He has also voted in multiple Republican Illinois primaries since 2012, and voted absentee in the 2024 election (it is public record whether or not someone votes in a particular election, but not who they voted for). Illinois does not let people register for a party when they register to vote, so it is unknown if he would be a registered Republican if he had the choice to. He was able to vote in Republican primaries because in Illinois you just say on primary day which party's ballot you wish to vote on.
Voting in Republican primaries does not mean that someone identifies as a Republican or a conservative. Will County, where he has voted, was almost evenly split between Trump and Harris in the 2024 election (although Harris had slightly more votes). He may have wanted Republicans to nominate a certain candidate (or not nominate a certain candidate), but may not necessarily have voted for Republicans in the general election. If the town within Will County that he was registered to vote in was strongly Democratic and even the Democratic primaries were always won by incumbents with very little competition, he may have felt that, if he wanted to have any influence on who the candidates for any party were, he would have it by voting in the Republican Party, even if he perhaps preferred the Democratic incumbent over whomever the Republican candidate might ultimately be. You don't have to pay any dues to the Republican or Democratic parties to vote in their primary elections.
It's also possible that he has consistently voted Republican - probably primarily because of social issues (especially the one that starts with "a") - but that might have changed under Trump's leadership of the party, given that Trump's views on sex, gender, and reproduction change with the wind and especially now that Roe v Wade has already been overturned.
He’s certainly not a backlash conservative (which was my personal fear). Catholics who know more about vestments than I do may correct me, but I don’t think he followed Pope Francis in simple vestments. I wonder what he will do about living quarters?
These were more than symbolic gestures for Pope Francis. They emphasised his approach to poverty.
But I did note his use of the word “small” in his homily. Humility is one of the marks of a good servant leader. A humble pontiff of USA origins will be in stark contrast to the current President.
I think one needs to understand the weight of Tradition within Catholicism. My personal nonconformist view, that it contains a lot of bathwater, also includes the recognition that there’s a baby or two in there.
Is it OK to be disappointed that there is so much adulation for a role that, together with the whole Roman Catholic priesthood, excludes women?
It's more than ok, but I would advise tempering that disappointment with recognition that most people cheering are seeing this as among the better of likely outcomes, rather than an unalloyed good. We're probably at least 4-5 popes away from a shift in favour of ordaining women (even assuming no reactionary swing in the meantime), and more from a shift towards affirming LGBTQ+ folk.
Is it OK to be disappointed that there is so much adulation for a role that, together with the whole Roman Catholic priesthood, excludes women?
It's more than ok, but I would advise tempering that disappointment with recognition that most people cheering are seeing this as among the better of likely outcomes, rather than an unalloyed good. We're probably at least 4-5 popes away from a shift in favour of ordaining women (even assuming no reactionary swing in the meantime), and more from a shift towards affirming LGBTQ+ folk.
I know. Sometimes it feels like we give the RCC a bit of a pass on issues we don't give secular multiphobes leeway on. But then I remember something someone once said about how direction of travel can be more important than current position.
I think one needs to understand the weight of Tradition within Catholicism. My personal nonconformist view, that it contains a lot of bathwater, also includes the recognition that there’s a baby or two in there.
Thank you for this; very well expressed. I think it also holds true for traditions other than Catholicism.
He’s certainly not a backlash conservative (which was my personal fear). Catholics who know more about vestments than I do may correct me, but I don’t think he followed Pope Francis in simple vestments. I wonder what he will do about living quarters?
He has followed Pope Francis in wearing black shoes instead of red shoes, at least according to the New York Times.
I think one needs to understand the weight of Tradition within Catholicism. My personal nonconformist view, that it contains a lot of bathwater, also includes the recognition that there’s a baby or two in there.
This is indeed beautifully expressed and I shall pinch it whenever the moment arises with my nonconformist friends. I spent many happy years in the ultra-non-conformist Open Brethren and know their babies well, but I'm also aware of the state of their bathwater, which as well as many beautiful babies contains much anti-RC odure!
I read somewhere (possibly in the Guardian) that Leo XIV had expressed traditionally conservative opinions about LGBTQ etc. issues some years ago.
Time and the World have moved on since then, so it may be that he has changed his attitude in the meantime, especially given the less judgemental views of his predecessor...
Well he told the cardinals today that he wants to continue Francis's direction of travel. One of the things Francis was brilliant was the power of signs and gestures. I note that he has dug out some of the traditional rags that Francis dropped. That may be a sop towards the more trad-mined. It will be interesting to see where he decides to live, palace or hostel.
Well he told the cardinals today that he wants to continue Francis's direction of travel. One of the things Francis was brilliant was the power of signs and gestures. I note that he has dug out some of the traditional rags that Francis dropped. That may be a sop towards the more trad-mined. It will be interesting to see where he decides to live, palace or hostel.
Yeah, as long as he follows Jesus and does what he oughter, I don't give a damn what he wears or where he lives. (It seems to me that it must be a horrible temptation, getting elected to such an office. Mostly to pride, but also to a host of other evils. Yikes.)
Cardinal Tobin talked about looking over at "Bob" during the balloting and seeing him with his head in his hands, feeling the weight of what might be about to happen.
I do care where he lives and what he wears because these things send messages and he full well knows that.
Is it OK to be disappointed that there is so much adulation for a role that, together with the whole Roman Catholic priesthood, excludes women?
It's more than ok, but I would advise tempering that disappointment with recognition that most people cheering are seeing this as among the better of likely outcomes, rather than an unalloyed good. We're probably at least 4-5 popes away from a shift in favour of ordaining women (even assuming no reactionary swing in the meantime), and more from a shift towards affirming LGBTQ+ folk.
So the Roman Catholic Church will not regard women as fully human in my lifetime. They might be going the right direction, but so what? Literally millions of people in the church are directly affected, and many of us outside it experience the knock-on effects. Six of the nine US Supreme Court justices belong to a church that does not see women in persona Christi.
So good that Leo XIV looks like he'll listen to laypeople, according to a NY Times headline I just read, but he and his church are still dead wrong and it makes me so angry. I don't know what metaphorical baby they're hanging onto; I do have an idea of what it means for the lives of women all over the world.
Ruth is dead right. It's all very well, enthusing about Leo, and his qualities, but the Catholic Church is frozen in certain areas, particularly women. And probably on LGBT.
Ruth is dead right. It's all very well, enthusing about Leo, and his qualities, but the Catholic Church is frozen in certain areas, particularly women. And probably on LGBT.
See, for example, Male and Female He Created Them (2019), about which Francis DeBernardo, Executive Director of New Ways Ministry (an advocacy group for LGBTQ Catholics) wrote:
The Vatican’s new document on gender identity, “Male and Female He Created Them,” is a harmful tool that will be used to oppress and harm not only transgender people, but lesbian, gay, bisexual people, too. The document associates sexual and gender minorities with libertine sexuality, a gross misrepresentation of the lives of LGBT people which perpetuates and encourages hatred, bigotry, and violence against them.
...
The only truth the document reveals is that the Vatican remains ill-equipped to discuss gender and sexuality in the modern world. By ignoring new scientific understandings of gender identity, and by refusing to engage in dialogue with LGBT people about their lived experiences of self-understanding and faith, the Vatican remains in the dark ages, promoting a false teaching that relies on myth, rumor, and falsehoods.
There is so little understanding or acceptance that the primary text for learning about God, starting with ourself. We each reflect the divine nature, so the constant Calvinist refrain of total depravity, and/or its equivalents in other traditions cannot be the whole story. We may experience ourselves as both depraved and deprived, but God delights in us, and we have to allow this to at least create a certain curiosity as to what exactly God is delighting in.
It helps nothing when the church, for its own purposes (i.e. coercive control), amplifies our sense of our own depravity rather than helping us to discover our authentic delightfulness, and that God already, long ago, accepted us as delightful, if also potentially broken.
That is the heart of what I need to know about any religious leader. Are they out to help people be human, or to help their organisation keep its membership under control?
I have a feeling, I may be mistaken, that you are using ‘total depravity’ in a different way than Calvin. It doesn’t mean that everything is terrible, but rather there is no part of us which is not, to some degree, flawed by sin.
I think Calvin’s thought nonetheless recognises the fundamental goodness of God’s creation, including humankind, after the creation of whom God saw that it was “very good”.
There is so little understanding or acceptance that the primary text for learning about God, starting with ourself. We each reflect the divine nature, so the constant Calvinist refrain of total depravity, and/or its equivalents in other traditions cannot be the whole story. We may experience ourselves as both depraved and deprived, but God delights in us, and we have to allow this to at least create a certain curiosity as to what exactly God is delighting in.
Your last sentence is completely in accord with the Calvinist/Reformed understanding of total depravity. What it is inconsistent with is the popular misunderstanding of what total depravity—a term Calvin never actually used—means.
Yes, that's a hare which I thoroughly repent of (re)starting. The emphasis on sin is common to many traditions, and certainly one which the Catholic tradition is very given to - as any Good Friday service demonstrates. I think my point still stands, and is in fact stronger without that element. The use of sin for purposes of coercive control is a terrible thing, wherever it happens. If the faithful are constantly flagellating themselves and each other, they can't be doing uncontrollable things.
I get the feeling that the inability to admit to being wrong - to even entertain the notion - is more at work than the church wanting coercive control. That the church as an institution thinks it makes pronouncements that are Absolutely Right and Definitive for All Time makes this virtually impossible.
What has been said about the RC church above is true, in spades, of oh so many nonconformist and evangelical Anglican churches. Lord, have mercy! Praise be for little pockets of compassion and sanity, for example:
I think Ruth is right. It may get there eventually but I think Catholicism currently is short of one of the values of the Northumbria Community, called “the heretical imperative”. Namely that questioning the status quo is not only an option but actually essential to growth.
There have been many Catholic apologies in recent years, most noticeably towards Jews and Judaism. There is scope for more.
And RockyRoger is right. There is a need for other denominations to recognise the planks in our eyes.
It’s hard to rise above traditional or Traditional thinking. There is a weight of history there. A very small minority of course, but I’ve always felt the Quakers have seen something very important in their exploration of what they call “the inner light”. There is something of God in everyone.
Which is something that Big T Tradition people also acknowledge, @Barnabas62. It ain't just a Quaker thing. To their credit they have brought it more to the fore than other small t or Big T Traditions have in the past.
I would also add, as an aside and hoping not to derail an interesting thread, that what the Northumbria Community calls the 'heretical imperative' can certainly be seen in many Big O Orthodox or Big C Catholic Saints and movers and shakers.
Only it wasn't an 'heretical imperative' but arguably an 'orthodox' or Orthodox one.
There have been a few Saints commemorated in the Calendar recently who are there because they contended for small o/Big O-ness against Arianism or other official heresies.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to rob Non-conformists of their particular 'Dissenting' distinctives but very often they don't look to be quite as distinctive as they'd like to think.
That said, of course, we certainly owe many of our religious and political freedoms to the witness of the Dissenting or Non-conformist groups. No doubt about that.
Coming back to the OP.
From what I'm hearing, Pope Leo may well carry on along the same trajectory as his predecessor but may well roll back some of the restrictions Pope Francis put on the Latin Mass and other formularies.
That's an in-house issue of course but from what I can gather some feel Francis went about that in a rather heavy-handed way.
Having experienced some use of Latin in RC services and contrasting the numinous effect of that with the rather prosaic and clunky style of some contemporary RC worship, I do have some sympathy.
Be all that as it may, I get the impression that Pope Leo will be more collegial and more of a team player, seeking to take people 'with' him in whatever direction he goes.
I would also add, as an aside and hoping not to derail an interesting thread, that what the Northumbria Community calls the 'heretical imperative' can certainly be seen in many Big O Orthodox or Big C Catholic Saints and movers and shakers.
Only it wasn't an 'heretical imperative' but arguably an 'orthodox' or Orthodox one.
There have been a few Saints commemorated in the Calendar recently who are there because they contended for small o/Big O-ness against Arianism or other official heresies.
An orthodox imperative sounds like the exact opposite of a heretical imperative.
While I hope and pray for the best for Pope Leo himself and his papacy, I worry that even if he is a reformist, he may feel the need at some point to permanently close discussion on LGBTQ issues (and perhaps also on women deacons) in the same way the Paul VI did with artificial birth control (after encouraging discussion on it), and that John Paul II did even more forcefully (and, future Pope Benedict XVI would claim, in a way that reflected an existing infallible consensus) on women priests.
Leo XIV is going to, I assume, try to bridge the divides between liberal and conservative, reformist and traditionalist wings of the church, both in terms of liturgy, sex/gender/reproduction/relationship/marriage/family teaching, and economic/social/environmental policy. I think it’s clear his heart is one of a reformer - at least in terms of a humbler, listening church that situates itself among the poor and marginalized.
But peacemakers often make or promote compromises, and I suspect the kind of compromise that Leo might do might laying down existing teaching in a way more forcefully than either Francis or Benedict XVI did in order to define the rules of the game for liberals, placate conservatives, and prevent ruptures that could lead to schism if a more radical reformer or reactionary traditionalist pope is elected in the future.
I would also add, as an aside and hoping not to derail an interesting thread, that what the Northumbria Community calls the 'heretical imperative' can certainly be seen in many Big O Orthodox or Big C Catholic Saints and movers and shakers.
Only it wasn't an 'heretical imperative' but arguably an 'orthodox' or Orthodox one.
There have been a few Saints commemorated in the Calendar recently who are there because they contended for small o/Big O-ness against Arianism or other official heresies.
An orthodox imperative sounds like the exact opposite of a heretical imperative.
The point I'm making is that it's sometimes the 'orthodox' voices that are the outliers or the radical voices rather than the ostensibly 'heretical' ones.
'Athanasius contra mundum' and so forth.
As far as the 'dissenting' or non-conformist tradition in the UK goes, it's had radical, progressive and very conservative or even reactionary elements at various times or sometimes simultaneously.
I don't think it's accurate to claim that the non-conformist tradition has always been ahead of the curve or been as radical as it likes to see itself as being.
Which isn't to deny its impact or influence in times past.
It's also spent a lot of its time and energy refighting internal 'heresy wars' on a micro-scale in a mirroring of what happened in a Big C, Big T context in the early centuries of Christianity.
During the 18th and 19th centuries the Dissenting groups refought all the early controversies over and over and over again ' Arianism, Socinianism, Sabellianism Adoptionism etc etc etc yadda yadda yadda ...
Paradoxically, some of the movements against slavery, grindingly long working hours, cruel sports and so on came from elements within the supposedly hide-bound and reactionary Church of England.
Heck, the arch-Tory Shaftesbury introduced far-reaching legislation to limit working hours for instance.
Yes, groups like the Quakers were prominent in prison reform and other causes and the Dissenters were generally Whiggish and liberal in politics but I'm suggesting that the picture was far more mixed than is popularly supposed.
By definition pontifex is a bridge builder. The heart of a bishop's/pope's ministry is to be a source of unity. So that doesn't bother me too much. And as for birth control that is largely a dead letter - a pope has spoken and the Church has said "no." As for women clergy .. I think those at the top are very conscious of the need to stay aligned with the Orthodox and less so with the Churches of the Reformation. As for the rest .. what goes on at a parish level is not necessarily what the Vatican imagines.
Regardless of who does it, the heretical approach is quite happy to look at opening closed doors. Or breathing life into dead letters. Non conforming is not confined to any denomination. It’s more an attitude of mind.
Personally I don’t see how Catholicism digs its way out of the holes it’s in on matters of sex or ministry. But necessity is the mother of invention. And at some stage even the most Traditional (or traditional) will wake up to the necessity. The church is unraveling. It’s very foolish to deny that.
Regardless of who does it, the heretical approach is quite happy to look at opening closed doors. Or breathing life into dead letters. Non conforming is not confined to any denomination. It’s more an attitude of mind.
Personally I don’t see how Catholicism digs its way out of the holes it’s in on matters of sex or ministry. But necessity is the mother of invention. And at some stage even the most Traditional (or traditional) will wake up to the necessity. The church is unraveling. It’s very foolish to deny that.
The church is unravelling? People joined it in thousands at Easter. 10,000+ in secular France, a large proportion Gen Z. It's centre of gravity is now outside the white Western world, and where the most pressing concerns are about climate change, fair trade etc.
Why do you assume that unravelling means decline in numbers? The unravelling of the church is a much more profound matter. But this is a tangent too far. I'll give some thought to starting a new thread.
And on the main thread, I do welcome Pope Leo and pray for him. He will need a strong constitution!
Are we now into 'Unravellata et semper Unravellanda'?
As an aside, I think Christendom is unravelling. I'm not so sure the RCC is doing so, nor the Orthodox Churches but they've all got their own issues and problems of course.
Comments
Voting in Republican primaries does not mean that someone identifies as a Republican or a conservative. Will County, where he has voted, was almost evenly split between Trump and Harris in the 2024 election (although Harris had slightly more votes). He may have wanted Republicans to nominate a certain candidate (or not nominate a certain candidate), but may not necessarily have voted for Republicans in the general election. If the town within Will County that he was registered to vote in was strongly Democratic and even the Democratic primaries were always won by incumbents with very little competition, he may have felt that, if he wanted to have any influence on who the candidates for any party were, he would have it by voting in the Republican Party, even if he perhaps preferred the Democratic incumbent over whomever the Republican candidate might ultimately be. You don't have to pay any dues to the Republican or Democratic parties to vote in their primary elections.
It's also possible that he has consistently voted Republican - probably primarily because of social issues (especially the one that starts with "a") - but that might have changed under Trump's leadership of the party, given that Trump's views on sex, gender, and reproduction change with the wind and especially now that Roe v Wade has already been overturned.
These were more than symbolic gestures for Pope Francis. They emphasised his approach to poverty.
But I did note his use of the word “small” in his homily. Humility is one of the marks of a good servant leader. A humble pontiff of USA origins will be in stark contrast to the current President.
It's more than ok, but I would advise tempering that disappointment with recognition that most people cheering are seeing this as among the better of likely outcomes, rather than an unalloyed good. We're probably at least 4-5 popes away from a shift in favour of ordaining women (even assuming no reactionary swing in the meantime), and more from a shift towards affirming LGBTQ+ folk.
I know. Sometimes it feels like we give the RCC a bit of a pass on issues we don't give secular multiphobes leeway on. But then I remember something someone once said about how direction of travel can be more important than current position.
Thank you for this; very well expressed. I think it also holds true for traditions other than Catholicism.
This is indeed beautifully expressed and I shall pinch it whenever the moment arises with my nonconformist friends. I spent many happy years in the ultra-non-conformist Open Brethren and know their babies well, but I'm also aware of the state of their bathwater, which as well as many beautiful babies contains much anti-RC odure!
Time and the World have moved on since then, so it may be that he has changed his attitude in the meantime, especially given the less judgemental views of his predecessor...
My reply, "Ya, think?"
Then she corrected herself and said she had heard he has a Creole background.
One friend has already commented that isn't the Pope supposed to be "Jesus First".
Yeah, as long as he follows Jesus and does what he oughter, I don't give a damn what he wears or where he lives. (It seems to me that it must be a horrible temptation, getting elected to such an office. Mostly to pride, but also to a host of other evils. Yikes.)
I do care where he lives and what he wears because these things send messages and he full well knows that.
So the Roman Catholic Church will not regard women as fully human in my lifetime. They might be going the right direction, but so what? Literally millions of people in the church are directly affected, and many of us outside it experience the knock-on effects. Six of the nine US Supreme Court justices belong to a church that does not see women in persona Christi.
So good that Leo XIV looks like he'll listen to laypeople, according to a NY Times headline I just read, but he and his church are still dead wrong and it makes me so angry. I don't know what metaphorical baby they're hanging onto; I do have an idea of what it means for the lives of women all over the world.
It helps nothing when the church, for its own purposes (i.e. coercive control), amplifies our sense of our own depravity rather than helping us to discover our authentic delightfulness, and that God already, long ago, accepted us as delightful, if also potentially broken.
That is the heart of what I need to know about any religious leader. Are they out to help people be human, or to help their organisation keep its membership under control?
I think Calvin’s thought nonetheless recognises the fundamental goodness of God’s creation, including humankind, after the creation of whom God saw that it was “very good”.
https://www.ordinaryoffice.org/
and many wise priests and pastors (yes, there are some!).
There have been many Catholic apologies in recent years, most noticeably towards Jews and Judaism. There is scope for more.
And RockyRoger is right. There is a need for other denominations to recognise the planks in our eyes.
It’s hard to rise above traditional or Traditional thinking. There is a weight of history there. A very small minority of course, but I’ve always felt the Quakers have seen something very important in their exploration of what they call “the inner light”. There is something of God in everyone.
I would also add, as an aside and hoping not to derail an interesting thread, that what the Northumbria Community calls the 'heretical imperative' can certainly be seen in many Big O Orthodox or Big C Catholic Saints and movers and shakers.
Only it wasn't an 'heretical imperative' but arguably an 'orthodox' or Orthodox one.
There have been a few Saints commemorated in the Calendar recently who are there because they contended for small o/Big O-ness against Arianism or other official heresies.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to rob Non-conformists of their particular 'Dissenting' distinctives but very often they don't look to be quite as distinctive as they'd like to think.
That said, of course, we certainly owe many of our religious and political freedoms to the witness of the Dissenting or Non-conformist groups. No doubt about that.
Coming back to the OP.
From what I'm hearing, Pope Leo may well carry on along the same trajectory as his predecessor but may well roll back some of the restrictions Pope Francis put on the Latin Mass and other formularies.
That's an in-house issue of course but from what I can gather some feel Francis went about that in a rather heavy-handed way.
Having experienced some use of Latin in RC services and contrasting the numinous effect of that with the rather prosaic and clunky style of some contemporary RC worship, I do have some sympathy.
Be all that as it may, I get the impression that Pope Leo will be more collegial and more of a team player, seeking to take people 'with' him in whatever direction he goes.
An orthodox imperative sounds like the exact opposite of a heretical imperative.
Leo XIV is going to, I assume, try to bridge the divides between liberal and conservative, reformist and traditionalist wings of the church, both in terms of liturgy, sex/gender/reproduction/relationship/marriage/family teaching, and economic/social/environmental policy. I think it’s clear his heart is one of a reformer - at least in terms of a humbler, listening church that situates itself among the poor and marginalized.
But peacemakers often make or promote compromises, and I suspect the kind of compromise that Leo might do might laying down existing teaching in a way more forcefully than either Francis or Benedict XVI did in order to define the rules of the game for liberals, placate conservatives, and prevent ruptures that could lead to schism if a more radical reformer or reactionary traditionalist pope is elected in the future.
The point I'm making is that it's sometimes the 'orthodox' voices that are the outliers or the radical voices rather than the ostensibly 'heretical' ones.
'Athanasius contra mundum' and so forth.
As far as the 'dissenting' or non-conformist tradition in the UK goes, it's had radical, progressive and very conservative or even reactionary elements at various times or sometimes simultaneously.
I don't think it's accurate to claim that the non-conformist tradition has always been ahead of the curve or been as radical as it likes to see itself as being.
Which isn't to deny its impact or influence in times past.
It's also spent a lot of its time and energy refighting internal 'heresy wars' on a micro-scale in a mirroring of what happened in a Big C, Big T context in the early centuries of Christianity.
During the 18th and 19th centuries the Dissenting groups refought all the early controversies over and over and over again ' Arianism, Socinianism, Sabellianism Adoptionism etc etc etc yadda yadda yadda ...
Paradoxically, some of the movements against slavery, grindingly long working hours, cruel sports and so on came from elements within the supposedly hide-bound and reactionary Church of England.
Heck, the arch-Tory Shaftesbury introduced far-reaching legislation to limit working hours for instance.
Yes, groups like the Quakers were prominent in prison reform and other causes and the Dissenters were generally Whiggish and liberal in politics but I'm suggesting that the picture was far more mixed than is popularly supposed.
Personally I don’t see how Catholicism digs its way out of the holes it’s in on matters of sex or ministry. But necessity is the mother of invention. And at some stage even the most Traditional (or traditional) will wake up to the necessity. The church is unraveling. It’s very foolish to deny that.
The church is unravelling? People joined it in thousands at Easter. 10,000+ in secular France, a large proportion Gen Z. It's centre of gravity is now outside the white Western world, and where the most pressing concerns are about climate change, fair trade etc.
And on the main thread, I do welcome Pope Leo and pray for him. He will need a strong constitution!
Are we now into 'Unravellata et semper Unravellanda'?
As an aside, I think Christendom is unravelling. I'm not so sure the RCC is doing so, nor the Orthodox Churches but they've all got their own issues and problems of course.