Stamets

sigh

The new pope holds opinion that are counter to what the old pope did. The old pope was progressive because he pushed the church forward. The new pope is regressive because he’s dragging it backward.

I’m not having this conversation anywhere else in this thread. Y’all can bend over backwards trying to justify that he is progressive but he aint. Full stop, simple, flat, you don’t get to argue it. By simple definition of progressive and regressive, this pope is not PROgressive. He is REgressive. He is bringing the church BACKWARDS. His opinions are counter to what Francis pushed for in a lot of cases and, oh yeah, HE FUCKING PROTECTED PEDOPHILES.

And trying to split hairs that “Oh he was a cardinal then!” is objectively insane when it is pedophilia. I do not give a fuck whether or not you get given a silly hat or not, you’re still someone who protected pedophiles. The last pope didn’t have that direct accusation.

I’m all the way the fuck out from this entire posts thread.

Bro, we literally just had this conversation.

Progressive implies in comparison to what came before. This dude is not progressive in what comes from before. It is regressive behavior. The church took 3 steps forward and 2 back. This is called regression.

You’re very “black and white” with your reasoning.

No, I’m being forward and backward with my reasoning.

I’m not continuing this conversation. We’re going in circles. I am not going to call a dude who protected pedophiles ‘progressive’, full stop. Nor will I really respect anyone who does.

Your comment is confusing the hell out of me.

My whole point is that this dude isn’t progressive but, if anything, regressive. You then talk about how progress is needed for the church but then how the progress from Francis was too much?

Also doesn’t address, remotely, the point that calling this Pope progressive is either a lie or a delusion, depending on how much you believe it.

Amongst from personal friends. Queer friends. That blows my mind.

True. However the default implication is progressive from the thing that came just before it, not something that came 300 years before it. This dude is obviously more progressive than like Pope Pius the Third or something but it’s outright regressive in comparison to Francis. Also, he’s accused of protecting pedophiles on a number of occasions. I feel like that is kind of like a neutron bomb when it comes to any claim that they’re progressive or a good person.

Couple days ago my cat decided to sprint out of the bedroom. She jumped down from her hammock on my headboard, zoomed across the bed, hit the floor and started sprinting. However there was a problem. At the corner of the open door was a manual that I had left on the floor, being a lazy piece of shit. Her back paw hit it and she immediately spun sideways and nearly fell over. Instantly went into a sassy walk and started sauntering off like “I totally meant to do that.” When I started laughing hysterically she gave me the stink eye and sprinted away again.

I’ve seen a lot of people call this guy ‘progressive’ so far and I do not even remotely see it. He’s quoted as being anti-gay, anti-trans, thinks women being in church positions will cause more problems than they solve, put a pedophile up in a church and then is accused of refusing to investigate two other pedophiles. And he’s progressive how, exactly? Because he told off Trump and JD Vance? The absolute bare minimum to not be a horrible person?