Pope Francis seems to be taking on many of the more moribund aspects of the culture of the Catholic Church – a task that will not be accomplished overnight if at all. He has most notably suggested that, without backtracking on Churches’ positions on homosexuality and abortion, it still might behoove its representatives to heed a Christly imperative to concentrate their energies on ministering to the poor and needy rather than acting as cultural scolds. Last week, he even implied that the Church might endorse civil unions, a position he is rumored to have supported in private since his days in Argentina – although Vatican spokespeople immediately tried to back away from the full implications of his comments. Of course, Francis’ admonition to greater tolerance and his prioritization of the preference for the poor isn’t going down too well among those church officials whose main raison d’etre for the past twenty or more years, apart from trying to suppress the child sex abuse scandals, seems to have been attempting to control their parishioners sexual and reproductive lives. Ask me about the Church right now and the first thought that pops into my mind is their effort to deny health care to thousands of uninsured in order to impose Catholic teachings about birth-control on all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. On the whole, the Church doesn’t present a very attractive face when it comes to evangelical work or to persuading lapsed Catholics to come back – the facade of “home” represented by today’s Church has become decidedly tacky and rundown.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of Churchmen who like it that way. And what better spokesman for the folks who would prefer that il Papa not run amok when it comes to their rigid cultural imperatives than Missouri’s own gift to the Catholic Hierarchy, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, a native of St. Louis and Auxiliary Bishop of St. Louis from 2001 to 2002. Who else could so confidently to assure American Catholics that the Pope doesn’t really mean what he says:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York said Sunday that Pope Francis believes the Catholic Church needs to examine why some states are choosing to legalize civil unions of gay couples. But the pontiff has not expressed approval of such unions, Dolan said. “He didn’t come right out and say he was for them,” Dolan said in an exclusive interview on NBC’s Meet the Press. What the pope has said, according to Dolan, is that church leaders need to “look into it and see the reasons that have driven them…. Rather than quickly condemn them… let’s just ask the questions as to why that has appealed to certain people….”

This is only the most recent example of Dolan’s efforts to undermine the Pope’s message. John Amato of Crooks and Liars pointed out that when speaking of the Pope’s recent comments on the evils of growing economic inequality and unregulated capitalism, Dolan actually seemed to question the doctrine of Papal supremacy.

One can only hope that priestly defenders of the status quo such as Dolan will eventually disappear from the Church and the seeds planted by Francis will come to fruition. Certainly it was an excellent sign that another Missouri prelate, former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, was removed from the Congregation of Bishops where he would otherwise have continued to influence the selection of new Bishops,presumably cast in the same conservative mold as himself, as well as help determine their pastoral priorities. Burke, you will remember, was one of the clerical jerks who tried to meddle in election year politics by denying communion to presidential candidate John Kerry because of his pro-choice positions. Most of the new appointees to the Congregation are more congenial to the Pope’s dictum that bishops should be “be poor, close to their people and not with ‘the psychology of princes’,” a description that definitely excludes the richly-garbed, authoritarian Burke.

The current Archbishop of St. Louis, Robert James Carlson, is more of the same, though perhaps not as slick as Dolan nor as openly combative as Burke. He came to St. Louis from the Saginaw diocese in Michigan where he was instrumental in stamping out some remnants of liberal Catholicism. Although he styles himself a “theological conservative and a social justice liberal,” one of his more high profile activities was to call Catholics out to a Rally for Religious Liberty, a rally dedicated eliminating women’s reproductive choice from the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a law that affects non-Catholics as well as Catholics (who, incidently, are not compelled by the ACA to either use or endorse contraceptives). By making common cause with obstructionist conservatives to undercut the ACA and the millions it will help, Carlson has shown himself to be one of those “ideological Christians” that Francis has identified as a “serious illness” within the Church.

Of course the influence of clerics like Dolan, Burke and Carlson are legacies of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI and they are not unique to Missouri. Nevertheless, one is tempted to ask if there is something about the Catholic culture in Missouri that sustained leaders who stand proudly with über conservatives such as Bill Donoghue and his Catholic League – the same Bill Donoghue who, among his many offensive antics, suggested that President Obama should be sworn in on a copy of Das Kapital rather than the Bible. Isn’t it interesting somehow that so many luminaries of rightwing Catholicism have served in or hail from a state being run into the ground by equally rightwing Republian lawmakers? What have we done to deserve these people?

[Editor’s note: This article first appeared on Show Me Progress.]

The post For Pope Francis, the road to church modernization runs through Missouri appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Sometimes progressives don’t agree with conservatives, and the gist of the differences are about policy issues. Other times, one or perhaps both sides of a disagreement have a visceral dislike for the other side. In such situations, rationality seems to be thrown out the window in favor of demonizing the other side.

There is a third way to look at the disagreement: for either the “combatants” or an outside observer to try to figure out what’s going on psychologically. More and more “neutral” observers see Democrats as fairly reasonable and with a healthy dose of compassion. It is Republicans who are difficult to understand. It’s come to a point where we now have a cottage industry studying the Republican brain.

Chris Mooney, who studies science in politics, has written a book on “The Republican Brain.” Among other things, he contends that many Republicans have difficulty dealing with science as well as the use of logic to process facts. While some are kind in their personal lives, they seem to have almost complete disdain for compassion in the public arena.

There is a Calvinistic thread running through many Republicans in which the rich are rich because they deserve to be so, and the poor are poor because they are not among the “elected.” Very few Republicans are theological Calvinists, but psychologically, they are comfortable with the division of the “deserving rich” and the “depraved poor.”

In a recent letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch entitled “The pope, the president, and the Post-Dispatch,” Paul E. Schroeder of Maryland Heights, MO writes:

Barack Obama, Pope Francis and the Post-Dispatch have dropped their faked compassion for the downtrodden and revealed what we already knew. They are the progressive socialist elite who know what’s best for each of us.

Pope Francis’ distortion of Scripture is only surpassed by Barack Obama’s corruption of the Constitution. Both men describe a world in which mankind would be wards of the state, relegated to only what the state allowed. Men and women would no longer be in charge of their own destinies because they are not capable of making the right choices.

The history of man and the history of our country do not align with anything of what either of these two arrogant leaders proclaim. The travesty that Pope Francis foists upon the faithful in the Catholic Church goes beyond misinterpretation. Jesus never suggested that the government mandate compassion. The essence of mankind is the freedom of conscience to freely make decisions — to be compassionate or not. There is no love if there is no choice.

Pope Francis would have all Catholics throw their wallets into the offering plate and then by his supreme judgment decide who should receive what. Similarly, Barack Obama would heavily tax those who have been successful and with those confiscated funds, redistribute others’ wealth to his cronies, with a few crumbs possibly left over for the needy.

God endowed every man and woman with certain inalienable rights that no pope nor president can steal from them. The socialist agenda of this president, this pope and this newspaper will certainly leave its scar upon this community and this nation.

The good news is our forefathers foresaw the possibilities of corruption, even at the highest levels of leadership. We will survive this ordeal via future elections, but our children will now bear the enormous weight of intentional fiscal sabotage and social delusion designed to make families irrelevant.

In his first sentence, Mr. Schroeder condemns President Barack Obama, the Pope and the Post-Dispatch for their “faked compassion” for the downtrodden. I’m not quite sure what he means. What is “faked compassion?” Perhaps it is “talking the talk” of compassion but not “walking the walk.” But President Obama has not only spoken about income inequality in the U.S. and around the world, he has consistently proposed legislation to help those who economically deprived. Pope Francis has literally walked with the poor (something President Obama also did as a community organizer). The Post-Dispatch is generally guided by the words of founder Joseph Pulitzer, who in 1907 wrote that the Post-Dispatch will always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor.

Schroeder goes on to say, “God endowed every man and woman with certain inalienable rights that no pope nor president can steal from them.” But those rights lose marginal value if someone cannot put food in his or her mouth or provide shelter for his or her family.

So what can we do about conservatives who seem to demonize public compassion and shroud their opinions in a cloak of certainty that sometimes in frightening? The answer is not that we can do nothing. You can look in The Republican Brain for some answers, and I’ll just propose one here. Let our schools be much more compassionate, with far less homework and testing. Let them being settings where students and teachers  can enjoy learning and seek ways to use it to better serve themselves as well as society at large. It’s not the whole answer, but it’s a good place to start.

The post The pope, the president and the public schools appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“Pope Ramps Up Charity Office to Be With Poor.” That was a headline in the November 29^th St. Louis Post -Dispatch. Pope Francis is making headlines like this almost every week now. What a concept. He wants church members to use the instruction book written by people who knew or at least heard about a man named Jesus centuries ago. They call him the Christ and people who follow his vision Christians. From what I’ve read about this man they admire so much, he chose to help people in need rather than pursue an occupation that would have provided him with a comfortable lifestyle. He might even have been able to afford all the hallmarks of status like owning a sports team or building a chain of stores using tax credits and slave labor.

But he chose to do what Pope Francis is now telling his man at the Vatican who is in charge of charitable works. Go out and find the poor. The archbishop in charge of doing good for people is quoted in the PD article as saying:  “The Holy Father told me at the beginning: ‘You can sell your desk. You won’t need it. You need to get out of the Vatican.  Don’t wait for people to come ringing.  You need to go out and look for the poor.’”

Which made me think of some incredibly brave volunteers who venture into the streets and alleys of downtown St. Louis when it’s cold enough to freeze to death. A few years ago, a social worker organized these Winter Outreach volunteers when one of her clients froze to death in a bus stop shelter. I happen to know one of the volunteers and have been collecting blankets and other items for about four years, or, as they used to say in North Dakota before global warming,  “four winters.”  These are the true Christians although I’ve never asked them if they even go to church.  It doesn’t really matter. They are “religious” in the best sense of the word.

I saw on the news the other night that the Red Cross was helping a family who lost their home in a fire. That got me to wondering who helps people who lost their homes to corporate greed and bank fraud?  Who helps those people who lost their jobs because of the Great Recession?  It’s nice that a family who lost a home to fire gets help, and the Red Cross is a wonderful organization. Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad they help people who need it. But there are hundreds of families without homes in St. Louis, and they survive by finding food at churches and sleeping behind dumpsters in alleys.  The city authorities don’t want them spoiling the fun of visitors to downtown going to ball games or concerts.  So they keep them out of sight.  Keep moving them around. They close a park here and a park there. They make it illegal to feed folks outdoors with no place to live. But it’s okay to feed the pigeons.

Pope Francis made quite a stir last week when he claimed that “unfettered capitalism” kills not only our bodies but our souls. Wow. That’s one brave Pope. I wonder if the cardinals who elected him are having second thoughts?   No one else at that level of authority dares to criticize the “free market.”    I had never thought about “Thou shalt not kill” quite that way before, but he’s right.  There are sins of commission and sins of omission.   Shooting someone is an obvious crime.  But what about when we let people freeze to death?  What about the children living in cars or abandoned buildings?  What kind of  life will they have?  What have we killed in their little hearts and minds?

Another story on the local news last week was about a middle aged man who had been brutally beaten by his mother when he was too small to defend himself.  He found a “family” in a gang and did some terrible things to other human beings.  After doing prison time, he now lives with damage to his body from gunshot wounds and years of drug abuse.  That wouldn’t be much of a story for television, but he now spends his time urging young kids not to follow his path.  And here’s the kicker.  His story was going to air the next night right after “Survivor.”  Really?  Survivor?  Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

When the weather forecasters tell us to bundle up because of freezing temperatures, I wonder what the people living outdoors do to “bundle up.”  I’m thankful that there are so many organizations collecting coats, food and other necessities this holiday season.  It really helps a lot.  But I wonder why we separate ourselves from those in need? The vast majority of us are glad to share our bounty as long as we don’t have to actually mingle with the poor.  This is what makes Pope Francis so newsworthy.  He himself shared meals with the homeless when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires.  He sought out those who needed comforting.

John Lennon encouraged us to “Imagine.”  That’s not easy for an old cynic like myself. But I’m going to imagine bishops and other leaders of faith communities going out on a freezing cold night with the St. Louis Homeless Winter Outreach volunteers. Their Facebook  page tells when they will be heading out and where to meet. If you have a van, that would be nice. I wonder how many church vans sit idle on cold nights? I wonder how long before we decide as a society that every human being deserves food and shelter without having to beg for it. We are caught in a trap of our own making. We run each other down to get the lowest price on a flat screen television and call that “holiday shopping.”  It’s going to take someone with a lot of clout to turn our attention back to what’s really important.  That might just be the new Pope.  Imagine that.

The post Pope Francis makes headlines by making us think about poor people. Imagine that. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As a non-Catholic, I am a partial owner of the Pope’s institution, the Catholic Church. You see, in the country where I live, the United States, and many other countries as well, the Church receives enormous tax breaks because it is considered to be a non-for-profit organization. So in order for governments to try to raise sufficient revenue to cover their expenses, each of us must pay additional taxes to make up for the shortfall that occurs as a result of the tax breaks given to the Catholic church, as well as many other religious organizations.

In the United States, and certainly in other countries, the changing of the guard for a Pope is treated by the mainstream media as a story of universal interest. It may be because the Catholic Church is one of the largest religious denominations in the country, because it is rich in history and pageantry, and because it mandates positions on numerous public issues, positions that those in its flock may or may not choose to follow.

When a new Pope is chosen, mainstream media interviews countless Catholics. The interviewees may be “ordinary Catholics,” priests, nuns, bishops, arch-bishops, or cardinals. Invariably they express their joy over the selection of the new titular head of the Church and send their best wishes and prayers.

But what about those of us in the three-quarters of the U.S. population who are not Catholic? Is the media at all interested in what we have to say? Apparently not, because we seem to never be interviewed. Yet we have thoughts about the Pope, and quite frankly it is important for others to hear what we have to say. Many of us think that the postulates of the Catholic Church are not particularly fact-laden, and the stories that form the basis of its theology seem a bit out of science fiction.

So just to go on the record, I’m going to interview myself about what I think of the selection of Pope Francis.

Q:           What do you think of the election of Pope Francis?

A:           He looks younger than his age. Perhaps he’s more attuned to the world as it is in 2013 than how it was two millennia ago.

Q:           Is there anything that he has said or done that particularly impresses you?

A:           Yes. He’s expressed a real commitment to helping the world’s poor and he is comfortable living a modest lifestyle. If there was a person named Jesus and he truly cared for the poor, then Pope Francis is a good spokesperson. I don’t get the thing about washing other people’s feet, but if you’re going to do it, then the fact that he included women, one of whom is a Muslim, reveals a true sense of fairness. I know that pissed off some of his conservative followers, but that just seems to make it more impressive.

Q:           What about the fact that he is ardently opposed to a woman’s right to choose and has said nothing in support of LGBT rights?

A:           He’s the. pope. There’s only so much that we can hope to get from him.

Q:           You purport to be an agnostic. Through that lens, how do you feel about the pope?

A:           To me the Catholic Church has always been a curiosity. Like other religions,  Catholicism seems to have some very peculiar beliefs and rituals. It strikes me that its connection with reason and logic is primarily coincidental. I don’t understand why those who want to reform the Church don’t simply leave and either join another religious community where they are comfortable, start their own religion, or bag religion altogether.

Q:           Um, I think that I’m going to have to stop this interview; your most recent pronouncements are so out of touch with the beliefs of our mainstream audience that I have to pull the plug.

I’m truly sorry that the mainstream media has such an aversion to hearing from non-religious people about religious, or better yet, spiritual, matters. If agnostics and atheists received more coverage, perhaps we could provide some needed fresh perspectives to our collective body of knowledge. And perhaps we could provide some laughs for Catholics and other seriously religious people. I don’t know this pope, but I think that he might have to get a new set of friends to have some good laughs.

The post A non-mainstream view of the Pope appeared first on Occasional Planet.