Pope Francis had died at age 88

[ThatRobGuy]

Failed to address? really?

Pope Francis declares ‘zero tolerance’ for Catholic Church abuse, saying he takes personal responsibility for ending it | CNN

Pope Francis says he has taken it on himself to rid the Catholic Church of sexual abuse, telling CNN’s partner channel CNN Portugal that he was “responsible that it doesn’t happen anymore.”

amp.cnn.com

Not to mention the sex abuse scandals that also occurs within public schools, southern Baptist church, Jehovah witness etc, but no one bats an eye.

And yes, some men have done immense harm inside the Church and, from my perspective, deserve the wrath of God.

Peace

If you notice, I said "failed to address - or handle with kid gloves"

Meaning, some Popes have ignored it completely, while others have given lip service to reform but haven't done much of substance.

Pope Francis accused of opposing reforms to tackle clerical sexual abuse

Activists say pontiff also ‘turning a blind eye’ to priests who assault nuns and force them to have abortions

www.theguardian.com

The Sex-Abuse Scandal Has Come for Pope Francis

A letter calling for his resignation shows how serious his crisis of credibility has become.

www.theatlantic.com

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), founded in the United States in 1989, questioned why the Pope did not follow up on his tough words on abuse with action.

"He could levy the harshest penalty, excommunication, against a dozen or more of the most egregious abuse-enabling church officials. He's done this to no enablers, or predators for that matter," David Clohessy, the former spokesperson for SNAP, wrote in the National Catholic Reporter in March 2023.

"He could demote at least a dozen or more Vatican bureaucrats and four or five dozen bishops who are or have concealed known or suspected child sex crimes and openly denounce them and lay out their complicity," he added.

"But he perpetuates a long-standing pontifical pattern of quietly letting an embattled bishop 'retire' or 'resign,' either deceptively citing 'health reasons, or saying nothing at all," he added.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It isn't. He's just the head of some church we're not a members of. He really should have retired before dying on the job from old age.

There's plenty of churches of which I'm not a member (all of them to be precise), but I see some uniqueness with regards to this particular one (I remember having some of these conversations after the previous pope as well)

For instance, it's the only one where the leader has almost de facto "head of state" status and tremendous level of influence over foreign governments. They have a wealth & asset portfolio that would put Joel Osteen's to shame.

The Vatican Bank is a rather unique entity, a financial institution that gets "sovereign entity" status and therefore not subject to Italian laws.
(you can imagine, if there was a "First Baptist Church Bank" here in the US, and it was granted "sovereign entity" status and not subject to US banking laws, that would certainly be raising some eyebrows)


It's also the one that seemingly has the lowest bar to clear for the head of the church being considered "a good guy" by saying things that other countries should have to do.

For instance, all a pope to do is make a half dozen statements during their tenure that are mildly "softer" than their predecessors on a particular issue or suggest that "countries need to be more welcoming to immigrants and help more in the way of poverty"

And that leads to headlines like "So & So's legacy will that of a great reformer and champion of the poor"


In practical material terms (meaning direct action, not just advocacy and telling other countries what they should do), what quantifies the "champion of the poor" status?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It’s a spiritual leader, it’s not a “job” one retires from. Most Popes typically die from old age in office, much like many monarchs.

You should look at other churches. Their "spiritual leaders" manage to retire. (And comparisons to monarchs just aren't a good look.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

There's plenty of churches of which I'm not a member (all of them to be precise), but I see some uniqueness with regards to this particular one (I remember having some of these conversations after the previous pope as well)

It's just bigger, that's all. (I wasn't here when the last pope died, so I didn't have those convos.)

For instance, it's the only one where the leader has almost de facto "head of state" status and tremendous level of influence over foreign governments.

A pseudo-state.

They have a wealth & asset portfolio that would put Joel Osteen's to shame.

The weird things about these "personal" megachurches, is that they seem to operate like personal businesses. For any criticism we might make of any pope, it isn't their personal wealth.

The Vatican Bank is a rather unique entity, a financial institution that gets "sovereign entity" status and therefore not subject to Italian laws.
(you can imagine, if there was a "First Baptist Church Bank" here in the US, and it was granted "sovereign entity" status and not subject to US banking laws, that would certainly be raising some eyebrows)

That seems like a problem for the Italian/EU bank regulators, not us.

It's also the one that seemingly has the lowest bar to clear for the head of the church being considered "a good guy" by saying things that other countries should have to do.

For instance, all a pope to do is make a half dozen statements during their tenure that are mildly "softer" than their predecessors on a particular issue or suggest that "countries need to be more welcoming to immigrants and help more in the way of poverty"

And that leads to headlines like "So & So's legacy will that of a great reformer and champion of the poor"

Yep.

In practical material terms (meaning direct action, not just advocacy and telling other countries what they should do), what quantifies the "champion of the poor" status?

I don't know.

 

[RileyG]

You should look at other churches. Their "spiritual leaders" manage to retire. (And comparisons to monarchs just aren't a good look.)

So? A majority of popes die in office. It’s just how it is.

 

[RileyG]

If you notice, I said "failed to address - or handle with kid gloves"

Meaning, some Popes have ignored it completely, while others have given lip service to reform but haven't done much of substance.

Pope Francis accused of opposing reforms to tackle clerical sexual abuse

Activists say pontiff also ‘turning a blind eye’ to priests who assault nuns and force them to have abortions

www.theguardian.com

The Sex-Abuse Scandal Has Come for Pope Francis

A letter calling for his resignation shows how serious his crisis of credibility has become.

www.theatlantic.com

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), founded in the United States in 1989, questioned why the Pope did not follow up on his tough words on abuse with action.

"He could levy the harshest penalty, excommunication, against a dozen or more of the most egregious abuse-enabling church officials. He's done this to no enablers, or predators for that matter," David Clohessy, the former spokesperson for SNAP, wrote in the National Catholic Reporter in March 2023.

"He could demote at least a dozen or more Vatican bureaucrats and four or five dozen bishops who are or have concealed known or suspected child sex crimes and openly denounce them and lay out their complicity," he added.

"But he perpetuates a long-standing pontifical pattern of quietly letting an embattled bishop 'retire' or 'resign,' either deceptively citing 'health reasons, or saying nothing at all," he added.

Pope Benedict XVI defrocked over 400 priests for child sex abuse and banned homosexuals from seminaries. To say no Pope hasn’t done much reform is inaccurate. Also a majority of the abuse wasn’t pedophilia, it was homosexual predation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So? A majority of popes die in office. It’s just how it is.

A system that didn't treat the head of the church like some sort of monarch might provide better management, but you guys do you guys.

 

[RileyG]

A system that didn't treat the head of the church like some sort of monarch might provide better management, but you guys do you guys.

It’s more than just a job for the Pope, but ok. Fair enough.

 

[MehGuy]

He was a pope.

 

[RileyG]

He was a pope.

Yes. Correct.

 

[rambot]

Alright, I hate to be "that guy", but why are so many people (especially secularists) venerating a particular pope as if he's "above" other people?

To be clear, it's sad when someone dies, and I get that he had people who liked him.

But why is this "more special" than other similar scenarios?

Let's just be frank here, he was the latest person to "hold the office" in a long line of other popes who either failed to address (or handled with kid gloves) the issue of sexual abuse within the ranks of the clergy of his organization.

To be clear, your question is: "Why is the death of this pope a big deal"?

Is that your general inquiry here?
Because a lot of people thought that he was great at communicating and empowering downtrodden and poor.


Perhaps this read up may clarify why folks appreciated his change: Understanding something that potentially catestrophic
Pope Francis' troubled course on addressing clergy sexual abuse

What I like about it, is that he learns and changes. Relatively speaking in the life of the papacy, those abuses are pretty new. The fact that the 2nd or 3rd pope to be very aware of the issues has recognized this, is a good sign i think.

What if the next guy decides to COMPLETELY abandon any movement on this issue? Could you then see why Francis could be mourned?

 

[RileyG]

To be clear, your question is: "Why is the death of this pope a big deal"?

Is that your general inquiry here?
Perhaps this read up may clarify why folks appreciated his change: Understanding something that potentially catestrophic

Pope Francis' troubled course on addressing clergy sexual abuse

What I like about it, is that he learns and changes. Relatively speaking in the life of the papacy, those abuses are pretty new. The fact that the 2nd or 3rd pope to be very aware of the issues has recognized this, is a good sign i think.

Also keep in mind, the Boston scandal occurred under the pontificate of John Paul II. He was two Popes before Francis. Thats' where the term "pedophile priest" usually came from.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Also keep in mind, the Boston scandal occurred under the pontificate of John Paul II. He was two Popes before Francis. Thats' where the term "pedophile priest" usually came from.

There were already rumblings about that kind of stuff going on and being covered up back in the 80's. Father Gauthe if that name rings a bell.

Then, there was the Chicago cases in the 90's.

But you're correct in that the Boston Globe investigative piece was the one that really brought it to major mainstream attention.

However, there's some pretty solid evidence that those sorts of things had been going on (and been covered up) for a long time before then.

John Jay Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Found over 10,000 victims abused by 4000 different priests going back to 1940 in the US.

The French Commision on abuse in the church found 216,000 victims of clergy abuse since 1950.

Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report: Documents over 300 predator priests and 1,000 identifiable victims across six dioceses since the 1940s.

Other independent commissions found similar patterns of abuse & cover-up in Poland, Spain, and Germany.


So the other posters comment that "this was relatively new" is a bit inaccurate.

If it was already happening at a large scale over 60 years ago, and it certainly didn't go from 0 to Hundreds of Thousands overnight.

One infamous example is the document Crimen sollicitationis, which instructed bishops on how to handle cases of priests soliciting sex — particularly in the confessional — including abuse of minors. It demanded strict secrecy. And that's going back to the 1920's. So they knew it was a problem, and had been trying to sweep matters like that out of public view for quite some time before the Boston Globe ran their piece.

 

[RileyG]

There were already rumblings about that kind of stuff going on and being covered up back in the 80's. Father Gauthe if that name rings a bell.

Then, there was the Chicago cases in the 90's.

But you're correct in that the Boston Globe investigative piece was the one that really brought it to major mainstream attention.

However, there's some pretty solid evidence that those sorts of things had been going on (and been covered up) for a long time before then.

John Jay Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Found over 10,000 victims abused by 4000 different priests going back to 1940 in the US.

The French Commision on abuse in the church found 216,000 victims of clergy abuse since 1950.

Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report: Documents over 300 predator priests and 1,000 identifiable victims across six dioceses since the 1940s.

Other independent commissions found similar patterns of abuse & cover-up in Poland, Spain, and Germany.


So the other posters comment that "this was relatively new" is a bit inaccurate.

If it was already happening at a large scale over 60 years ago, and it certainly didn't go from 0 to Hundreds of Thousands overnight.

One infamous example is the document Crimen sollicitationis, which instructed bishops on how to handle cases of priests soliciting sex — particularly in the confessional — including abuse of minors. It demanded strict secrecy. And that's going back to the 1920's. So they knew it was a problem, and had been trying to sweep matters like that out of public view for quite some time before the Boston Globe ran their piece.

It's disgusting and those men who protected the abusers deserve the wrath of God. I am saying that as a faithful Catholic, and will always remain so.

 

[stevil]

Alright, I hate to be "that guy", but why are so many people (especially secularists) venerating a particular pope as if he's "above" other people?

Is this the appropriate thread to be dolling out your gripes?
Maybe start another thread for that purpose.

My condolences to the pope's family, friends and followers.

 

[DaisyDay]

There's plenty of churches of which I'm not a member (all of them to be precise), but I see some uniqueness with regards to this particular one (I remember having some of these conversations after the previous pope as well)

For instance, it's the only one where the leader has almost de facto "head of state" status and tremendous level of influence over foreign governments. They have a wealth & asset portfolio that would put Joel Osteen's to shame.

The Vatican Bank is a rather unique entity, a financial institution that gets "sovereign entity" status and therefore not subject to Italian laws.
(you can imagine, if there was a "First Baptist Church Bank" here in the US, and it was granted "sovereign entity" status and not subject to US banking laws, that would certainly be raising some eyebrows)


It's also the one that seemingly has the lowest bar to clear for the head of the church being considered "a good guy" by saying things that other countries should have to do.

For instance, all a pope to do is make a half dozen statements during their tenure that are mildly "softer" than their predecessors on a particular issue or suggest that "countries need to be more welcoming to immigrants and help more in the way of poverty"

And that leads to headlines like "So & So's legacy will that of a great reformer and champion of the poor"


In practical material terms (meaning direct action, not just advocacy and telling other countries what they should do), what quantifies the "champion of the poor" status?

Seems in really bad taste to slam someone in their eulogy thread. There is a time and place; this isn't it.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Seems in really bad taste to slam someone in their eulogy thread. There is a time and place; this isn't it.

Yeah but both sides need to be heard. Eulogies can't just be all about goody, empathetic feelings!

 

[stevil]

Yeah but both sides need to be heard. Eulogies can't just be all about goody, empathetic feelings!

Perhaps another thread to flesh that all out.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Perhaps another thread to flesh that all out.

No no, both sides in every thread. BOTH SIDES.

 

[stevil]

No no, both sides in every thread. BOTH SIDES.

Condolences threads are usually just a cursory to wish condolences, not debates. Think of it like going to someone's funeral.
Do you then work the crowd and start talking about all the mistakes the person that died made?

There is certainly a time for that, but it is typically more graceful to not do that at funerals or in condolence threads.
Up to you really, I mean, there is no law against it. You carry yourself however you want. It's your reputation you are making after all.