http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33515852
"Today a policeman, a man in his forties, asked to take a selfie with me. I told him: But are you a teenager?
Lmao
hey how are you all doing tonight?! nice, nice. i'm frank. so let me tell you about fucking selfies. i was just in bolivia not doing coke,
For some months now, we have witnessed an event which fills us with hope: the process of normalizing relations between two peoples following years of estrangement. It is a sign of the victory of the culture of encounter and dialogue, “the system of universal growth” over “the forever-dead system of groups and dynasties” (José Martí, loc. cit.). I urge political leaders to persevere on this path and to develop all its potentialities as a proof of the high service which they are called to carry out on behalf of the peace and well-being of their peoples, of all America, and as an example of reconciliation for the entire world.
Makeshift_Swahili posted:i know the rhizzone has a few experts on catholicism, how come this new pope is seems to be taking a left-liberal kind of line? i know the last pope was involved in some anti-liberation-theology stuff so this new guy seems kinda weird. changing attitude in the vatican? power struggle? 'catching more flies with honey'?
its because of the third secret of fatima
Makeshift_Swahili posted:i know the rhizzone has a few experts on catholicism, how come this new pope is seems to be taking a left-liberal kind of line? i know the last pope was involved in some anti-liberation-theology stuff so this new guy seems kinda weird. changing attitude in the vatican? power struggle? 'catching more flies with honey'?
the popes have been fairly left-liberal since vatican 2: vatican harder. this one is a bit more, it's a change of degree, not type.
Makeshift_Swahili posted:i know the rhizzone has a few experts on catholicism, how come this new pope is seems to be taking a left-liberal kind of line? i know the last pope was involved in some anti-liberation-theology stuff so this new guy seems kinda weird. changing attitude in the vatican? power struggle? 'catching more flies with honey'?
1. One answer lies in changing demographics: The number of baptized Catholics has grown by roughly 57% since 1980 (From 783,660,0009 to 1,228,621,000) , and that growth has overwhelmingly been in the Global South, above all, Africa and Asia (though believe or not, Europe showed some net growth too, albeit a very modest 6%.). How to best build upon and consolidate the results of this trend has been a subject of internal debate for years. Choosing a pope that was not born in Europe and who echoes the aspirations for peace, development, and sovereignty among the toiling, as well as the upwardly aspiring, non-white masses is indeed a solid strategy of "catching more flies with honey'. It is also one that conveniently cuts across the "liberal vs conservative" divide in Europe and American Catholic communities, where finding a consensus on war, peace, and economic justice is (comparatively) easier than in certain other controversies...
2. In a post-Cold War world defined by the gradual but inexorable shift of economic and political power towards the South and East and away from the North and the West, sticking with Cold War anti-communism would be beating a dead horse. It would keep happy certain very vocal constituencies in Europe and America whose political consciousness was shaped by the cultural backlash of the 70s+80s, but it would also alienate the far larger and more youthful populations of Africa, Asia, and South America who either don't care about, or remember differently, the 1945-1991 ideological struggle between Moscow and Washington. For an institution with global pretensions, to pursue such a course would be both counter-productive and insulting to its sense of self-worth. And since the Pope doesn't have to deal with term limits, or answer to the narcissism of any single populated territorial unit, he has, in many ways, greater leeway to be ideologically mercurial when seeking to actualize such a vision than whoever occupies the White House.
Here it is relevant to add: I think the primary aim of the Francis papacy in seeking to inspire a revival is to demonstrate the Church can be a powerful partner to the public policy of a variety of states (regardless of their ideology)--with the implication that it should be given leeway to build up the infrastructure in areas that it desperately needs to do so in order to keep up with growth among its members and in countries that have been historically leery of it--Brick and Motor being, along with the blood of the martyrs, the seeds of the Church.
Further, a strategy of populism oriented towards the Third World also helps the Vatican keep itself from becoming too closly aligned with the United States-a power who, since its disastrous invasion of Iraq onward, has sponsored polices that have wreaked disaster on the Christian communities of MENA (including ones, it goes without saying, loyal to Rome). Not only does this policy tack signal its willingness to have a working relationship with powers in an antagonistic relationship with Washington,but it also allows Rome to more plausibly position itself as an honest broker between states as opposed to coming across as merely being a minor auxiliary of the West. .
3. Focusing on the level of theoretical and ideological pronouncements: As mandela has pointed out, Francis is a continuation of already existing ecclesiastical positions, not an inexplicable rupture. See Pacem et Terris by John Paul XXIII or Populorum Progressio by Pope Paul VI, to speak only of the 60s.
Even relative to Pope John Paul II, Francis represents less a break than he may seem on first sight-particularly if we are focusing on the arc of the former's papacy post-91. This is JPII speaking in José Martí Plaza in 1998:
Various places are witnessing the resurgence of a certain capitalist neoliberalism which subordinates the human person to blind market forces and conditions the development of peoples on those forces. From its centres of power, such neoliberalism often places unbearable burdens upon less favored countries. Hence, at times, unsustainable economic programmes are imposed on nations as a condition for further assistance. In the international community, we thus see a small number of countries growing exceedingly rich at the cost of the increasing impoverishment of a great number of other countries; as a result the wealthy grow ever wealthier, while the poor grow ever poorer.
Further, It is typical to cast Benedict as a dour figure standing in stark contrast to Francis but it is forgotten that even when he condemned Liberation Theology in 80s as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it wasn't from a Thatcherite perspective:
The powerful and almost irresistible aspiration that people have for 'liberation' constitutes one of the principal 'signs of the times' which the Church has to examine and interpret in the light of the Gospel. This major phenomenon of our time is universally widespread, though it takes on different forms and exists in different degrees according to the particular people involved. It is, above all, among those people who bear the burdens of misery and in the heart of the disinherited classes that this aspiration expresses itself with the greatest force.
2. This yearning shows the authentic, if obscure, perception of the dignity of the human person, created "in the image and likeness of God" (Genesis 1:26-27), ridiculed and scorned in the midst of a variety of different oppressions: cultural, political, racial, social, and economic, often in conjunction with one another.
3. In revealing to them their vocation as children of God, the Gospel has elicited in the hearts of mankind a demand and a positive will for a peaceful and just fraternal life in which everyone will find respect and the conditions for spiritual as well as material development. This requirement is no doubt at the very basis of the aspiration we are talking about here.
4. Consequently mankind will no longer passively submit to crushing poverty with its effects of death, disease, and decline. He resents this misery as an intolerable violation of his native dignity. Many factors, and among them certainly the leaven of the Gospel, have contributed to an awakening of the consciousness of the oppressed.
5. It is widely known, even in still illiterate sections of the world, that, thanks to the amazing advances in science and technology, mankind, still growing in numbers, is capable of assuring each human being the minimum of goods required by his dignity as a person.
6. The scandal of the shocking inequality between the rich and poor - whether between rich and poor countries, or between social classes in a single nation - is no longer tolerated. On the one hand, people have attained an unheard of abundance which is given to waste, while on the other hand so many live in such poverty, deprived of the basic necessities, that one is hardly able even to count the victims of malnutrition.
And such notions were also expressed publicly during his papal administration
Perhaps one can say Francis's main "innovations", were, on that front, to (1)put the distracting and anachronistic "neither Washington nor Moscow" framework to the side(2) Decenter this critique of capitalism from Ratzinger Euro-centric focus; (3) Drop the stodgy appeal to the perennial humanist values of the Classical Heritage, replace it with an appeal to a partially rehabilitated Liberation Theology.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
HenryKrinkle posted:yeah it's important to keep in mind that Francis' leftish criticisms of neoliberal capitalism are not entirely different from what JPII and Benedict XVI have previously stated on the subject.
fair enough, do you all feel like maybe this more on the medias end then? feel like i've been hearing all this 'controversy' etc about this popes economic stances while there wasn't much with JP or Benedict
Makeshift_Swahili posted:thanks yall
HenryKrinkle posted:yeah it's important to keep in mind that Francis' leftish criticisms of neoliberal capitalism are not entirely different from what JPII and Benedict XVI have previously stated on the subject.
fair enough, do you all feel like maybe this more on the medias end then? feel like i've been hearing all this 'controversy' etc about this popes economic stances while there wasn't much with JP or Benedict
There is certainly a desire for a controversy, but there is also a conscious media strategy by the Vatican at work playing to that desire as well, as can be seen clearly enough in the way Francis stages this statement:
Gian Guido Vecchi, Corriere della Sera:....There have already been discussions about a communist Pope, now there are event those who speak of a Pope who isn’t Catholic. In the face of these considerations, what do you think?
Pope Francis: A cardinal friend of mine told me that a very concerned woman, very Catholic, went to him. A bit rigid, but Catholic. And she asked him if it was true that in the Bible, they spoke of an antichrist, and she explained it to him. And also in the Apocalypse, no? And, then, if it was true that an anti-pope, who is the antichrist, the anti-Pope. But why is she asking me this question, this cardinal asked me? “Because I’m sure that Pope Francis is the anti-pope,” she said. And why does she ask this, why does she have this idea? “It’s because he doesn’t wear red shoes.” The reason for thinking if one is communist or isn’t communist. I’m sure that I haven't said anything more than what’s written in the social doctrine of the Church. On another flight, a colleague asked me if I had reached out a hand to the popular movements and asked me, “But is the Church going to follow you?” I told him, “I’m the one following the Church.” And in this it seems that I’m not wrong. I believe that I never said a thing that wasn’t the social doctrine of the Church. Things can be explained, possibly an explanation gave an impression of being a little “to the left”, but it would be an error of explanation. No, my doctrine on this, in Laudato si', on economic imperialism, all of this, is the social doctrine of the Church. And it if necessary, I’ll recite the creed. I am available to do that, eh.
That interview also points to a key difference between Francis's articulation of the Church's economic stance and that of his predecessors: While they felt compelled to assure their audience of their anti-communist credentials. Francis, by contrast, doesn't feel the need to reflexively do that:
Rogelio Mora-Tagle, Telemundo: Is Cuba suffering from something, Holy Father? Is it sick?
Pope Francis: No, no. First, John Paul II went on his historic visit, which was normal. He visited so many countries, including nations that were aggressive against the Church, but that wouldn’t be it....
Nor does he want the Vatican's Foreign Policy to be dragged along by the nose by the vindictiveness of emigres and the plottings of local provocateurs:
Rosa Flores, CNN: Good afternoon, Holy Father. I am Rosa Flores of CNN. We understand that more than 50 dissidents were arrested outside the nunciature as they were trying to have a meeting with you. First, would you like to have a meeting with the dissidents, and if you had that meeting, what would you say?
Pope Francis: Look, I don’t have any news that that has happened. I don’t have any news. Some yes, yes, no, I don’t know. I don’t know, directly. The two questions are about reading the future. Would I like this to happen? … I like to meet with all people. I consider that all people are children of God and the law. And secondly, a relationship with another person always enriches. Even though it was soothsaying, that’s my reply. I would like to meet with everyone. If you want me to speak more about the dissidents, you can ask me something more concrete. For the nunciature, first, it was very clear that I was not going to give audiences because not only the dissidents asked for audiences, but also audiences (were requested) from other sectors, including from the chief of state. And, no, I am on a visit to a nation, and just that. I know that I hadn’t planned any audience with the dissidents or the others.
Hence reactions like this.:
Look! There! Aha! The Pope denies being a leftist! In fact what the Pope does here is to refer to an unspecified explanation of the things he has said that "give an impression" of being left-leaning ("a little to the left") and then says that it is an erroneous explanation. The fact is we do not know exactly what he is describing here as the "erroneous" explanation of his thinking, or even what he means here by being "to the left", which can mean vastly different things on either side of the equator. If anything, this looks like a non-denial denial
Edited by RedMaistre ()
RedMaistre posted:Hence reactions like this.:
Look! There! Aha! The Pope denies being a leftist! In fact what the Pope does here is to refer to an unspecified explanation of the things he has said that "give an impression" of being left-leaning ("a little to the left") and then says that it is an erroneous explanation. The fact is we do not know exactly what he is describing here as the "erroneous" explanation of his thinking, or even what he means here by being "to the left", which can mean vastly different things on either side of the equator. If anything, this looks like a non-denial denial
i read this quote in the zizek voice. my god! is it not the exact opposite!?
chickeon posted:benedict went to cuba and basically demanded that they abandon the revolution and bow down at the altar of capital???
Yes....
The vast majority of his public political statements, however, seemed to be aimed at Cuba’s government. Standing in front of an image of Cuban revolutionary hero Ernesto “Che” Guevara during the Wednesday mass, he cited a biblical passage about an oppressive king and said that people find freedom seeking Christianity’s truth.
....and No:
Conservative radio talk show host and exile activist Ninoska Perez echoed Sopo's complaints, saying that the pope's visit failed by not shining a light on repression of the island or the way Cuban police dragged away a man who cried out "Down with Communism!" during the Santiago mass.
"I believe that that complacent attitude that the Catholic hierarchy and the pope had towards a 53-year-old dictatorship was unnecessary," she told HuffPost. "To ignore, as they have, the repression, the arrests of the opposition, the persons who were beaten -- including right there at the mass -- is unacceptable."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/pope-benedict-cuban-americans-criticism_n_1390820.html
In other words, Benedict, like Francis, pursued a two way policy that can be summed up in JPII's phrase: "May Cuba, with all its magnificent potential, open itself to the world, and may the world open itself to Cuba." The Roman Church helps facilitate the end of Cuba's diplomatic and economic isolation. At the same time,it avoids encouraging regime change efforts targeting the PCC favored by Cuban exiles and their American sponsors. In exchange, it expects, and to some has extant has been awarded with, greater rights for its members and wider institutional freedom within Cuban borders.
Since this policy converges with the Cuban government's own objectives (the securing of diplomatic detente and integration with global markets under conditions of continued political control of a socialist system by the party), it is a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
c_man posted:anything short of actual papal bulls calling for regime change under force of excommunication is A Good Compromise for the red chesterton wannabes here, who seem very careful to ignore the capacity of the "opening up of cuba" as a run-up to regime change
The Cuban government for years has wanted an end to the embargo and to being treated as a pariah state. The Vatican--not Syriza, no Podemos, not the British Labour party--has merely helped them achieve what they were already asking for. If you think that the achievement of those legitimate goals is a bad strategic move on the part of PCC, you should explain what other path they should be pursuing.
For the record: As the contrasting cases of the USSR and PRC show, its not economic opening per se that leads to regime change but loss of political control by the party. The Vatican is not interested in contesting them on that front, and will likely not encourage others to do so as long as it can expect from the present system continued accommodation of the right of Catholics to freedom of worship and the relative institutional autonomy of the Church in Cuba.
FADE UP ON
THE POPE, tauntingly doing things on Yom Kippur
THE POPE: To me the Jewish people are anathema. For this reason alone I travel on their holiday.
JEW: Pope personally I'm just uh, a regular guy trying to, uh, um, make a living.
SMASH CUT TO
KEVEN, hanging out on web and smirking in a way that you know he's a little jaded and so cutting his opinions could cut bread like they were knifes.
KEVEN: Both sides of this argument are bull shit to me. The truth is that both religions are wrong and atheism is correct.
c_man posted:im not convinced that russia/the ussr aren't two sides of the same coin: two different avenues for the encroachment of international capital. china maintained political continuity through the opening but it's still very dependent on US economic activity, possibly moreso than russia. as frosty as the relations might get they're still very closely connected to the US. also comparing cuba to either is sort of bizarre since they both have much larger economies and a much greater capability to resist outside influence to, say, the development of a social division of labor away from self-sufficiency
You are talking as if economic autarky or avoiding the "social division of labor" (a precondition for complex societies of any sort), is or ever was, the goal of socialism in practice. To the extant that socialism (whether in its revolutionary communist, national liberation, or socdem form) succeeded, it was because it satisfied human needs-above all (but not exclusively ) its material ones. It provided solutions for the failures of capitalist-imperialism to deliver on the desire for bread, housing, dignity, and comfort among populations that had often been previously denied entirely a political existence and a right to the wealth which their labor had created. In that respect, "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" was and is a genuine continuation, in both word and spirit, of the socialist tradition, raising as it did an unprecedented number of people out of poverty (a success, it is important to note, the Washington Consensus can't boast of) and continuing the revitalization of a previously colonized nation.
You also ignore how China, by increasing its economic connections to the US, has created the conditions for ensuring and deepening its self-sufficiency. The price of the USSR's failure to adapt it's system successfully was political dissolution and territorial dismemberment. The PRC, by contrast, not only still exists, but remains obstinately independent in the pursuit of its interests--and there is not too much that the US can do about it, despite the much talked about East-Asian pivot, precisely because Beijing has made itself so important for the functioning of global economic activity. And though China depends heavily on foreign exports, it has already in recent years begun redirect itself towards building up its internal markets, using the growth from its foreign trade as its launching point.
The key difference between China and many other states in the Global South/Second World since the 1970s is that it has successfully made that relationship work for it instead of being laid waste by the usury of the IMF and becoming hosts for American bases. This is in part because the party retained control of the commanding heights and guided it strategy with an eye towards long term general development instead of short-term profiteering, avoiding thereby the chaotic asset stripping, mass pauperization, and famine that struck Russia in the 1990s and from which it has never entirely recovered.
Whether Cuba's size (among other factors) precludes it from imitating China and dooms it to suffer the fate of Russia is an open question. But if economic opening up risks regime change, not doing so would practically ensure it, sooner or later-particularity since Havana doesn't pose, with the backing of a powerful neighbor, a credible military threat to Washington the way Pyongyang does towards Seoul.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
"China seeks to Promote the "Right" Western Philosophy: Marxism"
http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/peking-university-china-marx/
RedMaistre posted:Since we're on the topic of ecclesiastical and political Dengism, probably not a bad idea to consider (again) amnesty for Mustang and instituting a policy of open registration.
Please do not encourage the mentally ill to self harm.
drwhat posted:according to the prophecy of the popes he is the last one anyway and will be nice and comfort everyone a little bit and then we will all die. rip us.
mods change nam,e to Black Pope Francis
so, it is not a shock that in the decades following the end of the U.S.S.R., during a Church demographic shift to the global South, the spyglass would swing the other way and capitalism would be subject to the same harsh scrutiny. the difference between popes on such issues is largely one of emphasis and style. but i'm glad people are paying attention now every time the pope says something about the importance of organizing the workers.
RedMaistre posted:You are talking as if economic autarky or avoiding the "social division of labor" (a precondition for complex societies of any sort), is or ever was, the goal of socialism in practice
no, i specifically said that it will divide social labor away from self-sufficiency. increased trade with the US for cuba is very different than the case of china because cuba doesn't have the scale of natural or social resources to become a low-cost manufacturer in the same way that china has. china was able to develop in the way that it did because it was large enough to have access to lots of natural resources and raw materials and was able to build its economy by situating itself as a large scale, low cost manufacturer. that is, china developed as a mass producer of general goods. this option is not open to cuba because they dont have the same sorts of natural resources to build a large scale industrial base on, as indicated by the shock after the fall of the USSR of not being able to receive the petroleum necessary for their contemporary agricultural infrastructure. that is to say, cuba is in much greater relative need of the basics of industrial production than potential markets for industrial goods already produced (as was the case in china). the US and international capital have much stronger control over these, and developing an industrial capacity that assumes access to these involves a much greater concession.
cars posted:the roman catholic church purports to be a universal organization that predates capitalism and sits in judgment over it. you only have to look at the world to see how true this is in practice but the zealous anti-Communism that once ruled Rome was long treated as a corollary to the Chuch's anti-liberalism. there's only a very short period in history where that wasn't true. the Church considers it heresy to believe that capitalism is divinely ordained or blessed and the catechism more or less says that you can't break a few eggs to make an omelet in terms of right and wrong, i.e., greed is a sin so a system based on greed is a sinful system, period.
so, it is not a shock that in the decades following the end of the U.S.S.R., during a Church demographic shift to the global South, the spyglass would swing the other way and capitalism would be subject to the same harsh scrutiny. the difference between popes on such issues is largely one of emphasis and style. but i'm glad people are paying attention now every time the pope says something about the importance of organizing the workers.
to listen to you clowns one could even get the impression that the catholic church wasn't anticommunist for literally as long as it was possible to be anticommunist. "look at the propaganda" isn't the same as a concrete material analysis but i guess they don't teach you that when you're in catechism. the chuch takes every opportunity to throw leftists under the bus when the death squads start creeping around and you're letting them off the hook because they said that greed is bad in their pamphlets.