Habemus papam! And, what's up with the style of Leo XIV?

Habemus papam! Wonder what was behind the "style" of Leo XIV? 

 

It may be because Leo XIII was known as Pope of the Workers.

 

Contra non-Pope Donald blathering about this being an honor for Merikkka, the former Cardinal Prevost stands for nothing he does. Most of his pre-Vatican ecclesiastical life was spent in Peru and he even has Peruvian citizenship. 

 

Wiki already has a page up on the former Robert Prevost. First thing to note? He's only 69. So, like his stylistic predecessor, who was the third-longest serving pope, he could be around a while. He also was hand-picked by Francis to get his cardinal's hat, and per the paragraph above, will continue down various social justice roads, while not necessarily having the same emphasis as Francis. In other words, contra the cliche, which is trite and not really true (see also Benedict XVI following John Paul II) "a fat pope followed a fat pope." 

 

His insider background, per Wiki's info? In 2019, Francis named him to the Congregation of the Clergy. That oversees matters related to "secular" versus "regular" clergy. A year later, named to the Congregation for Bishops, which oversees their appointment. So, he has a network that would have been building up for the past five years. That will have increased when he was named prefect, or overseer, of the organization in early 2023. (It should be noted that, a year earlier, Francis appointed the first women to the organization.)

 

In February of this year, he gets his cardinal's biretta. Remember that Francis is already hitting the finish line here, and the appointment would have certainly elevated his standing. The conclave CAN elect non-cardinals, but really, that doesn't happen. So, the elevation, and the timing, were certainly a papal kiss.

Prevost is not perfect. He's certainly not perfect on sexual abuse scandal issues, as Wiki notes. And, per the Pope Crave account on Shitter, he might not be as "good" as Francis on sexual orientation issues and matters related. A respondent to Pope Crave also notes that he's not as good, apparently, on handling of sexual abuse issues as his defenders suspect.

 

Final note: Prevost is on Shitter himself. And bagged on Bagger Vance three months ago:

 

JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others https://t.co/hDKPKuMXmu via @NCRonline

— Robert Prevost (@drprevost) February 3, 2025

So, there you go.

 

That said, for fundamental mainline Protestants who still follow Martin Luther or John Calvin on this? We have a new holder of the office of antichrist! Actually, per the link, as I've said before, good Lutheran or Calvinist theology would actually call the papacy "the man of lawlessness," and good biblical criticism distinguishes between that person, antichrist and the Beast of 666.

Ethical and other thoughts on the death of Pope Francis

Francis, who died Monday morning at age 88, was certainly a reformer pope when contrasted with his successor, Benedict XVI. But, how much of a reformer was he? Per the Associated Press's obituary, he really wasn't much of a reformer on the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal. He had a mix of defiance and diffidence for at least the first five years of his pontificate, and I'm not sure he ever really "got it."

On the broader picture, the way he distanced himself from liberation theology in his pre-bishopric days as Argentinian leader of the Jesuits, long before coming a cardinal, also means that "reformer" should be placed in context.

He was a critic of capitalism, yes. But, so too was not only Benedict but John Paul II; Benedict may not have been that vocal, but JPII was at times. Conservative Protestant fundagelicals in the US don't get how much this issue is woven into Catholic teaching. (For that matter, neither do conservative Catholic laity, or maybe the truth is more that they refuse to accept it rather than that they don't get it.) 

As for his legacy? I don't think he really stanched the decline in attendance in Catholicism in the western world, either among more liberal or more conservative attendees. As for the ethical legacy? The sexual abuse scandal still has a degree of haze over the church. Women priests and abortion, though they will be no-go lines for any pope, are alienation for some of the laity. Don't forget that evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala, who called god "the great abortionist," identifies as Catholic.

And, while serving longer than Benedict, it's still an issue how much he reformed the curia and the College of Cardinals. His successor will be no more reforming than him even outside the bright lines on the priesthood and abortion. Don't forget that, including John XXIII's absolution of "the Jews" for the death of Jesus, larger papal antisemitism has yet to be addressed.

On the larger political side?

When St. Ronald of Reagan officially established diplomatic relations with Vatican City, he faced little pushback from fundagelical Protestants on either theological or First Amendment grounds. I was still religiously Lutheran then; I didn’t totally like it on the first basis. Today? I find it abhorrent on First Amendment grounds.

 

RIP Ratzi the Nazi

Can't think of many better ways to see the old year end and the new one begin than with the death of Joseph Ratzenberger, aka Pope Benedict XVI, aka Ratzi the Nazi. Yes, I know his Hitler Youth service was forced and he deserted the unit; the nickname plays on his German background to describe his time as cardinal-flunky of John Paul II, yet even further right, and above all his time as pope.

To extend the analogy, Ratzi the Nazi was one of JPII's chief stormtroopers, even a Gruppenführer of his reactionary papacy, gone further than the master.

Ratzi was hard-core anti-gay, as well as anti anything else that didn't fit into his small vehicle of conservative Catholicism. Since his retirement, many of Pope Francis' pronouncements have been seen as shots against those of Ratzi.

And, of course, he did basically nothing about the priestly child sex abuse scandal. In fact, he was part of the coverup. And, part of giving victims the back of the Vatican hand, while already having apologists flock around him like the flies of Beelzebul. He then tried to claim, shades of Uber and Lyft, that abusive priests were, essentially, independent contractors. (Francis, while far better, has not been far far better and is no shining light overall.) Per the obit piece at top link, Ratzi continued to shoot himself in the foot on this issue after becoming pope emeritus.

And, there are many fundamentalists Catholics and Conservative Cafeteria Catholics who can't accept the truth about Ratzi the Nazi, even though the bible itself says "the truth shall set you free," does it not?  

And, while we're going biblical?

Per comments about Ratzi's current locale, there is no heaven, or hell, and no immortal soul, so he's not in any realm of the saints. But, if both metaphysical sites existed, along with immortal souls, per Jesus' own "suffer the little children" plus "it would be better if a millstone were placed around their necks," he sure wouldn't be in heaven. 

As for the priests he defrocked? The apologists won't talk about how much outside pressure was required for that to happen or how many he didn't defrock. And, indeed, many of the alleged 400 were not defrocked but retired (whether totally voluntarily or not). And, in any case, it was not 400 final actions. It was 400 cases opened. Says who? National Catholic Register.

They won't talk about him being part of the coverup, per that link above, and individually as well as institutionally. Per Hitchens' piece I linked there, they won't talk about Ratzi the Pedi wrote a statute of "we've got first dibs" regulation about reporting abuse, as in, reporting stays in house for 10 years — probably hoping that governmental clocks would run out by then. As for the claim that "he did more than previous popes"? That's like sayig the atomic bomb is not as deadly as the hydrogen bomb.

They won't talk about how the Vatican financial scandal grew on his watch. They won't talk about how, going beyond JPII's putting a brake on everything in the way of Vatican 2 reforms, Ratzi actually tried to move that bus backward again, and in doing so, enabled Opus Dei, and Catholic groups and individuals more reactionary yet.

As for Blue Anon types, or leftists for that matter, who don't like the tag? I said on Twitter, too, that I was referencing his time as pope. If you call Mussolini a fascist but reject "Ratzi the Nazi," you're a hypocrite. Beyond all the above, he gave reactionary formal Catholic groups like Opus Dei a degree of coddling that even JPII wouldn't, as I note above. Beyond THAT, given David Kertzer's history of Pius XII's arguably being a fascist, if not a Nazi, Ratzi was chief among stonewallers of Kertzer and other historians wanting to look at Vatican archives of Pius XII. Benedict was also part of stonewalling over the release of official records of Pius XI, about whom, and his relationship to Mussolini, Kertzer has also written. (Catholic fundies refuse to admit this stonewalling is of a piece with Ratzi's other actions.)

Speaking of, Francis has now led Rome as long as Ratzi if not a bit longer, and there's been more and more talk about his health status in the last year. Will he avail himself of the "pope emeritus" idea and if so, how soon?

==

Related thoughts, from old blog posts about Ratzi the Nazi?

How much is Douthat mourning his death, given that he mourned his retirement?

As for him being an unwilling draftee into Hitler Youth? The German Catholic Church remained cozy with elements of Germany's Nazi past even into Benedict's papacy.

The Putin-Macron phone call — the REST of the story

Cue up your Paul Harvey dulcet tones.

Many media sites, especially across the pond, reported earlier this week on a Feb. 20 call between French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin, with Putin flippantly (allegely flippantly) telling Macron, "To be honest, I wanted to go play ice hockey" rather than have a summit with U.S. President Joe Biden to cut off the looming Russian invasion of Ukraine. Here's the Daily Mail's version.

The rest of the story? 

It starts with Putin complaining to Macron about Ukraine breaking the Minsk Agreements. As they have. And, this is important because France and Germany were the lead negotiators of these Minsk Agreements, and Putin is telling Macron, not just did Ukraine break them, but you know they did.

We need direct quotes at this point. Here's Putin:

'What can I say? You yourself see what is happening,' retorted Putin, accusing Ukraine of rupturing the Minsk accords that reduced the scale of a conflict that erupted in 2014. ... 

'In fact our dear colleague Mr Zelensky is doing nothing' to apply the Minsk accords, Putin alleged. 'He is lying to you,' he added, also accusing Macron of seeking to revise Minsk.

And, here's Macron.

'I don't know if your legal advisor has learned law! As for me I just look at the texts and I try to apply them,' snorted Macron. 

Putin then argued that the propositions of separatists in eastern Ukraine should be taken into account. 'But we don't care about the propositions from the separatists,' snapped Macron.

With that, it's obvious that Putin wouldn't really want to talk to Macron much more either. That's especially true since the "separatists" were promised autonomy within Ukraine under the Minsk Agreements that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, like his predecessors, was breaking.

And, after that, we have Macron letting the cat out of the bag:

'Do not give in to provocations of any kind in the hours and days to come,' he told Putin.

So, provocations, eh? And Zelenskyy not acting alone in this, perhaps, but rather, as I said in my piece about peace talks, NATO "barking" at Russia, per the one and only Pope Francis.

Rather than, like the Daily Mail, and whover its "they" is that thinks Macron came off as weak, rather, I think he got busted on trying to play "good cop" to Biden's "bad cop."

#ParisClimateConference: India

From what I heard on NPR last night, reinforced by stories like this and this, India wants to have its cake and eat it too on climate change.

Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi says that Indian should be lumped more with sub-Saharan Africa than China on climate regulations. As part of this, he notes that fair chunks of India aren't even electrified.

But, once the Paris talks are done, just watch and wait.

Soon enough, Modi will bitch that India's not drawing nearly as much foreign investment as China, even though it should be treated just like China, or words to the similar.

It's an issue over which India has grown increasingly schizophrenic in the last decade or so, in my opinion, and is only likely to become more so. It has a "tar baby" relationship with China, and even more with the corporate West's relationship with China.

Meanwhile, even including the Potemkin Village aspects of China's economy, India continues to do worse. The infrastructure is worse. The graft and other corruption, because it's petty, diffuse, and multilayered, is worse than China's strongarm shakedowns.

And, the BJP's idea, even if not directly espoused by Modi, of trying to win, or rather, "win," a population growth war with China is simply nuts.

If ANYTHING in the developing world is anti-climate change, it's unchecked birthrates.

And, tragically, and stubbornly, for all his pronouncements about climate change, Francis the Talking Pope won't do anything about stopping papal and Vatican opposition to birth control.

#Cuba — If the Havana Ham, Ted Cruz, hated Obama before ...

Fidel Castro, ready to be "recognized"
Wikipedia

Getcha popcorn! The New York Times is reporting that normalization of diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba will happen as a sidebar of Cuba releasing Alan Gross plus a US spy arrested decades ago, in exchange for the US releasing some Cubans, and also, per details noted below, agreeing to start liberalizing some contacts between the two countries as soon as possible.

Here's the full deal on what's happening immediately:

In addition, the United States will ease restrictions on remittances, travel and banking relations, and Cuba will release 53 Cuban prisoners identified as political prisoners by the United States government. Although the decades-old American embargo on Cuba will remain in place for now, the administration signaled that it would welcome a move by Congress to ease or lift it should lawmakers choose to. 

Ted Cruz, the real "Havana Ham"
Wikipedia

While Obama cannot overturn the Helms-Burton Act, normalizing diplomatic relations is an executive prerogative. And, he can, by executive order, lighten some restrictions on trade. Havana Ted could try to cut the State Department's budget, but ain't nothing else he can do.

Diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba were severed in January 1961 after the rise of Fidel Castro and his Communist government. Mr. Obama has instructed Secretary of State John Kerry to immediately initiate discussions with Cuba about reestablishing diplomatic relations and to begin the process of removing Cuba from the list of states that sponsor terrorism, which it has been on since 1982, the White House said. 

And, here's non-diplomatic actions planned by executive order.

The United States will also ease travel restrictions across all 12 categories currently envisioned under limited circumstances under American law, including family visits, official visits and journalistic, professional, educational and religious activities, public performances, officials said. Ordinary tourism, however, will remain prohibited. 

Mr. Obama will also allow greater banking ties and raise the level of remittances allowed to be sent to Cuban nationals to $2,000 every three months from the current limit of $500. Intermediaries forwarding remittances will no longer require a specific license from the government. American travelers will also be allowed to import up to $400 worth of goods from Cuba, including up to $100 in tobacco and alcohol products. 

As for 2016 electoral fallout in Florida? Let's not forget that the revolution was 55 years ago. There are not just one, but two generations of adult Cuban-Americans born in the US of A. Many of them may not be tired of the trade embargo of Helms-Burton, but, they're not wingnuts living and dying over keeping Fidel in a small box. So, Marco Rubio can, along with Ted Cruz and the occasional Cuban-American older Democratic politician, foam at the mouth. But, many younger Cuban-Americans have moved on.

Besides, Cuban cigars! That said, since general tourism won't be allowed, people who do bring back Cuban cigars will be reselling them for a premium.

Oh, look, more wingnuts who can't spell!  © Alan Diaz/AP Anti-Castro
activists Osvaldo Hernandez, right, and Miguel Saavedra, second from right,
chant anti-Obama slogans in the Little Havana area of Miami.

Anyway, from a non-wingnut POV, especially here in Texas, just watching Ted Cruz shit bricks over this is fun enough, more than Marco Rubio.

And, not just Havana Ted. The Times notes that Francis the Talking Pope backed the US-Cuba talks, too. So, conservative Catholics who accuse liberal Catholics of being "cafeteria Catholics" over abortion, the shoe is once again, as with the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq, now on the other foot. So, more wingnuts can again wig out.

Speaking of that, Florida's top dog Cuban-American wingnut, Marco Rubio, has already attacked Pope Francis on this.

Both Obama and Raul Castro are supposed to speak at noon Eastern about the issue. I'll update this with major relevant new points as needed.

The main one seems to be that it's full speed ahead on working on normalization of diplomatic ties.

As for the trade embargo?

Chris Tomlinson notes that Cuba has a highly educated workforce. Who wouldn't want more trade? It has offshore oil reserves that could use the help of a country with major drilling expertise. Better the US than Vlad the Impaler Putin, isn't it?

And, as Craig Calcaterra notes, this could affect the signing of Cuban baseball players. The US is easing "professional ... activities" on travel.

===

Beyond the above, it's just not been a good week for Ted Cruz in general.

His Senate procedural stunt over immigration royally backfired. Havana Ted ultimately filled Obama's Christmas stocking with at least six dozen stalled nominees getting Senate confirmation or pledges thereof.

And, I "love" that when the likes of Faux News and beyond talk about "some Democrats" opposing the move, the only one they can ever name by name is New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez.

Pope Francis, Nobel Laureate? Neither likely nor good, IMO

Pope Francis, your Nobel Peace Prize winner?
I think his chances are insubstantial, not transubstantial.

Francis the Talking Pope is the favorite of oddsmakers to win this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

I think they're wrong. The Nobel folks sometimes like to send a message. Novaya Gazeta, listed No. 4, would do just that. Edward Snowden, listed No. 2, is interesting. His leaks have done nothing to stop warrantless snooping, which actually isn't connected to warfare, anyway.

The full list, which is not disclosed, has 278 candidates.

Francis?

First, Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama are the only major religious leaders among past laureates, and she was at least halfway a fraud, exploiting many of the poor for foreign rich donors and being purer than the Vatican, if that's possible, on opposing birth control. Sorry, folks, or not sorry, folks, but Chris Hitchens was right.

Second, he's not been on the seat long enough.

Third, personally? Given that the Nobelists have in the past honored people addressing environmental issues in the third world, any major leader officially opposing most birth control would go against Nobel history, because overpopulation is a legitimate concern. And, that's not just the Nobelists' possible train of thought, it's my definite personal one.

If Francis just opposed abortion, it would be one thing. Opposing all birth control other than the rhythm method, and on twisted religious grounds, is another thing entirely.

Fourth? The Nobelists also like people who address poverty. While Francis has critiqued the rich, his opposition to some liberation theology leaders when a prelate in Argentina probably also wouldn't sit well.

So, I'll bet on Novaya, myself. Pakistan's iconic Malala Yousufzai might be a decent option in the betting.

(Update: She's the winner, paired with Kailash Satyarthi of India. An icon wins, while the Nobel folks once again, with co-winners from India and Pakistan, send a message. And British betting houses were too dumb to see that possibility.)

Of course, "sending messages" also backfires. Dear Leader got the nod a few years ago, primarily on the grounds he wasn't George W. Bush, and we see how that's worked out.

Right-wing US chickens home to roost with border influx of young Ill Eagles

The Dallas Morning News has a good summary of what's up with the recent surge of border crossings.

There's a few things to note, besides the biggie that these are primarily youth. (Sidebar: I'm surprised the wingnuts haven't unveiled the phrase "anchor teens" yet.) The second biggest is that, while the numbers are growing, the U.S. border isn't being overrun by 1 million, or even 100,000, Hispanic teenagers.

The next big thing is that these are not from Mexico. Rather, most of them are from Central America, specifically the so-called "northern triangle" of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

Commonality? U.S. meddling, sometimes going back decades, to prop up or install repressive right-wing governments.

Guatemala is the original banana republic, when Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown in a 1954 coup, launched by the CIA and done on behalf of United Fruit, parent of Chiquita Bananas. Sidebar: This is why Ike blathered about the military-industrial complex. He thought the snoops-industrial complex could do things like this cheaper, as it had already in Iran, and as Ike planned for it to do in Cuba at the Bay of Pigs.

Per that Wikipedia link:

Following the coup Guatemala was ruled by a series of US-backed military regimes until 1996. The coup sparked off the Guatemalan civil war against leftist guerrillas, during which the military committed massive human rights violations against the civilian population, including a genocidal campaign against the Mayans.

All of that contributed to a lack of stability that is tied to gang-related crime in Guatemala today.

El Salvador? This is where Reagan backed death squads in the early 1980s. 

Honduras? That's where Reagan built up a U.S. military presence in the 1980s, to support the aid to the death squads in El Salvador as well as the help to the "freedom fighters" trying to overthrow the democratically elected leftist government in Nicaragua. Can't forget about the burning U.S. hatred for the Sandanistas, can we? That said, Nicaragua has managed to have more stability than the above three countries, probably in part because the U.S. was never able to get the same foothold there.

That said, all four countries, including Nicaragua, have per capita incomes about one-third that of Mexico. Purchasing power may go farther, but still, that's a slim income. Also, while NAFTA only undercut Mexico's agriculture, CAFTA may have some similar effects further south.

So, between U.S.-caused instability, U.S.-connected violence, and possible U.S.-caused wage instability, is it any wonder that people from these countries are coming north?

Chickens coming home to roost.

And, that's not the only way they are.

In its own craven nod to McCarthyism, already back at the time of that Arbenz coup, the AFL-CIO was helping set up "friendly" unions in Latin America, many of which were little more than CIA listening posts.

And, the Reaganite anti-Communism of the 1980s, combined with conservative Catholics in both the U.S. and Latin America taking their cues from the papal ascent of John Paul II and kicking liberation theology, and a more liberal attitude toward birth control, to the curb had other consequences.

Result? On birth control? Guatemala having the highest birth rate in the Western Hemisphere. Honduras is second highest. They're both below a number of African and south Asian countries, but their rate is high enough to add to all the instability, with exploding populations.

On the rest of liberation theology? More liberal priests and bishops, and nuns, who challenged right-wing governments to do more for the poor, especially if they led protests and movements themselves, got reassigned. Ask Francis the Talking Pope about that, and his own involvement with the reassignments.

Of course, that ignores the more liberal church workers who, at least in places like Francis' Argentina, met the jails and torture cells of the right-wing dictators. Or sometimes, met their guns.

Take that, to a Texas lite guv candidate, The Stinking Anglo Formerly Known as Danny Goeb™. And no, they're not diseased, either.

So, yes, failure to actually go to the border may be Obama's Katrina moment, or at least something in the neighborhood. But, he's cleaning up a mess that's more Republican than Democratic.  (That's setting aside that neoliberal Democrats often went along for the GOP ride, especially on free trade.)

And, making it easier to throw the kids back across the border may be a short-term answer for the U.S. but it's not a long-term answer for us, nor any sort of answer at all for Central America.

I'm actually surprised it took this long for this much of a surge like this. That said, in the previous decade, when I was in suburban Dallas, my anecdotal evidence is that, based on young children's entries in elementary school projects, at least 10 percent of Hispanic immigration to America, if not more, was from further south than Mexico, namely, from Central America.

Oct. 7 news briefs roundup — Libya, Tricky Ricky, more

• What I take away from the Libya and Somalia raids by our Special Forces?

Beyond the obvious ones, namely that Somalia is a failed state and there's limits to our power in a lot of places unless we want to shed a lot of blood (remember that, you "Syrian action" fanatics) is that our exercise in nation-building in Libya seems to be pretty much of a flop (remember that, too, "Syria action" fanatics).

Also, that, among Obamiacs as well as Bushies, the continued blindness toward this thing called "boots on the ground" seems only to grow in response to concerns like the one I just expressed.

• This NYT piece hits the nail on the head: Rick Perry's job hunting trips are likely not even about recruiting jobs to Texas but instead about a 2016 presidential run.

• Immigrants can help revitalize a "dying" city; one such city, Dayton, Ohio, is actively pursuing them.

• A liberal Catholic philosopher agrees with my insight and says there's no doctrinal changes out of the mouth of Francis the Talking Pope, just "changes of style and tone."

Shock me: Gay hater Rod Dreher doesn't like Pope Francis

Pope Francis' recent comments about how the Catholic Church shouldn't focus quite so much on gays and abortion does sound relatively enlightened. And, it's straightforward stuff, it seems, unlike his comment about atheists that the mainstream media first got wrong and therefore blew out of proportion.

The fact that this interview was kept under wraps at first, then simultaneously printed in multiple Jesuit publications, shows its serious.

That said, it's no surprise that former Dallasite and former Dallas Morning News op-ed columnist Rod Dreher, who has a history of not liking gays, as well as being an apologist for racism, takes offense. (I had the semi-pleasure of meeting him in person once, after I emailed the Morning News, as did others, about him violating company police by also opining for World Nut Daily at that time. I didn't yet realize just the totality of what he was like, though.)

Dreher first claims the NYT and the rest of the big media are overblowing this one. Au contraire. The Vatican itself reacted when the media claimed a month ago that Francis said that good atheists were guaranteed a shot at heaven. There's been no such pushback this time.

Dreher refers readers to one of those journals, which American Conservative may have excerpted without authorization. It doesn't explicitly say in the story that it does have such authorization, and the Jesuit mag says that excerpting without it is a no-no.

And, Dreher's wrong.

Per the full interview, which I shall not excerpt without authorization, the pope says that he was disciplined when he spoke even briefly on such issues before.

Or per the New York Times story:

“I see the church as a field hospital after battle,” Francis said. “It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars. You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else.” 

Sounds like that's not overblown. Francis is talking about about priorities.

And, no, Rod, he's not naive, either. See my timeline note, above.

And, he's made clear that previous comments about gays (and lesbians, but gays in particular on this one item) refer not just to the priesthood but the laity, too.

That said, nothing he did say indicates the Roman Catholic Church will change its stance on either abortion or homosexuality.

But, it will treat people dealing with being gay, or terminating a pregnancy, with more love than Rod Dreher ever will.

As for people like the ex-Catholic Dreher, or the right-wing Catholic priests and laity he counts among his contacts, Francis addresses him and them:

The pope said he has found it “amazing” to see complaints about “lack of orthodoxy” flowing into the Vatican offices in Rome from conservative Catholics around the world. They ask the Vatican to investigate or discipline their priests, bishops or nuns. Such complaints, he said, “are better dealt with locally,” or else the Vatican offices risk becoming “institutions of censorship.”  

Well, sure. That's exactly what these people want.

Of course, Dreher is the man who, among others, prayed for Chris Hitchens to have a deathbed conversion. By his religious rights, I suppose he thinks he's just doing what he's supposed to. Well, 150 years ago, Indian Hindu women thought they were supposed to throw themselves on their dead husbands' funeral pyres. Less informed Muslims think female genital circumcision is supposed to be part of their religion. Mormons still get baptized for dead people.

Nuff said.

Meanwhile, speaking of those earlier misinterpreted platitudes of Francis? He's not a Gnu Atheist, but Massimo Pigluicci takes him to the cleaners. And, per Massimo, he actually isn't letting up **that much** on the idea of judging gay people.

Indeed, blogger Pacheco shows that, although not as much as with "atheists get to go to heaven," the MSM has perhaps overblown this one, too, even though the Vatican hasn't objected this time.  In fact, he notes that since the interview, Francis the Talking Pope and the Vatican have, among other things they've allowed or caused:

• Pope Francis denounce abortion and tell Catholic doctors to refuse to perform them (even when the life of the mother is in danger and the fetus is not viable)
• The Vatican excommunicate a priest in Melbourne for his support of women priests and gay people (not exactly the loving approach one would expect from the person interviewed a couple of days earlier)
• A damning report from MPR on how Minneapolis Archdiocese leaders KNEW about inappropriate sexual conduct from one of their priests covering over a DECADE, and yet failed to do anything about it until after the priest had sexually abused several boys. Way to provide moral leadership, Archibishop Nienstadt.

What this all shows is, Pope Francis is about a lot of froth.

Maybe not as much as that frothy substance called "santorum," but froth, nonetheless.

And, that the likes of Dreher takes offense to even that shows how ridiculous he is.

#Putin, #Syria, #Realpolitik, blind pigs and American exceptionalism

Update, Sept. 18: The UN investigation seems to tie the attacks to senior officers of President Bashar Assad. Whether they were following orders or not may still not be final, but the linked New York Times story indicates the answer is yes.

That said, per the oft-cited piece by William Polk at the Atlantic? His "cui bono" was, and still is, a good question. And, if part of why he wrote that piece was pushback, given America's generally poor history of regime change in the Middle East, the neocons leading the charge again on this one and Obama not having a Syria exit plan, the shoot-first warmongers can still look themselves in the mirror.

Now, back to the original blog post.

I certainly don't agree with everything Vlad the Impaler, aka Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, wrote in an op-ed that's in the New York Times and The Guardian.

Let's just say that blind, or self-delusional, or self-inflating, pigs can still find acorns, even multiple ones.

Yes, his invocation of the pope as part of the reason to oppose strikes on Syria is funny. His discussion of how the "Big 5" permanent members of the UN Security Council got absolute veto powers conveniently overlooks the fact that his predecessor leader and country, Joe Stalin of the USSR, pushed for that.

Even more laughable is his worries that America is too randomly attacking other countries. That said, most of the worst against Chechnya happened under Boris Yeltsin, not Putin, who just uses natural-gas based economic blackmail.

And, his claim that "God created us equal" is massive hypocrisy, when he clearly believes gay people aren't equal.

All those caveats aside, there's two important points he makes.

The first is about realpolitik. If John Kerry is going to consult The Phantom of the Chilean Opera, Henry Kissinger, the alleged master of realpolitik, then he should listen to Putin:

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough al-Qaida fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations.

This gets back to the whole, broader issue of nation-building, and how US presidents, US governments, and the US bipartisan foreign policy establishment continues to think it can create democracies out of nothing, pick "winners" and "losers" in this process (to riff on libertarians), and force this down countries' throats.

That, in turn, gets to the other issue, of American exceptionalism, and how we think "we know better" because ...

We're America, fuck yeah (apologies for the "French," and for much more of it in the video.)


That's the best version of that video, by the way, in my opinion.

Anyway, despite all my previous caveats, Putin's last paragraph is spot on about this. The "Assad did it" fanatics, besides re-asking, "do we know who did it," need to read Putin on American exceptionalism:

"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional". It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

Throwing out my previous caveats, plus the new one of Putin buttering up Obama, the American exceptionalism warnings are well taken.

Basically, this whole excursus and debate on Obama's stance toward Syria in part reflects how liberals and left-liberals in America split on seeing American foreign policy, as I see it. And, I proudly stand accused of being some sort of left-liberal on this issue. Most American liberals on foreign policy? Wilsonian interventionism, when preached by liberals rather than neoconservatives, is the foreign policy equivalent of neoliberalism.

I am in no way saying Putin's perfect. That said, as far as surrender/punish, again, punish who? Remember Iraq, where Hussein kept telling us, I don't have any WMDs, and ... he didn't? Here, it could be rogue generals, or al Qaeda groups. That's why, again, we have to have a reasonably surety of who did it. Then, if it's not Assad, but rogue generals, the Free Syrian Army, or Al Nusra, we have to have a reasonable game plan for what all our steps are.

I don't think Obama has a game plan for anybody but Assad, and that's part of what scares me. We were lucky, so far, to muddle through Libya, ignoring the Islamicists attacking our spook shack in Benghazi. Syria's far more complicated as well as more dangerous.

And, to restrain America, there's only two people in the world who have a chance of doing that.

Contra Putin, Pope Francis is not the other one besides him. It's Xi Jinping, president of China. Actually, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has enough weight in NATO to be somewhat of an anchor weight, though not enough to stop him.

If some people don't like that, well, sorry.

I'd rather have America ask more questions first, before shooting, if we want to riff on an old cops joke.