Laura Loomer lamented that the new pope ‘is anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis,’ adding that it’s ‘GROSS’ that he now leads the Catholic Church
It didn’t take long for right-wing media figures and MAGA provocateurs to cry out in rage over the election of Robert Prevost as Pope Leo XIV after it was revealed that he’d publicly criticized JD Vance and expressed sympathy for immigrants and George Floyd.
Despite feeling national pride over the fact that the Chicago-born Prevost has become the first American pope in history, conservative pundits and Trump loyalists fumed over the “WOKE MARXIST POPE” and complained that he is “worse than Francis,” referencing the previous pontiff known for his progressive values.
Even before the “dark horse” American cardinal was elected the 267th pope, former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon warned about Prevost’s views, claiming that he would be a poor choice for the MAGA movement.
You know things are bad if the Catholic church is a last bastion for progressive social change
They’re a ratchet. Calling them progressive would be a straight lie but they do go with the times, maybe 100 years behind, picking up all stragglers that can reasonably be picked up.
In 50 years, mark my words, they will marry gay couples, or at least bless them before the congregation (without sacrament, or maybe they’ll invent a new, same-but-different, sacrament). Why? Because the Vatican recently gave priests authorisation to bless gay couples in private: Blessing the relationship, not just the individuals. Click.
Its weird to me that the same church that would allow flexibility to bless a gay relationship is also the same church that is inflexible regarding the confessional seal in cases of literal child abuse.
That is pretty fascinating though if true, considering that it would be completely upending the view of homosexuality as a sin. Im sure a priest cant bless something considered to be a sin, that would be antithetical
Nono you don’t get it that is how it always was. Something along the lines of “chem sex parties associated with so-called gay culture are a sin”, who said anything about actually loving relationships? Going back through all the official proclamations you probably won’t find anything that contradicts the new stance: They have a habit of writing in grand generalities that can be readily re-interpreted. The church doesn’t change it just forgets that it was different, that’s the only way a ratchet can even work on the conservative side. And yes they’ll never condone chem sex parties.
Lifting the seal won’t help a thing, on the contrary it might make things worse because then paedophiles aren’t going to confess, any more, and priests can’t tell them that god wants them to go to the police.
It’s akin to requiring therapists to tip off the police when you confess that you consume illicit drugs: All you’re doing is stopping people from talking about it in the first place.
Are there therapists who are drug dealers and abuse that confidentiality for their own business interest? I’m reasonably sure. I mean there are a gazillion of therapists in the world, there has to be at least a couple of drug dealers among them. But that’s no excuse to make it worse for everyone else.
People like teachers and of course child care workers should be reporters regarding this kind of stuff, but on the flipside the reports should go to a place where the victim then can find confidentiality. And maybe that’s even what at least some priests are doing (afterwards confessing that they broke the seal), important bit being that the perpetrator can’t know that the tip came from confession, and the official doctrine, “confession doesn’t leak”, is still intact.
On the one hand I definitely understand your argument, and its one Ive basically accepted as reasonable my entire life including when I was practicing Catholicism a long time ago as a kid.
However, in thinking about what you wrote I do question if there isnt a logical consistency in the idea that if there was no confessional seal that people who do the most heinous things would not repent.
I suppose its plausible that a child abuser wouldnt go to confess that if they knew the priest had to pass that information along, however I think the logical inconsistency is that they would then be at risk of dying without having confessed such a grave sin. Which hypothetically if they were a true believer of what the church teaches would be worse than any earthly punishment imaginable.
Now, if they simply didnt confess it to avoid prosecution then one might argue that they dont actually hold sincere beliefs and that the same person was simply using religion as a means to access and abuse kids. If they dont hold sincere beliefs then legally speaking they receive no protection under the law
The other thing is that is must be psychologically tormenting to some degree for priests to know other people are heinous criminals and being powerless to stop them other than saying “turn yourself in”.
I dont want priests to turn into some kind of reporters of all things to the authorities, but child abuse is among the most gravely disgusting things a person can do, universally, and given the problem of abusers in the church I think it would be great if priests were authorized to report it. Among the other most heinous of crimes like murder and rape and whatnot. Not “I cheated on my taxes” but shit that evidences a clearly dangerous person to others. We should be putting the rights of children and adults to be safe from that shit above the religious “right” of some random person to not be tattled on when they literally did something so awful.
Really if anything I imagine that the church making a big show of cleansing itself of pedophiles would actually be one of the few things that could bring a lot of people into the church. But I have no skin in that game, I just want to see pedophiles get their due comeuppance
If they believe to that kind of extent then they’d just turn themselves in, no priest necessary. Confession is something trained into people culturally, habituated from a young age, on the level of individual behaviour it doesn’t really have anything to do with Catholicism in particular, or theological doctrines, it just so happens that Catholicism is a culture which does that kind of training. So we’re not relying on paedophiles being faithful, but having a habit of spilling stuff every so often.
Lutherans, too, know confession but it’s not much of a cultural practice. I’m pretty sure there’s cultures that do practice regular confession but aren’t Catholic or even consider it part of a religious context, though granted the best I can come up with on the top of my head is sweat lodges which are not about confessing your wrongdoings, but giving thanks. Oh, Marxism-Leninism but there it functions as a humiliation ritual. It kind of shows how the whole thing becomes toxic AF when it’s public1.
They’re supposed to have support networks for that, just as therapists etc. have.
I can’t give a solution here. There simply is none, there’s no avenue that would stop this kind of thing, at least not by tinkering with confessions. And either way the impact of a change would be marginal. Other practices such as backing up your kids when auntie wants to slobber them but they don’t want to be slobbered, teaching kids early on that they have a right to bodily autonomy, are way more impactful.
1 Inb4 tankies come in here saying “ML isn’t a religion”: Yes it is, it’s speedballs for the masses. Get bent.
And it should be noted that behind the confessional seal a respected figure, speaking with the authority of religion tells these people to stop. Catholics don’t throw forgiveness around willy nilly, it’s called penance for a reason, they demand change. Does it happen? Usually not. But there is social value in confession of faults and sins and being told that one can and is expected to do better
A Canticle For Leibowitz is not an instruction manual.
Didn’t they kind of trend this way a bit after Vatican II?
…electric buggaloo?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council