I dunno. Trumps temperament is more like Becciu the Cardinal whining and suing that “I was robbed of my entitlement and I’m not going quietly.”
As I said. Pointing out an obvious similarity between Trump and Francis tends to make no one happy, because those thrilled with Francis tend to be un-thrilled with Trump, and those thrilled with Trump tend to be un-thrilled with Francis.
Nonetheless my observation stands. There’s a temperamental similarity between a man who publicly calls people “losers” and a man who publicly calls people “caca”, especially when both men also explicitly position themselves (at least to their supporters and hopefully genuinely, behind the scenes) as pit bulls there to get back to basics and root out corruption. I’m not even ragging on them for it. The whole point of my comment was that sometimes bulls in china shops break things that should be broken. The fact that it’s different bulls in different shops, and different groups like/hate the china in different shops and do/don’t want it broken, doesn’t take away from the similarity between bullish approaches.
I’ve said this before several times as well - Pope Francis and President Trump have more in common than some people are willing to admit. Not in their belief systems, but in how they conduct themselves in their respective offices. Both were outsiders elected to their positions to clean up and reform their governments. Both conduct themselves with less formality and dignity than their predecessors, for better or for worse. Both are polarizing figures that have drawn both high praise and harsh criticism from the people they govern. Both communicate with the media, the general public, and the outside world in radically different ways than their predecessors. Both reportedly have hot tempers and can be harsh with their underlings at times.
There are differences too, to be sure; they’re not alike in every way. But there are enough similarities that they are comparable on some level.
Can you provide a source for this? I’ve searched but I only found an occasion in which he told journalists not to “feces” (comparing fake news to feces).
If that’s the only time, it seems like a stretch to call that word “a word he seems fond of”.
Pope Francis referred to those who cover up child abuse in the Catholic Church as “caca” – the Spanish word which the official translator interpreted as ‘filth you would see in the toilet’ – during a meeting in Dublin with abuse survivors…
Pope Francis is warning about the dangers of spreading fake news, comparing the media’s desire for scandal with an obsession with feces… The pope said these sins are comparable to coprophilia, an abnormal interest and pleasure in feces and defecation.
“I think the media have to be very clear, very transparent, and not fall into – no offence intended – the sickness of coprophilia, that is, always wanting to cover scandals, covering nasty things, even if they are true,” he said. “And since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, a lot of damage can be done.”
The man likes to make his point with poop. Which is fine. I don’t imagine anyone would complain about it in the first place especially, when he spoke viscerally to victims of abuse. (Hopefully of course anyone who doesn’t complain about the Pope calling abusers “caca”, would be consistent and not complain about the President calling murderers “animals”.)
It’s not an insult to either man to point out similarities between the two men. They obviously also have differences. But they do have similarities.
I’d appreciate not being asked to search up and present more examples of distasteful words/actions by the holy father though. Wouldn’t want to participate in coprophagia.
Thanks, I didn’t know about the second event. That makes two occasions, however, out of hundreds of public speeches. I don’t think the conclussion is that he likes to use that word.
And I didn’t say anything about comparing him to Trump. I am actually one of the (supposedly) few persons who likes Pope Francis and likes Trump.
I dunno, but then again I basically never talk about feces. I’m not a poop analogy person.
So from my perspective, visceral poop analogies aren’t something that accidentally falls out of someone’s mouth during formal public speeches, if they don’t “like to” speak that way.
I guess it seems more weird to me to imagine that a person has only made visceral poop comparisons twice, and they both happened to occur in public speeches that made international news. I suppose it’s possible though? Again I’m not ragging on him for it – he can use the language he chooses – my original and continued comment is only that these two comments (alongside other comments and, shall we say, facial and tonal expressiveness?) do suggest to me a certain impression of temperament. Which again I’m not ragging on him for. We all have different temperaments, each with our strengths and weaknesses. And in this thread I’m commenting on how this is a situation (combating corruption) where his temperament may be a great fit.
Other sources reported that Pope Francis called the cover up of abuse “caca”. Not people per se.
One of the things we need to rediscover in our Christian faith is “integral ecology” as per Pope Francis’ Laudato si. It is essential to understading our relationship to God, each other and creation. The Scriptures are awash with references from nature that really make it clear how sin manifests in our lives and spiritually. Dung, manure, excrement, the bowels, vomit. The prophets of the OT and Jesus used them so often and they convey to us in no uncertain terms what sin is really like.
We’ve grown apart from being at one with nature by our ideologies that promote wealth and comfort over the wisdom of Gods nature. We are more repelled by dung than sin and have no compulsion to be washed of our sins like we are naturally compelled to wash off dung.
Okay, fair enough then, I understand.
He gave away the inheritance he received from his deceased brothers estate.
Probably the best Beciu-Trump comparison is in their seeming inability to conduct competent litigation. Granted I’m not familiar with Italian defamation law but, that said, I’m guessing Becciu is equally unfamiliar with the Streisand effect. The problem with his case (putting aside the ludicrous claim of damages for loss of a chance to be elected Pope in a future conclave) is that the newspaper will obviously argue that the allegations are true. At best for the now-very-former Cardinal, this will bring a lot of attention and scrutiny to a number of dealings which he’d no doubt rather remained in the darkness. At worst, it will not only prove the truth of the allegations but also quite possibly uncover some serious morally reprehensible (if not criminal) conduct.