communications trot out the "generic non-religious pro-life symbol" explanation was, I do not know. Much as I generally support Francis, he definitely doesn't hire "only the best people".

As to the question of depicting Mary in states of undress, I'm sorry to be so blunt about something like this, but it makes a difference whether the statue is nude or merely topless. Apparently there are photographs of it other than the commonly circulated ones where you can see a thin skirt of some description. I've seen some news sources describe the statue as nude and others describe it as topless. Assuming it's merely topless, nursing Maries have a long history in Western Christian iconography; next to none of it is from the last few hundred years (with a couple of exceptions such as this drawing I saw on Tumblr recently), because within the last few hundred years women's breasts have developed a sexual connotation in Western culture and art that they didn't have previously. If breasts don't have this sexual connotation in Amazonian culture (either writ large or in whatever specific culture in the Amazon produced the statues), there's nothing unprecedented about this culture depicting Mary topless.

If the statue is meant to be completely nude, then there isn't really any precedent for that that I'm aware of, but an image being nonstandard or not comporting with previous artistic norms doesn't automatically make it a pagan idol. This Crux article (which is dismissive of the Marian interpretation) describes a "middle" position of seeing the statues as merely an in-poor-taste embrace of indigeneity for the sake of indigeneity, and I think that's a reasonable takeaway. "This doesn't look Catholic, but I don't know enough about Amazonian culture to dispute it" (to paraphrase the meme from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) is a sentiment I've actually heard from a lot of people I know; I think that's a reasonable takeaway too. Goodness knows it wouldn't be the first time Pope Francis has made support for Third Worldist cultural and artistic ideas a higher priority than it probably should be. (I'd remind people, though, that John Paul II was also "liberal"-leaning on interfaith issues, and indeed did things like kissing Qur'ans and putting Buddhist statuary in the 1986 Assisi prayer meeting that at the time invited criticism similar to the Pachamama stuff now.)

Is this sort of thing a valid reason for people with conservative or traditionalist sensibilities to dislike Francis or think that he isn't a very good pope? Among other things, yeah, that's fair. Is it sufficient grounds to conclude that he's a crypto-pagan infiltrator who's bringing the abomination of desolation into the walls of the Vatican? That, I think, is (as the great secularist Carl Sagan said) an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Nathan, I think part of the problem here wasn't just the use of, um, non-standard imagery, but also the complete lack of any willingness to address what the intent of doing so was. It should have been obvious from the outset that the very strange ceremonies the Holy Father was going to be taking part in would definitely raise some eyebrows at the least. But the powers that be apparently think it is beneath them to offer an account of their actions when people are scandalized by them, and we end up with the Pope himself referring to the statues as Pachamama and then simply batting away the idolatry charge without explanation. It seems rather wild to think the Holy Father is actually worshiping carved wooden images of a pagan goddess, but what seems less wild is that doing so is being tolerated by the Vatican for political reasons. It is a part of human nature to react with anger when we see something we don't understand. Provided there is a defensible explanation here, the Church's leadership couldn't have done much worse in showing it.

I agree; I'm extremely displeased with the way Vatican spokespeople (at every level) handled this, and I've made that displeasure known two or three times now. There's a culture among Francis's people of half-assedly withholding sensitive or ambivalent information from potentially unsympathetic sectors of the Catholic public (the so-called "Benedict letter" that the last Communications prefect was forced out over is another great example), and it's probably my biggest problem with his papacy so far, even though I'm broadly in sympathy with his aims myself.

     Perhaps I was too aggressive in insinuating that he should have instantly recognized them as pagan idols, because now that you mention it I do recall seeing nursing icons of Mary while reading history texts. I would go further than you do in laying the blame with the communications staff, and say that this incident makes me question how much due diligence the Pope and his staff actually did in the first place. The whole thing smacks of people not doing the research to figure out what this was really about.

     At any rate he's not my spiritual leader, so my opinion about this whole affair really doesn't matter. If Patriarch Kirill ends up presiding over ceremonies where people prostrate to Pachamama, then I will have to take a more serious interest in it. Thank you for humoring me.

[Kingpoleon]

I’m kind of unusual, but I generally approve of clergymen unless they give me a reason not to. FF.

[PSOL]

I don't like the institution of the Catholic Church, and Pope Francis's attempt to rebrand it following religious competition is not going to make me like him.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm not going to comment on Francis' Catholic theology, but as a Christian leader I find him well meaning but inept and perhaps a little too overly influenced by his experience in Argentina. More than anything to do with sex his concordat with the PRC is the most galling part of his Papacy.

[DC Al Fine]

As for Pachamama this tweet summarizes my thoughts on the matter:

https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1193355798992183296

[Podgy the Bear]

Simply beautiful.

[Georg Ebner]

As for Pachamama this tweet summarizes my thoughts on the matter:

https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1193355798992183296

Stupid.
Every intelligent Christian is aware of our pagan heritage, because Christianity (over-)full-filled Jewish AND pagan religiosity.
And H.Em. Gerhard card. Müller - an expert for LatinAmerica, by the way - and others (even i) know, that this has nothing to do with paganism - it's a vulgarRousseauism and vulgarAnakreontism of tired&decadent Europeans.
Organized since May 2013 - we were well informed from the beginning - by voles from the totally bankrupt clergy and pompous lay(wo)men paid by public taxes in CentralEurope.

[Georg Ebner]

I'm not going to comment on Francis' Catholic theology, but as a Christian leader I find him well meaning but inept and perhaps a little too overly influenced by his experience in Argentina. More than anything to do with sex his concordat with the PRC is the most galling part of his Papacy.

It's as naive, if i relied for my opinion on Your communities on some pictures&articles provided by the small left agitators of CBC or CNN.
That human trash is already in ethics someone, who has as bishop not laughed for decades, while playing the opposite these days; who has never praised the work of his poor servants; who operates like a tyrant in the Vatican; who has covered dozens of paedophiles or thieves in his career (as long as they were not catholic). Cf. Henry Sire, "The DictatorPope".
What shows his antiChristianity.
Yes, the greatest body in WorldHistory, containing the entire religious history of mankind, has fallen to our enemies. Nontheless it's not one of Your denominations, not even the patriarch of Constantinople or Jerusaleme or Alexandrine - it's the RomanChurch, who is portrayed in Apk.17/18 as having had a special role in history.

[Kingpoleon]

As for Pachamama this tweet summarizes my thoughts on the matter:

https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1193355798992183296

As someone who has been in Peru on mission trips, I absolutely agree. It’s amazing to meet those who have recognized it and turned away, especially among the native people.

[Edu]

Peronist pope = HP

[Sir Mohamed]

FF all things considered, though he's still too conservative on social issues. The church needs more reform and modernization.

[SingingAnalyst]

FF all things considered, though he's still too conservative on social issues. The church needs more reform and modernization.

^^^ this (and I'm Catholic).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Catholicism has evolved and people are pessimistic about Christianity as Judgement and Rapture hasnt arrived and the world has been more dangerous and poor is growing more and more. Pope is the stand in for Christ Rapture, but Christ hasnt come; consequently,  more people are becoming agnostic. It's not Pope Francis fault. HP worse than St Paul II. It's not horrible,  its honorable mention

[Basil]

FF all things considered, though he's still too conservative on social issues. The church needs more reform and modernization.

^^^ this (and I'm Catholic).

Such as?

[Fuzzy Bear]

He's a liberal pundit.  Something of a counterpoint to Franklin Graham these days.

[Antonio the Sixth]

He's a liberal pundit.  Something of a counterpoint to Franklin Graham these days.

Viewing the head of a major world religion with its political center in Europe and its demographic center in South America, through the lens of US political divides, really is peak US-centrism.

The truth is, Francis doesn't give a sh*t about Americans and their silly obsessions with parochial issues. That's probably why Americans dislike him so much even as the rest of the world loves him. They hate that he shows them how unimportant they are in the grand scheme of things.