September 28, 2015 8:10 AM
About Pope Francis and his communication methodology.
This morning I spoke with only two people at my morning Starbucks interlude. One was a black Baptist man, the other was an avant-garde middle aged woman. Both were interested in pondering the same issue: the ambivalent answers given by the Pope to his constituents, friends, enemies about relevant issues, and how they could be implemented. I wondered how they responded to the Pope exhortations. The Pope’s answers were obviously very carefully pre prepared. How the question process grows—here are some possibilities:
1) The question about procedure is “raised” by someone
2) The question about an issue is spoken or written about
3) The issue is brought out in a personal or interpersonal manner
4) The question is shelved when there is no possible way to respond.
5) The question that has been heard or read about is addressed by the recipient or officially dismissed.
6) The question is addressed indirectly, its message diluted and rendered meaningless.
7) No answer may be forthcoming.
8) The question is accepted, considered and answered impersonally such as politicians and executives do. No responsibility is taken by such diffused answer to it.
9) The question is heard and accepted as a reasonable question. The response to it may vary from the personal, to the cathedratic, official, political, dogmatic, offensive, satirical, destructive, etc.
So how did the Pope respond to the questions?
Pope Francis accepted the questions about priests’ abuse of children, divorce, abortion, contraceptives, gay rights, priest’s marriage, women’s ordination and more. He mostly answered them not only indirectly, but vaguely and at times ex cathedra plus exceptions. For example, the Pope said that the function of women’s work within the Church needs to be increased. What apparently was meant by him was only about blue collar work, not white one, that is, not religious functions within the Church. He said that women who use birth control which is against the value of “possible life” creation, can return to the Church, have confession and communion if they repent, and remain within the Church. He said that homosexuals should not be judged (the Pope said: “Who am I to judge?” (Trans individuals did not come up but the response might be similar.)
Abortion is still forbidden, nothing was said about specific circumstances about its timing. Supposedly a three day old embryo is already a person with a soul, as is a worm , a nightingale or a chicken. This is according to the latest encyclica of Pope Francis. I do not take seriously souls of any kind because I have no evidence for them, but can argue ferociously about overpopulation destroying Nature, which also has a soul of sorts, since it is God’s creation. The Pope knew that this was a vitriolic issue and preferred not to get into it.
The marriage of priests was also considered. Very pragmatic since there aren’t enough young men ready to take vows of chastity. I am asking, does chastity also address a sexual union that cannot create procreation? (sodomy?) The Church has used this state of affairs and given annulments to heterosexual couples who could not reproduce, did it know whether coitus was ever tried? If so, the marriage was no different from a homosexual union, except for the bodily orifices being used! Homosexuals cannot procreate.
The Church’s Power
The Catholic Church has been run as a Political entity having all the civil, political rights of a country for almost two millennia, plus the “imaginary” anointment of a “god” who approved of killing any kind of people in wars, but only in just wars. But we were lucky that the practice of selling old bones of presumed martyrs was stopped by M. Luther and Co. There simply were no longer certified bones available. We were also lucky to have had Napoleon and Mussolini clip the Church’s wings of temporal power. We were also lucky to have had a Pope John the 23rd who actually did his best to make the Roman Catholic Church more Protestant and consequently more honest in dealing with world inhabitants about what was supposed to be a catholic relationship.
My main point is that there needs to be a separation between Church and Papacy. There are personal diversities in their interests, ethics, belief systems and ultimately where money is spent. The money comes from within the Chief of Staff’s office of the Roman Catholic Church. It is too crass for the Pope Himself to deal with actual money, the realm of Caesar.
Pope Francis appears to be in good faith, but he has no control over the money, all he has is a mouth and people know this, and his enemies know this. Ultimately, since he is in love with the “earth’s bounty of oxygen, water, air and earth,” as the Confucians did in China, he is not serving anyone if we have no control on procreation by humans still living in agrarian times where children were insurance in case of old age; or where men simply had to relax after having worked hard at war or on the soil, killing people because it is God’s plan to kill the bad ones, and a quick fix-fuck for women and beheading for men is definitely the fastest means to end all issues. But the Pope cannot address this, it interferes with religious freedom!
Why not fuck goats and roast them afterwards and eat them? It would be good for the environment, give us some more good protein for fewer children. I am an unknown King’s clown: “Ridi per non morire!” F. Rubin