I think we're all aware of the current Pope's enthusiasm for portraying himself as champion of the poor. In terms of concrete action, what has he actually done?

I'm not doubting he's done anything, it's just that I've not heard anything other than the superficial marketing gimmicks like insisting on smaller living quarters.

I wouldn't call that superficial. He didn't start that practice only on becoming Pope. He's always lived minimally, since he worked for the church, but also during the mental work he did as a cleaner and bouncer to make a living as a young man. As a Jesuit, a vow of poverty isn't superficial.

*menial work

The palace he would have lived in hasn't gone away, the Vatican is still stuffed with gold statues of humble saints without a hint of irony. Insisting on normal cars when visiting other nations doesn't achieve anything other than cause headaches for the local security forces. None of that is worthy of any praise other than congratulating him on a well managed campaign to project a particular self imagine.

In terms of real substance, what has he achieved?

So, while I'm aware his reputation is well-founded (I have a catholic background), I've had to check this myself.

But his reputation as the Slum Bishop of Buenos Aires has tons of evidence and testimony to back it up. He extended the Church's mission in the slums, the support and alms, priest visits, and education initiatives.

He also has a long history of being outspoken, this isn't new to his role as Pope, he openly challenged the ruling military junta as well as the corruption that formed in the long reign of the Kirchners.

I dare say he was a good Bishop, but what I want to know is examples of how he's expanded that to his Poping. Bishop's palaces being thrown open to the homeless, art collections no one sees sold to provide for the needy, or given to museums. That sort of thing. Aside from personal reputation and self image, how is the new Pope not like the old Pope?

Then I think you're misunderstanding the role of Pope. Head of the church is not going to be a licence to do whatever you want come what may, it's a political juggle between the Vatican power structure, the wider Church apparatus, as well as the laity and wider public image, and essentially being head of state for the Vatican.

Ordering Bishops to use their accommodation in a certain way may be seen as an unhelpful and unpopular way of initiating his view of good practice. He's done a lot as Pope to reach out and open the Church up. This year, for example, has been indicted as the Year of Mercy; this isn't just words, it's sent out to all Catholic churches, schools, etc. The Year of Mercy actively encourages care in the community, etc, and I know that local Catholic schools in Manchester have taken this up with student visits and community engagement -- I think this is a good example of the Pope's benevolent encouragement for action on poverty and community cohesion.

So the real difference between the Catholic Church under this Pope and the Catholic Church under the old Pope is negligible?

1+ billion religions do not change overnight. Trying to compare change over a period of three years is practically impossible. However, there is a lot of difference compared to thirty years ago.

Comparing the Church now to the Church 30 years ago does little to measure the impact of the current Pope. I just want to hear about something tangible the Pope has done that makes him different to the last ones. So far the only thing anyone has mentioned is this Year of Mercy initiative, which sounds very much like business as usual Popery.

Do you consider telling Catholics to act a certain way to be tangible? That is his job, and he has been doing that, both with his words and his actions.

What actions?

Again, these are mostly symbolic actions, but his decisions to actually meet with the poor and to wash prisoners' feet spring to mind.

Have Popes been of the habit recently of avoiding the poor?

It would be difficult to declare directly that they were avoiding the poor, and they certainly were at least giving lip service to the idea of charity, but Francis has been taking this further, which of course makes sense, since it was his focus before becoming Pope.

Having grown up in the South(ish area of Tulsa), I definitely see Trump's point that questioning a person's faith is crossing a line, I also am of the understanding that he has insinuated the questioning of the faith of the President of the United States along with the more primal of the far-rightists and birthers.

I think the most overt political action Pope Francis has taken has been facilitating the normalization of relations between the US and Cuba. There hasn't been much else in terms of direct action. However, the papal office is a position that mostly influences by words, so it's not particularly surprising that Pope Francis has relatively few direct actions to his name, regardless of how much (or how little) change you think he has effected.

Dodo Trump is not yet President, and I think anyone is entitled to question the sincerity of a candidate for political office...particularly candidates who send out contradictory messages, such as purporting to be Christian but then making statements that are inconsistent with the teachings and principles of Christianity. As head of the Catholic Church, the Pope has the right to question the sincerity of political candidates who promote themselves as Christians for political benefit, but who also, in the opinion of the Pope, promote policies that are incompatible with Christian teachings and principles

Plus given some of the "less than helpful" comments Dodo Trump has made about the integrity and character of other citizens, it seems somewhat hypocritical to demand that Dodo Trump should be given immunity from comments that question his integrity and character. Dodo Trump is looking like a chap who is demanding the privelige of freedom to abuse whoever he chooses, but resents being called out on his own faults

Reforming the Catholic Church is an incremental process Divine Octavious. Is it fair to demand unachievable results from the Pope then damn him for not achieving the impossible ? Of course, if the College of Cardinals had elected Mujus as the new Pope.... but they didn't

There is little that is as incompatible with the teachings of Christ as the Vatican. The Pope has as much right to an opinion as anyone, but a wise Pope would have avoided being seen as interfering in politics.

@Major M

I'm not damning him. This isn't a Pope bashing campaign. I asked what he had done genuinely expecting him to have done something. I'm frankly astonished that he's not really done anything. Yes, it is an incremental process, but I can't see any signs of an increment.

Fair enough Octavious... I'd like to see the Catholic Church improve it's performance, and I am somewhat sceptical regarding organised religions, too often they seem to me to be like a racket designed to defraud individuals by promising rewards after death so that an elite group enjoys luxury and power here in this mortal world. Yet if I had to say whom I thought had the better moral compass between Dodo Trump and Pope Francis, then the Pope is the one I'd choose

The unbending strength of the Papal moral compass is precisely why I'd rather not be ruled by them.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2wnweo5&s=9

MM had a brief Rubio moment.

I saw that too, Byron.

The major change this pope has made is in financial transparency. Now we know exactly what the Vatican has been spending its money and what it hasn't. This pope seems rather serious about cleaning up the Vatican.