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.
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?
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.
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.