Is it time to cancel the Pope?

Strike 1… “Pope Francis says Ukraine war was ‘perhaps somehow provoked’” (Guardian, June 14):

Pontiff condemns ‘cruelty’ of Russian troops while warning against perception of conflict as good v evil

Strike 2… “Vatican Praises U.S. Court Abortion Decision, Saying It Challenges World” (US News, June 24):

The Vatican’s Academy for Life on Friday praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on abortion, saying it challenged the world to reflect on life issues, but also called for social changes to help women keep their children.

The Vatican department also said in a statement that the defence of human life could not be confined to individual rights because life is a matter of “broad social significance”.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday took the dramatic step of overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that recognised a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and legalized it nationwide.

“The fact that a large country with a long democratic tradition has changed its position on this issue also challenges the whole world,” the academy said in a statement.

Pope Francis has compared having an abortion to “hiring a hit man” to eliminate a problematic person.

Renowned theologian, Constitutional Law scholar, and Vanquisher of Corn Pop Joe Biden says that the Pope and Supreme Court are both dead wrong:

I believe Roe v. Wade was the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy.

The consequences and the consensus of the American people — core principles of equality, liberty, dignity, and the stability of the rule of law — demand that Roe should not have been overturned.

With this decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country. They have made the United States an outlier among developed nations in the world. But this decision must not be the final word.

When we combine the above are we forced to conclude that the Pope, a doubter that Russia has a monopoly on European evil, an adherent of an “extreme ideology,” and a celebrator of a “tragic error,” must be canceled?

32 thoughts on “Is it time to cancel the Pope?

  1. This Pope has been all over the map in terms of Roman Catholic teaching and it’s been incredibly vexing and fitful for some members of my extended family who are devout. It’s very hard to tell when he’s “winking and nodding” while reading his statements out, so to speak. He also gave Communion to Nancy Pelosi at the end of June, and he just met Elon Musk and his children – except for the transgender one who has disowned him.

    I don’t think it is possible for the Laity of the Church to cancel the Pope. There’s no Emanating Penumbra that allows the Laity to use the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment as a battering ram to remove him.

    As far as Biden is concerned, it looks today as though he’s got troubles of his own, with David Axelrod (former Senior Advisor for Community Organizer Barack Obama) saying that basically it looks like there’s no “there” there. That’s certainly a Thunderbolt raining down from Hawaii or someplace like that – but maybe it gives Biden the easy out.

    • I should also add that many members of the LGBTQIA+ Community that I’ve known over the years have expressed their utter contempt for the Roman Catholic Church on any occasion the subject was broached, and lots of times when it wasn’t. That changed to some small extent for Pope Francis when Elton John had initially applauded his inclusivity – but then he had to take it back in 2021.

      “How can the Vatican refuse to bless gay marriages because they ‘are sin,’ yet happily make a profit from investing millions in “Rocketman” – a film which celebrates my finding happiness from my marriage to David?“

      I have to say that Sir Elton does indeed have a point there. I guess he thought there was some kind of “quid pro quo” that never existed.

    • Hugh Hewitt likes to say that Axelrod is the smartest Democrat. I think he’s right.

    • @randall g: Axelrod is the best Three Star General the Donks have, and it’s been that way for a long time now. The hair stands up on the back of my neck every time I hear him speak because he’s a goddamned Neo-Commie. But he gets the best information and unlike most Donks, he knows what to do with it.

    • @randall g: I should tell David Axelrod that we’re not going to accept his rule. He can keep playing his chess games but I don’t personally care about what he’s playing. We’ll end the game rather than continue playing it.

    • I’m biased because (1) he’s my compatriot, (2) because he’s a Jesuit (3) because he’s been pretty laid back about matters. As a Jesuit, they come from a more “intellectual” branch of the Church (although they were the shock troops back in the day) as they usually do missionary work and also sciences. I went to a Jesuit high school and it was pretty easy going and not the typical judgemental/hypocritical vibe from devout Catholics. The emphasis was more “just be a good person and don’t waste your time judging/condemning others”. Which I like, because the more devout , the more hypocritical in my experience. Devout people are ones who typically lack critical thinking skills and I much rather avoid them.

      Pope Francis’ interpretation is more relaxed, because the Jesuits have a more “what would Jesus do?” attitude to handling matters. So atheists are accepted as along as they are good persons, and gays should not be condemned and should be treated as human beings, etc. What’s so wrong with that? Jesus taught forgiveness and tolerance.

    • @D-man: At one point in my life I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly, particularly right around the beginning of my time working at Vincentian Catholic University’s law school which was right around the corner from a Jesuit University’s law school. But I was radicalized to the far left of the spectrum, snap backed to the far right of the dial for a couple months after a string of terrible events, and then – once everybody got their mitts off me – settled somewhere around center right.

      It’s always amusing to me that “separation of Church and State” is absolutely required when we’re talking about Republicans and/or Conservatives but when it’s Democrats who claim to be Jesuits or Vincentians, well, it’s OK – and in fact, beneficial. David Axelrod may personally be a very nice man and even a kind soul to the people around him, and I wish him any specific mendacious harm – but I don’t like him because he always winds up being near the important levers of almost everything I don’t want to see happen.

    • Sorry, “…don’t wish him any specific mendacious harm.” Wasn’t using Notepad++ to compose.

      And I’m very well aware of the teachings of Jesus when it comes to forgiveness and turning the other cheek. That’s why I moved 1000 miles away from where I was and the people who bothered me so much, at my expense, said prayers for them, never looked back, and left them completely alone. Except for a very brief series of text messages to inform one of them that one of my relatives had been murdered. She attended his wedding with me and didn’t even have the grace to talk with me on the telephone as I mourned him, and insisted on text messages.

      In my opinion, there are a lot of hard-core liberals and leftists who want nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus because I’ve never seen them apply them with any kind of consistency.

    • @D-man: Finally, I re-read your post and I think you should really examine what Black Lives Matter thinks about this: “The emphasis was more “just be a good person and don’t waste your time judging/condemning others”. Which I like, because the more devout , the more hypocritical in my experience.”

      That’s invalid according to BLM because just “being a good white person” isn’t enough. So even the Jesuit interpretation is under direct fire. There were scores of articles, books and published papers talking about how “being a good person” was just a cover-up method that whites rely on to maintain their oppression while patting themselves on the back for their own “goodness.”

      And they believe it. You can’t be a good person if you’re white and live in America, even if you’ve really been a “good person.” That’s not enough! No matter how “good” you think you’ve been in your life, you must subject yourself to the lashes and the hair shirt for the sins you couldn’t atone for, admit your cosmic guilt, and then pay your punitive damages. And that’s not far from the truth, under this fucked-up idea that is being foisted on us.

      Of course this is all Gramscian. He was a “white guy!”

    • @D-man: Luckily, I knew all the aforementioned was complete bullshit because I lived for a year in a dorm suite with three other young men, all of whom were Black. Two Jamaicans and a guy from Newark who had a Glock pistol in his desk drawer. We got along fine, and actually I was very good friends with one of the Jamaican guys – we used my car to drive into NYC with a couple bicycles in the back while we pedaled all up and down the island taking pictures. He listened to a lot of Barrington Levy.

      But this stuff we’re hearing now is more Brand Nubian. They are quite a bit more Nation of Islam and advise people not to drink so much, which I think applies to just about everyone, regardless of their skin color.

  2. This is at least worth a Twitter suspension, where the counterrevolutionary must publicly admit and renounce his/her/zir/their wrongdoing!

    But the left never goes after heads of bureaucracies, they go after relatively powerless individuals (while at the same time complaining about other people “kicking downwards”).

    If a leftist sees a bureaucracy, his/her/zir/their impulse is to infiltrate, undermine, and use it.

    • Do you realise you can just say “their” without sounding like a crazy person?

    • The official style guide for this blog requires at least four pronouns when the gender ID of the person is unknown. Maybe it should be five if the person lives in San Francisco.

    • Anon: I believe that “they” in “he/she/ze/they” is the non-binary “they”!

      If “they” referred to the entire set, we would have infinite recursion like in the GNU acronym!

      I appreciate the brevity suggested by the style guide, which already allows us to omit multiple declensions of “ze” and 20+ additional pronouns.

    • So despite constant complaining about “wokeness” you choose to perpetuate a highly obnoxious behaviour? Interesting choice.

    • Anon2: I am sorry that you don’t share our commitment to the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community and its myriad pronouns.

    • I’m just curious why you purposefully want to be an asshole. I know averros agrees that trolling the left is your ultimate political goal, but why indulge in the language of those you hate?

    • Anon: I think this is an illustration of why you might excite the interest of the moderator. Your comment rests on your purported knowledge of my internal mental state. You claim to know whom I might hate. But your IP address is from Australia and nobody in Australia knows anything about me or my mental states, including who I might hate. (For the record, I do not hate the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community! Just the other day, I invited one of our only neighbors with a rainbow flag to a hot dog and sangria party (I have never met them and the only thing I know about them is that they, unusually for this area, have some rainbow flagism signage). Admitted it is Costco sangria, but I don’t think serving it qualifies as “hate”. As far as 2SLGBTQQIA+ community members who don’t live in our immediate neighborhood, why would I hate them? Without them, I would have far less blog material!)

    • > nobody in Australia knows anything about me or my mental states, including who I might hate

      Ah my apologies. You don’t understand that what you write communicates your thoughts, and is accessible to the whole world via the Internet. My mistake in overestimating your basic grasp on both human communication and technology.

    • Anon-2: I am mocking the authoritarian and hypocritical approach to 2SLBGTQQIA+, not individuals. So does Glenn Greenwald, who is married to a man “of color” and has adopted children “of color”. So does Navratilova, who is married to a woman but is not sufficiently woke in 2022.

      One can be outraged at the way Alan Turing was treated by the British and at the same time be appalled by the insanity and raw desire for power of the 2SLBGTQQIA+ industrial complex.

      One may also wonder if some of the authoritarians would have marched under a different banner in earlier times. These state religions have always been pushed by mediocre people who want sinecure positions. They get vicious because they have no skills and their livelihood depends on the religion.

    • It all circles back around to the Will to Power, every time the Earth revolves around its axis.

  3. Before we talk about canceling the Pope, we should talk instead about George Soros – much more frequently, and describe everything he does. He’s much more influential than the Pope, and anyone who doesn’t like the Pope should really think instead of Soros.

    I have people tell me their weirdo conspiracy theories all the time and of course, I tell them: “It’s not a conspiracy, really. It’s just one guy.”

    • The only forces now openly standing against Soros and Evil personified in him and his minions are Putin/Russia and to a lesser degree Orban/Hungary – no surprise both are labelled, by Soros’ barking dogs in media and his NGOs, as “dictators” and grave threats to “our values” and “freedoms”.

    • Anon, never mind Putin, George Soros is doing just fine, millions Ukrainians – not so much.

    • I met George Soros at Johns Hopkins University when he was there to talk about his “visions” for the Open Society. I didn’t even like him then!

      Soros spends his money in ways that don’t make the headlines. He ‘implants’ people around the world – basically his acolytes – to do his work for him. He’s always ‘clean’, and he’s always a “philanthropist” according to the people who get to interview him for very limited conversations. And if you say otherwise or disagree with him, you’re an anti-semite, a Jew hater, or worse. He’s done a lot of damage with that masquerade and he’s almost impossible to criticize because of it.

      The real problem with Soros is that he doesn’t really care about the consequences of his actions, except that they achieve his desired results. Even people whose business it is to be professional philanthropists don’t like him.

      I think he has far too much unelected power and influence, and the same goes for Mike Bloomberg. I don’t know when he began his delusions of grandeur, but I’ll bet they happened at Harvard.

    • George Soros “supported” former Soviet scientists – he gave stipends of $100 – $300 for some very decent but clueless applied scientists after destruction of former USSR to work on technology development and inventions worth of $$ millions. Later during peace process he went to Israel to “help” Israelis the way he “helped” UK Central bank and tried to “help” Japanese – but Israelis figured him out quickly and he became anti-Israel. Last I noticed that when Obama admin nearly outlawed coal usage, in big part at his lobbying, he started selling freed-up US coal to China. I used to know more sophisticated small time street crooks but somehow London School of Economics gives street crocks popularity and reach. Personally I got really disgusted with Jorge when he described bow he carted away possessions of Hungarian victims of Holocaust. I am no judge of him or whatever he did to save his bacon but my relatives and relatives of my friends died in Holocaust or survived by fighting in allied armies and/or in guerilla warfare (including teenagers and pre-teens) on Nazi-occupied territories.

    • @LSI – this Soros support of struggling ex-Soviet scientists resulted in more than a few espionage prosecutions against the same scientists. Apparently, CIA used Soros “charity” to entice the scientists to share sensitive information with military applications. The Soros and all his NGOs were banned in Russia.

    • @averros, I do not know whether anyone getting small Soros grants were persecuted. It were the times when state secrets and other resources were sold by former soviet bureaucrats and senior officers both retail and in bulk with feeling of honor and patriotism for getting best buck for the portion of resources of soviet union and previous expropriated rightful owners that they supervised. Last time I checked some of them were still in power in Russia.
      I knew one distant family lady scientist chemist who developed technologies in one of form eastern Soviet republics’ research centers receiving the funding and whose technologies safely made it to other international entities and one applied physicist from former Leningrad who now leads applied research at one of American corporation sates side, neither of them were prosecuted for anything.

  4. I think this is revolting and disgusting: “Pontiff condemns ‘cruelty’ of Russian troops while warning against perception of conflict as good v evil.”

    He’s just such a two-faced Pope and always has been. He’s morally ambiguous. I can’t vote him out but I would if I could.

Comments are closed.