VanTesla said:
You could interpret his wording of God as in that God gave humans life and the knowledge to possibly accomplish such things as the internet, but that is maybe going deeper into what he is saying and maybe is not what he is saying at all. By the current small time he has been in I almost will give him the benefit of the doubt that is what he actually means when he said those words which is fine to me and I am not even a christian or religious person. Usually when people do good/great things religious organizations will interpret god/gods had a hand in guiding humans towards it and when bad things happen it is because of evil/devil/etc pushing man to do such things...
So far this knew Pope has done more in his short time to fix wrongs and give a better perception of the Catholic church in a longtime while still spreading the more positives of the Bible and teachings. Not to say he couldn't do more or take further steps in this ever changing world and to nix some of the long bs dogma, intolerance, and corruption still plaguing the Catholic church.
Setting aside that God can be invoked for anything anyone wants to invoke it for and that Gods putatively infallible mouthpiece on Earth should be expected not to require interpretation, I suppose my issue is that he doesn't seem to mention the humans involved in the gift at all. Not even as guided hands or faithful servants enacting Gods will or being enlightened or inspired or what have you. They just do not appear to matter, even as a tool in Gods design. For me, this has the effect of diminishing the spirit of the thing...not simply because of the irrelevance of man (we're pretty irrelevant in any model of the universe, even the ones where we think we're important), but because that perspective itself reduces the entire universe to little more than an over-glorified ant farm. I believe, with or without God, it is or should be much more than that.
That said I'll also admit to being deeply suspicious and leery about giving the benefit of the doubt to a man fronting what could just as well be seen as little more than a massive PR campaign for a troubled organization that has all too recently endured serious scandal under the administration of the previous incumbent. An incumbent who notably stepped down from a traditionally until-death position to make room for long overdue change of attitudes.
When we see this sort of behavior in secular corporate bodies, it comes across as obvious face saving. An attempt to salvage the image of the organism from the vagaries of public opinion. Why should we view it as anything else here?
Again, I agree with his sentiments in broad terms, but a lot of what he's been saying and doing feels a bit too pat and in line with the opinions of traditional opposition to immediately consider sincere. If it makes them a better and more inclusive community, fine. If they really mean it even better, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon just because it pulled a few unexpected 180s to flirt with my beliefs on a few issues. That's something the Catholic Church has a long history of and it does not impress upon me their sincerity for anything other than their bottomless hunger for converts and a pressing need to shed the ignominy of recent decades.
They've got a much longer road to walk towards sincerity than admitting that humans are human and eloquently restating something we already knew about the internet.