In a rare move, Pope Francis forcibly removed a Texas bishop who had called him too progressive
Pope Francis on Saturday forcibly removed the bishop of Tyler, Texas, a firebrand conservative prelate active on social media who has been a fierce critic of the pontiff and has come to symbolize the polarization within the U.S. Catholic hierarchy.
A one-line statement from the Vatican said Francis had “relieved” Bishop Joseph Strickland of the pastoral governance of Tyler and appointed the bishop of Austin as the temporary administrator.
Strickland, 65, has emerged as a leading critic of Francis, accusing him in a tweet earlier this year of “undermining the deposit of faith.” He has been particularly critical of Francis’ recent meeting on the future of the Catholic Church during which hot-button issues were discussed, including ways to better welcome LGBTQ+ Catholics.
Earlier this year, the Vatican sent in investigators to look into his governance of the diocese, amid reports that priests and laypeople in Tyler had complained and that he was making unorthodox claims.
I don't get how you can be 'too progressive'. Surely progress is a good thing, no? If you're against progress, you're in favor of things remaining as they are or getting worse. To me, that's just being a cunt.
I guess what I'm saying is, "Pope removes bishop for being too much of a cunt" would've been a good headline also.
Many people worked hard within the current hierarchy or system to attain power. They essentially invested their time, resource or energy for this gain over a lifetime. Progressives want change to the existing power heirarchies and systems. That change nullifies the lifetime investment. That's why there is such institutional resistance to progressives.
Yeah, but fuck em.
50% joking btw
Welcome to religious conservatism.
Progress for one man can be regression for other.
Ah interesting. Sounds smart. Doesn't fit here though.
Gotta ask... Specifically regarding the progress we are referring to here (the right for LGBTQ+ people to exist peacefully), I'm curious how, and for whom, this could possibly cause "regression"? Who is personally losing anything or having any kind of negative difference in their lives in any way whatsoever by the existence of these people?
Edit: for anyone too thick to get what I'm saying: I know there are people who believe allowing LGBTQ+ people to exist is "regressive," that's literally my point. What I'm saying t is that there's no rational, logically sound argument that anyone could make that would somehow show allowing these people to live causes society to regress.
It's just not a thing. It doesn't matter how many times people repeat it.
Hold on, do you really believe there's no one in the world who thinks accepting and supporting the LGBTQ+ community is a bad thing? Because if you do, I have some really bad news for you...
Perhaps you misunderstood... Of course there are. I'm just saying their position is irrational. And I'm saying that there is no objective argument that they could make that would show denying LGBTQ+ people the right to exist to be beneficial to anybody anywhere.
Rational. Objective. What on earth makes you think bigotry has ever been rational? You know that only 60 years ago in the US there were people openly opposed to the idea of black people sitting next to them on a bus, right? There was never anything objective or rational about it, just pure ignorance.
I don’t think those people would use the term “regressive,” because that term has inherent negative connotations. Their goal isn’t so much to “regress” as it is to “conserve” - maintain the values and power structures of the past. What a progressive would call progress, they would see as a decline. What they’re losing by ceding LGBTQ+ rights is more subtle than losing their own rights - they’re losing (or think they’re losing) status, privilege, moral authority. Their position in the social hierarchy drops if there are fewer people to look down on.
Dude in the article for example ? Do you think he sees it as progress ? 😅
See my edit.
Yeah this seems somewhat what i said, if my understanding is correct.
According to many religions, not being straight is a sin. Therefore being friendly towards LGBT ppl is bad, therefore It's regressive.
Nobody is against what they believe is best. Calling something "progressive" is like calling the DRPK "democratic", it's just a name. Whether something progresses humanity is not objective, it's subjective.
Maybe the DRPK example is not the best since it's clearly not democratic for almost all people, but you get what I mean.
Not for religion, it is about power and control.
Progress in general is just a term. What people consider to be "progressive" can change from person to person. There's also the obvious risk of progressing too quickly before things can stabilize, you could progress a third world country far quicker than their people/culture would be able to keep up, for example.
While I understand and agree with your general sentiment, but the idea that progress is actually progress just because it carries the term is a fallacy.
People who abuse their families have jobs, vote and go to church.