[HN Gopher] First American pope elected and will be known as Pop...
___________________________________________________________________
First American pope elected and will be known as Pope Leo XIV
Author : saikatsg
Score : 407 points
Date : 2025-05-08 16:30 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnn.com)
| xeromal wrote:
| I'm not a catholic but I decided to watch the new Conclave movie
| as well as a Tasting History by Max Miller to learn a little bit
| about it. Very interesting but I'd love a historical movie on
| some of the past conclaves when the pope managed a standing army.
|
| Edit: The Max Miller video was about the baby back ribs cooked in
| proto-bbq sauce made from grapes that was eaten by a conclave.
| prox wrote:
| The movie "two popes" is pretty good, which some strong acting
| performance. (Not really historical since that was about a
| decade ago)
| netsharc wrote:
| > when the pope managed a standing army.
|
| In the past wasn't the church basically a political entity,
| there was even a period when some kingdoms didn't recognize the
| Vatican pope... (I suppose it's still is very much a political
| organization)
| tough wrote:
| Also a very old bank
| alabastervlog wrote:
| A bunch of Buddhist monasteries were also banks, back in
| the day.
|
| Medieval Catholic monasteries were basically corporations
| where the board lived together and spent tons of time
| praying and celebrating festivals. Prayers were like NFTs
| and they traded them to nobles in exchange for
| traditionally-productive capital, which the corporation
| would then manage to provide them goods and monetary
| revenue.
|
| Here I was tempted to write "the past was weird" but then
| we have _actual_ NFTs and those are amazingly silly, so,
| how weird was it really?
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| AIUI, Vatican City is still its own political entity. (I do
| not claim to understand how that interacts with the Catholic
| Church in general.)
| ImJamal wrote:
| The Church isn't a political entity per se since the Church
| didn't hold the power over the Papal States or Vatican City.
| It is the Pope who held both church and secular power.
| diego_moita wrote:
| The correct title should be "Habemus Papam".
| kurthr wrote:
| "Habemus Papam, iter faciet"
| antognini wrote:
| The field of candidates in this conclave was relatively open
| compared to the past few conclaves, so it is a little surprising
| that the cardinals were able to come to a consensus by the fourth
| ballot. That suggests that one of the initial front runners
| (likely Parolin or Tagle) was able to generate momentum early on
| and get the 2/3 majority pretty quickly. But we'll see in about
| 30 minutes if the cardinals have surprised us all with someone
| completely different!
| rpmisms wrote:
| I'm rooting for Sarah, but Tagle seems pretty decent.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Given the number of cardinals Pope Francis appointed, I would
| imagine there's a fairly strong consensus at least on the
| direction of the church, which in theory would eliminate a
| strongly divided conclave, at least.
| antognini wrote:
| It's not quite so obvious that all of Francis's appointees
| were lockstop in line with his vision. Up until the last
| consistory he tended to appoint cardinals from the
| "peripheries," places that did not historically have a strong
| presence in the Church. (For instance he appointed a cardinal
| from Mongolia and one from the Ukrainian Catholic Church in
| Australia.) These cardinals are a bit of wildcard.
|
| But given that the conclave was so short that does suggest
| that there was not much division over direction.
| Vox_Leone wrote:
| The brevity of the conclave election seems to signal a
| continuation of Francis' policies
| chuckreynolds wrote:
| Theo Vonn walks onto balcony.... lol
| lambdaba wrote:
| His full name is Theodor Capitani von Kurnatowski III, I think
| it fits.
| blensor wrote:
| I wonder if there is any other event in recent history that is
| communicated as quickly to as many people as the fact that a new
| pope has been elected.
|
| I was out on the streets when the church bells started ringing
| here in Vienna as must have all around the globe where there are
| catholic churches
| qsort wrote:
| Probably not as spiritually fulfilling, but the stock market
| would be an example of that happening at sub-second latencies,
| every day, all day.
| TZubiri wrote:
| With some exceptions like crisis, not everyone is listening
| to that.
|
| And it happens every day, all day. It's not discrete
| information.
| Clamchop wrote:
| I don't think that counts as communicating to people at all,
| let alone to as many people.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| What about the tickers you see on TV or at Times Square?
| That's not communicating?
| crazygringo wrote:
| How many people look at those?
|
| Versus how many people across the world are finding out
| about the new pope?
|
| The point is how many people are _actually receiving_
| this information. Not "could look up on their phone if
| they wanted".
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I used to be a CNBC junkie. Before there was crypto I
| used to enjoy adopting a penny stock and watching the
| ticker for it very closely; you can learn a lot about
| market dynamics when you are trading a stock where you
| buy $2000 of stock and that is 30% of the volume for the
| day. (Try $KBLB for a stock where if you think the price
| is too high or too low you will find that both opinions
| are vindicated if you wait long enough.)
| crazygringo wrote:
| That's great. Not sure what it has to do with the
| conversation though?
|
| Nobody is claiming _nobody_ follows stocks.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| And that's a million people doing that versus a billion
| people hearing about the pope.
|
| (very very rough numbers of course)
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Also those trades occurring "millions and millions" of
| times a day as opposed to a new pope every decade or so.
|
| The comparison that I think matters is that the Pope and
| the Dalai Lama are the best-known religious leaders there
| are. I mean there used to be Billy Graham and the
| Ayatollah Khomeini but I think most people would struggle
| to name the leader of the Methodist church or Nichiren
| Buddhism or a rabbi of my than local importance.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Is that supposed to affect the comparison? A million
| trades seen by a thousand people each* isn't impressive,
| and numbers like that happen in all kinds of situations.
|
| This is about the huge number of people knowing about a
| single event right away.
|
| * I say a thousand here because even someone glued to
| every number on CNBC is parsing nowhere near millions of
| numbers. A much smaller sliver of people will see each of
| those individual trades.
| toonalfrink wrote:
| Prices are about communicating almost more than they are
| about prices...
| epolanski wrote:
| Doubt it's even barely comparable.
|
| Stonks go up and down all time, it's not news, and people
| don't tune in mass from all around the world to watch sp500s
| chandelier bars.
| hnfong wrote:
| Pretty sure the US presidential election is on par.
|
| Maybe the exact timing is ambiguous since candidates usually
| declare victory/admit defeat before all the votes have been
| counted officially, but still.
| zanellato19 wrote:
| Yeah, that exact timing is the whole deal.
|
| The US presidential election is a mess compared to this.
| vkou wrote:
| > Pretty sure the US presidential election is on par.
|
| Contested US elections are logistically, a huge mess that
| takes forever to resolve, and even when the writing is on the
| wall, everybody waits and hemms and hawws because <some other
| network hasn't called it yet>, <so we can't call it>. (And
| that's not even counting the potential faithless electors, a
| potential coup in the House, conspiracies to commit election
| fraud directed from the president's office, etc.)
|
| Canadian elections are figured out and their results are
| broadcast to the world before Western Canada even finishes
| voting. (Spoilers: It's always all blue starting from
| Manitoba and going all the way to the eastern fringes of
| Greater Vancouver.)
|
| They are, of course, utterly uninteresting, with the last one
| coming and going without even a _mention_ on the front page
| of Hacker News.
| timeon wrote:
| Eurovision is quicker.
| N19PEDL2 wrote:
| Here in Frankfurt, too, the bells began to ring at the
| announcement.
| gregopet wrote:
| Here in Ljubljana too. I wasn't even fully aware of them, doing
| something else, but somehow it made me check my phone and there
| was the news bulletin, only a couple of minutes old.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Is it Pizzaballa?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Unfortunately, no.
| haunter wrote:
| Chicago style Deepdishballa
| freetime2 wrote:
| The pope is not a subject that typically interests me, but I must
| admit that I find announcing a decision with changing smoke color
| rather delightful. I wonder how long ago that started.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| The white smoke means there's a pope thing started in 1914[1],
| but they've been burning the ballots for a very long time.
|
| [1]https://www.history.com/articles/pope-conclave-smoke-color
| wvbdmp wrote:
| Any chance the guy who programmed history.com to redirect
| deep links to your local tld version's frontpage is on HN?
| What a helpful feature
| majewsky wrote:
| They might be, but the necktie that made them do it sure
| isn't.
| nosianu wrote:
| Annoyingly, when I go to that page, even from Google where I
| found that URL too, I end up at the German homepage
| www.history.de (no path, the main page). I cannot go to
| history.com no matter what.
|
| I hate "intelligent" websites as much as I like touchpad
| microwaves, and that means not at all. Why would anyone
| assume an _enforced(!!!)_ connection between my geographic
| location and the language-version of the website?
| seszett wrote:
| I even get to "history.nl/nl" even though I'm a French
| speaker in Belgium. On a French connection it redirects to
| "aenetworks.tv".
|
| I don't think there is any way to access that page from
| outside the US.
| Sharlin wrote:
| It's one of the classic falsehoods that programmers (or
| perhaps more accurately, product managers) believe about
| localization: that location equals language.
| lbhdc wrote:
| There was an interesting video by the Religion for Breakfast
| channel that talked about the process and where some of the
| rules came from.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNwgh787umM
| mlmonge wrote:
| From Catholic News Agency [1], for your convenience: The
| history of the white smoke, which indicates that the cardinals
| have elected a new successor of St. Peter, is ancient. In 1274,
| at the Second Council of Lyons, Pope Gregory X, in a document
| titled Ubi Periculum, determined the procedure for holding a
| conclave. There he specified that the election would be done in
| isolation and with strict secrecy. For this reason, and to
| avoid any communication with the outside, the smoke signal was
| eventually adopted as part of the ritual. The tradition of
| burning ballots goes back to at least 1417, and likely before
| then, according to historian Frederic J. Baumgartner. The
| addition of the white spoke to announce the election of a new
| pope is more recent, however. Baumgartner traces it to 1914,
| with the election of Pope Benedict XV. If the smoke coming out
| of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel is black, it means that
| none of the proposed candidates has reached two-thirds of the
| votes needed to be elected. If the smoke is white, the Church
| has a new universal pastor. In ancient times, the method to
| give the smoke these colors was to burn the ballots used in the
| voting with a bit of wet straw so that it would come out black,
| or dry so as to obtain white smoke. Nowadays, and due to some
| episodes that caused confusion, special chemical compounds and
| a procedure that includes two different tubes, one for each
| color of smoke, are used. In addition, a bell is rung, part of
| the ritual introduced when Pope Benedict XVI was elected, which
| confirms the smoke is white and a new pope has been elected.
|
| [1] https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/263867/the-story-
| beh...
| gjm11 wrote:
| That's a confusing paragraph.
|
| > The addition of the white smoke to announce the election of
| a new pope is more recent, however. Baumgartner traces it to
| 1914 [...]
|
| but also
|
| > In ancient times, the method to give the smoke these colors
| was to burn the ballots used in the voting with a bit of wet
| straw [...]
|
| In ... the ancient times of 1914? Something's wrong here.
|
| (For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article about this says
| that before 1914 black smoke meant "we held a ballot but it
| didn't successfully choose a new pope" and _no_ smoke meant
| something other than that, though it 's not clear there what
| the "we got one" signal was. The Wikipedia article, unlike
| the Catholic News Agency one, cites some references, but I
| haven't checked them.)
| andrepd wrote:
| New pope: https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-
| franci...
| tgv wrote:
| Damn, you're right. He'll be going by Leo XIV.
| lordnacho wrote:
| So, it this the Church setting up a confrontation with Trump?
| kccoder wrote:
| Maybe the selection didn't consider Trump in any way.
| Disappointingly for Trump, the entire world doesn't revolve
| around him.
| aoki wrote:
| > His educational background includes a Bachelor of Science in
| Mathematics from Villanova University
|
| Huh. Career counselors take note, new path opened up.
| andrepd wrote:
| Francis had a degree in chemistry if I'm not mistaken.
| ryandv wrote:
| It's a modern rhetorical fallacy that science is directly
| antithetical to religion, when many of history's greatest
| scientists were themselves "spiritual" in some way (though
| that degree of spirituality may have ranged from near-
| atheistic scientific pantheism a la Einstein and Sagan, to
| members of the clergy). I am glad there are still numerous
| counterexamples of those with firm educations in hard STEM
| fields that still contemplate the divine.
|
| Probably two modern developments presaged this viewpoint:
| the laughable apologetics of the Creationists, which have
| already been refuted ad nauseam by the New Atheists; and
| semantic drift and inaccurate (or even lacking) definitions
| for the word "god," which is probably better understood in
| modern English as "mind" or "mental construct" or "the
| abstract" (as contrasted with the "concrete" or physical
| body a la Descartes, in a similar fashion to the
| distinction between the rarefied air of mathematical
| models, and the hard reality of physical law).
|
| It's easy to chastise an ideology when you misunderstand
| some of its most basic terminology, as has been done with
| words like "god" or "spirituality."
|
| Ironically I often find it is people who are _not_ educated
| in STEM that cleave most vociferously to the point of view
| that religion and science are fundamentally irreconcilable.
| tgv wrote:
| The Catholic church has embraced science. It even accepts
| evolution and the big bang theory (as in: accepts it as a
| possibility, doesn't disavow it)
| moomin wrote:
| In general terms, whatever the subject, you can bet the
| Catholic Church has people that have thought deeply about
| it.
|
| Doesn't you have to agree with them, but it's a far cry
| from the kind of anti-intellectualism so beloved of the
| "evangelical" churches.
| moomin wrote:
| I've seen Americans in Westminster Abbey puzzled and
| faintly outraged that Charles Darwin is buried there.
| It's true that later in life he moved away from his
| faith, but did so privately and even then his main issue
| was the problem of suffering.
| spauldo wrote:
| The joke was of all the jobs a person might get after
| attaining a mathematics degree, "pope" usually isn't on
| the list.
| mongol wrote:
| An American pope!
| hnthrow90348765 wrote:
| The conclave had the opportunity to do the funniest thing
| wkat4242 wrote:
| They should have picked Trump. He wanted to be pope anyway
| and he can do far less damage there :)
| netsharc wrote:
| "I can be President and Pope at the same time! Buy some
| Tesler, it's the very best cars, and I look forward to
| welcoming you to the First Annual Papal Golf Tournament, at
| Mar-A-Lago, next month!".
|
| Heh, if Epstein was still alive he'd be jumping joyfully
| that his buddy Trump became pope...
| timeon wrote:
| According Wikipedia, this one was covering pedophile too.
| vkou wrote:
| Yes, they could have elected me, but I'll expect that they'll
| come to their senses, and have another chance to do the right
| thing a decade or two from now.
|
| Have you ever heard of the question: "Is the Pope Catholic?"
| deadbabe wrote:
| Not sure I like this.
| madduci wrote:
| I wonder if this is just merely coincidence with the shared
| picture of Trump a couple of days ago
| koolba wrote:
| I love his accent. It really feels like an American visiting
| Europe.
| elorm wrote:
| Not a catholic but I kept a tab on the process because the
| Catholic church seemed to lean towards a very conservative
| candidate and i was interested to see how it pans out. Turns out
| we have an American Pope and he wasn't even a top contender.
| Symbiote wrote:
| He was listed among 10 leading candidates in the Guardian,
| yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/07/who-
| next-pope-...
| nickthegreek wrote:
| "Whereas Francis said, "Who am I to judge?" when asked about gay
| clerics, Cardinal Prevost has expressed less welcoming views to
| L.G.B.T.Q. people.
|
| In a 2012 address to bishops, he lamented that Western news media
| and popular culture fostered "sympathy for beliefs and practices
| that are at odds with the gospel." He cited the "homosexual
| lifestyle" and "alternative families comprised of same-sex
| partners and their adopted children.""
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/world/americas/pope-candi...
| chirau wrote:
| Is there an accessible link?
| scrlk wrote:
| https://archive.ph/KRJYg
| armchairhacker wrote:
| The quote is very similar to
| https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-franci...
| ("Summary" footnote 1), but missing the second part:
|
| > However, regarding the Vatican's 2023 document Fiducia
| Supplicans, which permits non-liturgical blessings for couples
| in irregular situations (including same-sex couples), Prevost
| emphasized the need for national bishops' conferences to have
| doctrinal authority to interpret and apply such directives in
| their local contexts, given cultural differences.
|
| So it's ambiguous.
| TZubiri wrote:
| There will probably be a time for this debate. But in general,
| this is the church line, not really surprising.
| sepositus wrote:
| Curious, do you think he's wrong that it's at odds with what
| was taught by the apostles? It's obviously unpopular, but I
| have yet to see a convincing argument (based in the teachings
| of the Bible) that promotes same-sex marriages.
|
| If I were in his position, and part of my duty is to interpret
| and lead via "the holy scriptures," then I would probably want
| to be as accurate as possible.
| breadwinner wrote:
| > _my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy
| scriptures"_
|
| Said scriptures also says that a woman can be sold to her
| rapist after he violates her. I think a more modern
| interpretation would not be a bad idea.
| sepositus wrote:
| What do you mean? There are plenty of "modern"
| interpretations. New scholarly commentaries come out almost
| every year. My point is that, among these, the prevailing
| assumption continues to be one that doesn't support same-
| sex marriages in the church.
|
| What is lacking, from my perspective, are scholarly
| interpretations that swing the discussion the other way.
| The best I've seen simply just exclude the problematic
| scriptures which really isn't within the Catholic tradition
| (inerrancy of scripture and all).
|
| contexnt: I've studied religions (and still follow the
| topic) and have a basic understanding of where things are,
| but take it with a grain of salt.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| I think the crux of the problem is that with all the
| statements the Bible makes, at a plain reading of the
| text, who are we, as mere humans to decide which parts
| should be strictly adhered to, or which parts should not,
| or which parts mean something completely different from
| the plain reading? As far as I can tell there is no
| consistent application of logic and understanding what
| parts matter and which parts do not. And depending on who
| you talk to, those parts _change_.
|
| I understand that as part of the faith, it is not our
| place to know the reason God has chosen. However, I
| believe that there are very serious concerns about the
| intentions of the people 'qualified' to interpret the
| texts. Relying on "just trust us" gets us into big
| trouble, fast.
|
| As the saying goes, the devil may quote scripture too.
| sepositus wrote:
| > As far as I can tell there is no consistent application
| of logic and understanding what parts matter and which
| parts do not
|
| I would disagree. The art of hermeneutics has been around
| for a _long_ time and has been refined over time as we
| develop new understandings about the ancient cultures
| that wrote these documents. So, yes, things do change,
| but I would argue they do not _dramatically_ change. For
| example, the message of "the gospel" has been the same
| since the founding apostles. But our understanding of
| something like Genesis 1 has changed dramatically over
| the years as our understanding of the sciences, history,
| etc. increase.
| deeg wrote:
| For much of Christian history the Bible was largely
| interpreted as being pro slavery and against interracial
| marriage. Most people now disagree with those
| interpretations. There is growing support for LGBT within
| the church. Here's one example https://thomasjayoord.com/
| index.php/blog/archives/introducin...
| pqtyw wrote:
| Not the New Testament. Christianity has the luxury
| (compared to some other religions..) of having very few
| "divinely ordained" rules. The teachings of Jesus supersede
| the stuff from the Old testament (the one with all not very
| nice things) however they are rather vague and undefined.
|
| So various churches can freely pick/discard almost whatever
| they want besides the 10 commandments while Muslims can't
| exactly just throw away the Quran or Hadith (which are much
| more specific)..
| mynameisash wrote:
| > The teachings of Jesus supersede the stuff from the Old
| testament (the one with all not very nice things) however
| they are rather vague and undefined.
|
| Except Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish the law
| but to fulfill it, and not one stroke of a letter of the
| law will pass away. So he didn't change anything about
| slavery, mistreatment of women, etc.
| pqtyw wrote:
| He also said 'Love your neighbor as yourself' and a bunch
| of similar things. Which kind of makes it complicated. I
| guess selling other people to slavery is fine as long as
| you also sell yourself (just like mistreating others).
|
| > didn't change anything about slavery, mistreatment of
| women, etc.
|
| The "fulfill" bit is rather ambiguous. AFAIK the most
| popular interpretation (certainly when it comes to
| ceremonial rules like not eating pork/shellfish/etc.) is
| that his intention was to "bring the law to its intended
| goal/purpose" rather than to maintain it in perpetuity.
| achierius wrote:
| But none of that ever applied to gentiles. Not before
| Christ, not after. Jews today do not claim that non-Jews
| are obliged to, or even ought to, perform any Mitzvot
| whatsoever -- and that's despite generally acknowledging
| that there are universal moral laws which bind all
| "children of Noah".
|
| So if the remaining Jews continue following the Old
| Covenant, but others choose to rather follow Jesus' 'New
| and Eternal Covenant', then where would this obligation
| towards Old Testament law come from?
| pqtyw wrote:
| To be fair modern Jews don't really follow the laws from
| the book of Deuteronomy (the one with rape -> marriage
| thing..) either due to other (but in a way kind of
| similar) reasons
| ImJamal wrote:
| I don't think you understand what that means. There are 3
| types of Jewish laws and only one (the moral law) still
| applies.
|
| You aren't bringing up the moral law.
| timeon wrote:
| > The teachings of Jesus supersede the stuff from the Old
| testament
|
| And teachings of Paul supersede the stuff from Jesus.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Jesus never said he was superseding a single thing. His
| entire ministry was about railing against the legalistic
| structure of the Pharisees, who were more interested in
| following "the Law" than having common sense or taking
| care of people. His ministry was about Jews, for Jews,
| and had nothing to do with gentiles at all. The grifter
| Paul is the one who opened up their cult to gentiles.
| sepositus wrote:
| "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
| Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill
| them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth
| disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
| of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until
| everything is accomplished"
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Prooftexting is not a good idea. If you think you have a
| gotcha, then you should get in line with the multitude of
| teenagers who think they've bested the Church with a verse,
| and from a bad translation at that.
|
| Think about it. It's been thousands of years. A little
| humility is called for. You're not the first or the last to
| make flippant remarks like this without understanding.
| spauldo wrote:
| That's not exactly a "gotcha." The church's official
| stance on women has changed drastically over the last
| couple millenia. It's reasonable to suggest that its
| stance on same-sex couples might eventually change as
| well.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| For some added context, Prevost is an Augustinian.
| Augustine of Hippo himself was not a biblical literalist.
| whynotminot wrote:
| My understanding is that the Catholic church does not
| actually take scripture as the sole source for church
| doctrine. "Sola Scriptura" is a thing for some -- perhaps
| even most -- Protestant denominations. But not for the
| Catholic Church.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| > "Sola Scriptura" is a thing for some Protestant
| denominations.
|
| And, infamously and comically, isn't exactly _well
| supported_ by the text itself.
| whynotminot wrote:
| Indeed. You can find yourself in some very frustrating
| loops, down to the parsing of words back to the original
| languages they were translated from, when trying to argue
| the Bible as a sole foundation for literally everything.
|
| Source: grew up in churches that tried to do just that.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Memories of using Strong's reference to do this very
| thing.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| OMG I haven't thought about Strong's Concordance in so
| long. Memory unlocked, haha.
|
| For the (fortunately) uninitiated:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance
| ImJamal wrote:
| Which leads to many Protestants saying the Bible is
| infallible, but which books belong to the Bible is not
| infallible. Which, don't tell them, means they have no
| clue if the books they think are infallible are actually
| infallible.
| sepositus wrote:
| Yes, this is accurate, they have a whole element of
| "tradition" that gets encompassed into teachings. However,
| I may be wrong, but these "traditions" mostly came out of
| areas where the Bible wasn't super clear. I suppose that's
| where the debate is, then, because it seems to be a
| minority view that the Bible doesn't have a clear
| definition of marriage.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| That is true, but doctrine does need to not _violate_
| scripture. So if the Bible prohibits something (which IMO
| it pretty clearly does prohibit gay relationships), the
| church can 't say "well actually it's ok now". If that did
| happen it would cause quite a crisis for the church, since
| it is a Catholic article of faith that God guides the
| official dogma of the church as he guided the humans who
| wrote the books in the Bible. So if the two are in
| disagreement, the whole faith kinda collapses.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The Old Testament said to not eat pork. The church today
| says it's okay. It also says not to keep the festivals of
| the pagans specifically one where you cut down a tree and
| adorn it with ornaments, yet it is now top two "holy"
| holidays
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| If you're genuinely interested in learning more (and not
| just sneering at your outgroup), then I would suggest
| reading "Hard Sayings" by Trent Horn. In that book, he
| attempts to tackle some of the more difficult (to modern
| minds) passages in the Bible and explain why things that
| may seem contradictory are not necessarily so. This is
| definitely a topic where theologians and apologists have
| thought about it and tried to come up with answers.
| sepositus wrote:
| This is usually taught within the first year of any
| seminary or religious study of Christianity. It's widely
| understood _why_ people are now permitted to eat pork. A
| good place to start is reading modern commentary on Acts
| 11:4-6 and basically all of Romans 14.
| dylan604 wrote:
| And the New New Testament could come out and say that
| same sex is not taboo and there's plenty of people in the
| world now to not be concerned about shallow gene pools.
|
| The point is that the canon of writings assembled into
| _the_ book is based on how people think at the time.
| Things change and evolve. A book canonized today would
| probably undo even more of the old testament teachings as
| archaic and no longer relevant with their version of
| Romans 14 and Acts 11:4-6. Francis 2:8-10 or from a
| series of letters sent to the people of Americas instead
| of Corinthians. These writings are just a snap shot in
| time
| sepositus wrote:
| But I don't know why we are playing hypotheticals here.
| Such a dramatic change (i.e., introducing Francis 2:8-10)
| is far outside of the bounds that have been set for
| thousands of years within the Catholic tradition. The
| original discussion was why it might be more appropriate
| for a Pope to have a view that reflect's the biblical
| understanding of marriage rather than one that fits the
| modern times. If he is leading the global church through
| interpreting scriptures and maintaining the traditions,
| such a dramatic change as introducing new teachings that
| would seemingly contradict our prior understanding of
| marriage would completely step outside the bounds of his
| office.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You keep ignoring the main point in that the canonized
| book was done so by men that selected writings that they
| felt represented the views they held. For thousands of
| years, pork was bad. Suddenly pork was good, so writings
| they felt supported that decision were included. If there
| were writings that taught otherwise, it was very
| convenient to leave them out. Look at the writings of
| Enoch as an example. It didn't toe the line, so it was
| omitted. A decision made by men.
| sepositus wrote:
| > You keep ignoring the main point in that the canonized
| book was done so by men that selected writings that they
| felt represented the views they held
|
| No, you're trying to trivialize changing the canon of the
| Bible. It's a pointless argument if you're not going to
| adopt the understanding of the Catholic tradition and
| then argue within it as the subject of this conversation
| is the Pope.
|
| I was under the impression we were arguing why it's
| important for the Pope to have an accurate view of the
| Bible. Instead it seems like you're just wanting to say
| that it's all man-made anyways so might as well change it
| which is a completely foreign thought process to a
| genuine Catholic.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Christians can't agree on pretty much anything in the Bible,
| which is why there are thousands of different sects, and a
| Wikipedia entry for "schisms in Christianity" that is dozens
| of entries long.
| sepositus wrote:
| I don't think that's a fair statement. For example, a large
| majority of denominations (I'd say >80%) agree on something
| like the Apostle's Creed [1]. But yes, for less core
| doctrines, there are sometimes dozens of flavors.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| It's important to realize that while the pope's main role is
| to guard revelation from corruption and manipulation, the
| teachings on same-sex attraction and the gay lifestyle do not
| require revelation. They rely solely on the natural law.
| Ethics rooted in unaided reason suffices.
| FeteCommuniste wrote:
| Oddly enough practically the only philosophers who buy
| "natural law" arguments against homosexuality are
| Christian.
|
| Makes my motivated reasoning detector go off.
| moomin wrote:
| Gay penguins are massively inconvenient for "natural law"
| arguments.
| quesera wrote:
| Ah right. So "for those issues on which doctrine is silent,
| we will use my opinion".
|
| We'll call it "natural law", to suggest that it comes from
| somewhere other than some random human.
|
| Got it.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you're basing everything on the Bible, then you must
| understand that the Bible was canonized by men in a way that
| fit their beliefs. Even the beloved 10 commandments are
| different for Catholics than from the Old Testament. After
| getting to an age to understand this, the holiness of the
| scripture just lost its bling for me.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > Even the beloved 10 commandments are different for
| Catholics than from the Old Testament.
|
| What differences are you referring to specifically?
| dylan604 wrote:
| The catholic version makes no mention about idols. It
| then splits covet into 2 separate commandments; one about
| neighbor's wife, the second about neighbor's things.
| There are many websites with much more details easily
| found with a simple search comparing differences of the
| catholic ten commandments
| josephcsible wrote:
| https://bible.usccb.org/bible/exodus/20 verse 4 says "You
| shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of
| anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in
| the waters beneath the earth". And yes, different
| denominations number the commandments differently, but
| with the exception of Samaritanism, all Abrahamic faiths
| agree on what the whole of them are.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > I have yet to see a convincing argument (based in the
| teachings of the Bible) that promotes same-sex marriages.
|
| Here you are.
|
| https://whosoever.org/letter-to-louise/
| aeneasmackenzie wrote:
| This document plays at least two shell games, declaring
| that "homosexuality" as its own concept is recent (within
| 200 years) but then smoothly omitting this when discussing
| scripture, instead of analyzing scripture _and then_
| inserting the modern concept. No wonder it doesn't find any
| condemnation of a concept it excluded from consideration!
|
| It then does a similar trick where the authors of the New
| Testament are acknowledged to have poor Greek in many cases
| but then using specific word choice to claim they meant an
| extremely forced reading, relying on the previous trick a
| bit too.
|
| There's even a discussion of how nitpicking word choice is
| bad practice earlier in the same document!
| gopher_space wrote:
| > Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's,
| and unto God the things that are God's.
|
| Christianity has been comfortable with fairly sophisticated
| realpolitik since day zero.
| ComposedPattern wrote:
| It would be hard to argue that the bible actively _promotes_
| same-sex marriage, but I think you could reasonably argue
| that it says nothing on the subject and so leaves it for the
| church /community to decide.
|
| There are places where the bible gives guidance for
| heterosexual marriages, but that doesn't necessarily mean
| that all other marriages are prohibited. Most people are
| heterosexual, so it makes sense that the bible would talk
| about marriage in a heterosexual context.
|
| There are also several verses that condemn gay sex, but I
| think you could make the case that it's not talking about the
| types of loving, committed gay relationships that we have in
| mind today. And also, even if gay sex is forbidden, you could
| still hold that gay couples are allowed to get married and
| adopt children, but that they should remain celibate. That's
| rough, but Christians commonly hold that heterosexuals aren't
| supposed to have non-procreative sex either. For comparison,
| the American Jewish Conservative movement holds that male-on-
| male anal sex is biblically prohibited, but all other aspects
| of gay relationships are permitted. And even though the
| sexual act is forbidden, it's also forbidden to invade
| someone's privacy by questioning whether they're doing it.
| sepositus wrote:
| > It would be hard to argue that the bible actively
| promotes same-sex marriage, but I think you could
| reasonably argue that it says nothing on the subject and so
| leaves it for the church/community to decide.
|
| This is where I've yet to see convincing evidence. The
| whole meta-story of the first few chapters of Genesis was
| about creation. Not just creation of the universe as we
| know it, but the pro-creation between a man and a woman in
| the sanctimony of marriage.
|
| Whether you have an overly-religious view of Genesis or not
| doesn't really change the fact that the original authors
| were clearly "sanctifying" this act of pro-creation (the
| "meme" if you want to use Dawkins' terms). Other cultures
| and tribes obviously had their own ways of sanctifying it,
| but in a large, almost universal majority of cases, it was
| always between a man and a woman.
|
| Changing the gender to same-sex more or less destroy's the
| original intention of the meme. I mean, you can do it, but
| I don't think you're walking away with the authentic
| thought that was being communicated by the authors.
|
| I'm purely speaking from an academic sense here (the art of
| understanding what someone wrote a long time ago). Sure, we
| can choose to ignore and/or change it because it's "out of
| date" but that leads back to a point I made elsewhere about
| how it's not usually within the Catholic tradition to so
| blatantly alter scripture.
| ComposedPattern wrote:
| > The whole meta-story of the first few chapters of
| Genesis was about creation. Not just creation of the
| universe as we know it, but the pro-creation between a
| man and a woman in the sanctimony of marriage
|
| I find this to be a very strange reading. I never got
| that from the creation narrative at all. Looking through
| it, I only see two places that seem to be about marriage.
| First there's Genesis 2:22-24:
|
| > 22. And God YHVH fashioned the side that had been taken
| from the man (adam) into a woman (ishah), bringing her to
| the man (adam). 23. Then the man (adam) said, "this one
| at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This
| one shall be called woman (ishah), for from a man (ish)
| was she taken." 24. Hence a man (ish) leaves his father
| and mother and clings to his wife (ishah), so that they
| become one flesh.
|
| This doesn't mention procreation at all! It seems to say
| that men and women come together because they have a
| common origin, not necessarily because it produces
| offspring. You could still say that this supports
| heterosexual marriage, but I don't see any particular
| reason to read it as prohibiting other types of marriage.
| And in fact, it seems to work fine with gay marriage -
| two men or two women are also presumably from the same
| flesh and bones as Adam and Eve.
|
| Then there's Genesis 3:16:
|
| > And to the woman [God] said, "I will greatly expand
| your hard labor--and your pregnancies; in hardship shall
| you bear children. Yet your urge shall be for your
| husband, and he shall rule over you.
|
| This says something about bearing children and about
| male-female relationships, but it doesn't really draw the
| line saying that the purpose of marriage is to produce
| children. It also presents all of this as an unfortunate
| state of affairs.
|
| I guess there's also 1:28-29:
|
| > 28. And God created man (adam) in the divine image,
| creating them in the image of God--creating them male and
| female. 29. God blessed them and God said to them, "Be
| fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and
| rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all
| the living things that creep on earth."
|
| That talks about reproduction, but it doesn't say
| anything about marriage.
|
| > I'm purely speaking from an academic sense here (the
| art of understanding what someone wrote a long time ago).
|
| Right. I think whoever wrote the creation story was
| trying to provide an explanation for why the world was
| the way it was: why the world exists, why there are seven
| days in a week, why there are men and women, why they
| have dominance over the animals, why there's suffering,
| why snakes have no legs, and so and so forth. I don't
| think they meant for the creation story to give
| instructions at all, except a moral that one should obey
| God. I don't get the impression that the author was
| trying to sanctify marriage or procreation at all. If
| they were, it seems like they would have described Adam
| and Eve's wedding, they would have spent more than one
| sentence on the birth of their first child, and they
| wouldn't have presented pregnancy as a curse.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| When did Jesus say ANYTHING about homosexuality?
| krapp wrote:
| He didn't.
|
| He did say slaves should obey their masters, however. It's
| weird that Christians have no problem opposing slavery
| despite it being unambigiously supported by the Bible, and
| verbatim by both God and Jesus, but they absolutely cannot
| budge on homosexuality.
|
| Even though the Bible only explicitly forbids sex between
| men, meaning the Church should have no stance whatsoever on
| lesbianism, yet they do. It's like they want to eat their
| cake and have it too.
| arp242 wrote:
| Jesus travelled around the land healing the sick and helping
| the poor. He didn't travel around the land with a sign saying
| "God hates fags".
|
| There are just a few (oblique) mentions of homosexuality in
| the New Testament. It clearly wasn't a main concern. Pope
| Francis' interpretation always seemed completely consistent
| with scripture. It's the extremely heavy emphasis on
| homosexuality that's inconsistent with it.
|
| Also: being gay and gay acts are two different things.
| Catholic priests are not supposed to engage in _any_ sexual
| acts, so in that sense, it doesn 't really matter if a priest
| is gay.
| harimau777 wrote:
| My argument based on the teachings of the Bible would be that
| Jesus said to judge a tree by its fruit. When I look at
| Christians who oppose LGBTQ people their fruit tends to be...
| not great. On the other hand, those who support LGBTQ people
| tend to be much more Christlike.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I think "progressiveness" isn't necessarily a good metric to
| judge an entity that believes itself to be a moral guide. It's
| very job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the
| crowd.
|
| That's not to say the teachings are right, and of course no one
| has to follow the teachings. But it'd be a bit like saying,
| dunno, dismissing a judge's verdict on the basis of it not
| reflecting popular opinion. It's not meant to reflect popular
| opinion, but be consistent with the law.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| How men of cloth treat gay people is a good litmus test for
| whether they're following the Christian tenets of love and
| forgiveness. Like, you're dealing with one of God's
| creatures, per the Christian worldview. You can't claim to
| respect God's plan and then turn around and say you know
| better when it makes you feel icky.
|
| > _job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the
| crowd_
|
| An American Catholic hating and despising gays is very much
| following their crowd.
| FeteCommuniste wrote:
| Many a preacher will tell you that their way of "loving"
| gay people is to warn them of the hellfire awaiting them if
| they don't quit doing gay stuff and repent.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Many a preacher will tell you that their way of
| "loving" gay people is to warn them of the hellfire
| awaiting them if they don't quit doing gay stuff and
| repent_
|
| I can actually accept this. They're expressing an
| opinion, nothing more. If they then proceed to ostracise
| that person, or refuse to recognise their relations,
| that's crossing into hate and pridefulness.
| svieira wrote:
| > If they then proceed to ostracise that person, that's
| crossing into hate and pridefulness.
|
| Agreed
|
| > or refuse to recognise their relations, that's crossing
| into hate and pridefulness.
|
| There I think we need a finer view. "Mx. Other" is
| important to you? Yes, absolutely, they should recognize
| that. What you do with "Mx. Other" is good? Absolutely
| not, it's harming both you _and "Mx. Other" who you
| clearly love_.
|
| See https://boldlybeloved.com/ for a beautiful example of
| how to do accompanying _right_ (in my opinion).
| FeteCommuniste wrote:
| They try _so hard_ these days to put a "loving" spin on
| things but it's always the same when you get down to it.
|
| "Sorry, gay people, your desires for sexual intimacy are
| actually just temptation from Satan / the corrupt nature
| you inherited from Adam and Eve. Now be celibate your
| whole life because you were born broken."
|
| They don't say the last bit in so many words, of course.
| svieira wrote:
| They say the same thing to those with other sinful
| desires. Why is it loving to say "I know you've desired
| to live without eyes your whole life, but you need to
| accept that God didn't give you that cross" but unloving
| to say "I know you desire to act sexually with a member
| of the same sex, but God didn't make sexual relations for
| the purpose of unity only"?
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| Is it possible to have forgiveness without contrition?
| karencarits wrote:
| I think it's also important to recognize that while the
| Catholic church has values and principles they adhere to
| and are unlikely to change because they are so deeply
| founded in tradition and scripture - for example, that
| marriage (as in the sacrament) is between a man and a woman
| - the "men of the cloth" are expected to take care of their
| ministry as caring and loving _sheperds_. But that process
| is often based on personal and individual relationships and
| they will not reach headlines in the media.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| Nobody said "progressiveness" except you. People can judge it
| on its moral grounds.
|
| If we dismiss criticism as being invalid because it happens
| to be another person's idea of "progressive," then that's
| surely the opposite of ignoring the crowd. That's using
| political labels to distract from the actual thing being
| discussed.
|
| Considering there were literal pedophiles given more grace
| than openly gay bishops, it's a disheartening to hear
| "progressive" used like such a dirty word. But I guess the
| Overton window has shifted that much.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| If there's any labelling of "dirty words", it is by you. A
| key tenet of Christianity is that homosexuality is, in
| short, bad. I don't hold that view. But also I find it
| weird to turn around and tut-tut at a Christian bishop
| because he failed to express pro-gay views. And in turn,
| waiting for the Catholic Church to change its mind is like
| saying it should bend to popular, "progressive" views.
| Quotes because, simply calling non-homophobia progressive
| is in itself reductive.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| > simply calling non-homophobia progressive is in itself
| reductive
|
| I think you need to reread the discussion. That is
| something _you wrote_ in response to someone else.
| Someone expressed they found the position immoral, and
| you said "why are we judging people based on how
| progressive they are." I am explaining why that's
| reductive.
|
| > But also I find it weird to turn around and tut-tut at
| a Christian bishop because he failed to express pro-gay
| views
|
| Saying "we don't turn away gay people" is only pro-gay in
| the way that allowing Black people to have bank loans is
| pro-black. As in, not at all. It's just not anti-gay.
|
| > A key tenet of Christianity is that homosexuality is,
| in short, bad
|
| That's a motivation for bigotry, yes. It doesn't make the
| consequences different.
|
| > And in turn, waiting for the Catholic Church to change
| its mind is like saying it should bend to popular,
| "progressive" views
|
| What is progressive today is an outburst of long-standing
| grievances, previously quelled with violence. Gay people
| were killed purely on religious demonization, and legally
| tried in court as recently as the 50's. Not framed for a
| crime because they were gay, but tried for the crime of
| _being gay._ So yes, there may be an uptick in open
| discussion on the matter as we move into a world where we
| don 't kill people for their sexual orientation,
| something we are still not out of in many parts of the
| world.
|
| Now if you refuse to accept it as a moral judgement
| because "it sounds like what those progressives would
| say," that's you using a "dirty word" to refuse engaging
| with the topic altogether.
| niam wrote:
| "Moral guides" are perhaps the _most_ worthy subjects of
| moral scrutiny.
| saguntum wrote:
| It's particularly nasty to me that he called out same-sex
| partners with adopted children. Why focus on families even if
| you are yourself homophobic?
| lostlogin wrote:
| It's a dog whistle. You do it for the same reasons anyone
| draws on hate. And it works. Look where it's got him.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| Is the Catholic Church really that homophobic? The church
| might have a general stances against gay _marriage_ , but it
| appears there is a history rife with acts of (nonconsensual)
| homosexuality.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| The Francis quote "Who am I to judge?" is misleading, as it is
| quoted out of context by the media from what was one of many
| fuzzy off-the-cuff remarks he made during his pontificate. The
| media almost certainly quoted him out of context intentionally.
| Note that Francis also said there was "too much frociaggine" in
| the seminaries.
|
| This is perhaps difficult for people to understand, but while
| the Church's pastoral approach toward people with same-sex
| attraction can change, its teachings on same-sex attraction and
| the gay lifestyle will not.
| deng wrote:
| I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this answer by Francis was
| wildly over-interpreted. He simply cited the Catechism that the
| church should be welcoming to gay people, and not marginalize
| them. However, in no way did he ever mean by this that the
| church should be accepting homosexual relationships. What he
| was saying is that the church should see this as a sin like any
| other, and that the church needs to be open to sinners that
| search for God and show them the way. There is nothing
| revolutionary about this, it's literally in the Catechism.
|
| You can read his original answer here
|
| https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/ju...
|
| He further expanded on this in his books, see for instance
|
| https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/33231/pope-francis-e...
| dauertewigkeit wrote:
| If you are a cleric, you are not supposed to be involved in any
| romantic partnership and sex outside of marriage is not
| allowed. As such it makes no difference if you are straight,
| gay or anything in between.
| ivewonyoung wrote:
| > In a 2012 address to bishops
|
| Even Obama opposed gay marriage in 2010.
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-still-opposes-same-sex-ma...
| helloworld wrote:
| President Barack Obama didn't support same-sex marriage until
| May 9, 2012, three days after Vice President Joe Biden
| announced his support for it.
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-
| ou...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/us/politics/biden-
| express...
| wkat4242 wrote:
| > "Whereas Francis said, "Who am I to judge?" when asked about
| gay clerics,
|
| He also called abortion doctors assassins and described
| genderideology as "the ugliest danger of our time" (or the
| 'greatest danger' according to some other sources). He wasn't
| really all that progressive.
|
| Sources:
|
| https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-03/pope-francis...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/10/pope-francis-c...
|
| Of course he was a pope. It's in line with his church's
| doctrine. But I wouldn't call him progressive by any means.
| peterhadlaw wrote:
| Idk killing 73 million people actually doesn't make you a
| hero in my book. 73 million souls, approximately a year.
| Eavolution wrote:
| I know nothing about him recently or have any interest in
| Catholicism really, but 2012 is a long old time ago. 13 years
| is more than enough time for someone to have changed their
| opinion on something like this, so I'm not sure how valuable it
| is to look at statements that long ago.
| asdf6969 wrote:
| > In a 2012 address
|
| Almost every American public figure was anti-LGBT in 2012. The
| majority of the Democratic Party including the Obama, Clinton,
| and Biden families were against it. It sounds ridiculous now
| but Donald Trump was the most LGBT friendly president in
| history at the time of his first inauguration.
|
| Wait to see what he does now or find a more recent position.
| _bin_ wrote:
| American pope! So happy to hear this. Congratulations to Leo XIV!
| chirau wrote:
| I am sure a certain somebody is going to claim credit for
| bringing the papacy home to America to make it great.
| belter wrote:
| The tariffs will stay!
|
| https://religionnews.com/2025/04/07/president-trump-imposes-...
| pqtyw wrote:
| I can't comprehend this. Surely it must be some Onion style
| article:
|
| "Why should we import indulgences from the Vatican when we
| have domestic producers like Paula White who offer products
| that are much better," said a White House spokesperson.
| RandomBacon wrote:
| From the link:
|
| > this column is satire
| jm4 wrote:
| It's only a matter of time before that same person gets called
| out by the new pope and responds by calling him a loser. If
| we're lucky, that will be the catalyst that finally erodes any
| remaining support he has.
| doomroot13 wrote:
| Don't hold your breath. My whole family are staunch Catholics
| and disliked Francis because of his more "liberal" leanings.
| Some Catholics believed he was the "anti-christ" and loved
| Trump. Seriously.
| sirbutters wrote:
| Exactly. The day orange loser posted his picture as the
| pope, you just had to read what catholics were saying in
| r/conservative. It was a mostly along the lines of "I don't
| think it was very wise to do that, but I'll never stop
| supporting him".
| senderista wrote:
| I bet they'd say the same thing if Trump memed himself
| being crucified or something.
| sirbutters wrote:
| The beautiful irony is if he started to embrace the true
| teaching of Christ (love one another, forgive your
| enemies, help the poor etc), they would start to renounce
| him.
| quesera wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you cease to be a Catholic when you call
| the Pope the anti-Christ. Infallible, God's representative
| on Earth, etc.
|
| Though in USAmerica, we're pretty flexible on the meaning
| of "Christian" anyway. Certainly the loudest proclaimers
| have no resemblance whatsoever to the expected meaning.
|
| Those troublesome CINOs.. Gosh Darn them to Heck.
| jowea wrote:
| I think Sedevacantists and similar do consider themselves
| Catholic, although I don't think they usually believe the
| main Pope is the anti-Christ
| bombcar wrote:
| The popes have long ruled that once a Catholic, you're
| stuck as a Catholic, though they may dispense from some
| requirements, sometimes.
|
| So even the Pope would say that you don't cease to be a
| Catholic if you call him an anti-Christ. Maybe
| excommunicated, but to be excommunicated you have to be
| Catholic.
| quesera wrote:
| It strikes me as fairly irrelevant what Catholics call
| ex-Catholics.
|
| I don't think you can (edit: reasonably) call yourself a
| Catholic if you do not adhere to certain tenets of the
| Catholic Church.
|
| (This is where I was going with the calls-themselves-
| Christian-but-aintnosuchthing comment, but it's less
| clear on re-read...)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It strikes me as fairly irrelevant what Catholics call
| ex-Catholics.
|
| > I don't think you can call yourself a Catholic if you
| do not adhere to certain tenets of the Catholic Church.
|
| If John calls himself a Catholic, and the Catholic Church
| up to the Pope calls him a Catholic, you are pretty silly
| saying he is not a Catholic because he doesn't agree with
| the heirarchy on things on your personal priority list
| for what makes someone a Catholic.
| quesera wrote:
| Do you call yourself a Googler after you quit?
|
| You, and they, can use whatever labels serve your, or
| their, purpose.
|
| But at some point it doesn't make much sense, or have
| much meaning, to do so.
|
| I'm a Catholic.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I'm a Catholic
|
| Does it make sense to call yourself that if you fail to
| hold to beliefs of the Catholic Church on central issues
| like "Who is a Catholic"?
|
| I mean, if we are accepting _your_ argument that neither
| your belief that you are Catholic nor the Church's beloef
| that you are Catholic matters and you are not Catholic
| despite both of those if you disagree on important
| matters with the teachings of the Church, what is the
| natural conclusion?
| quesera wrote:
| You are making my point.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Er, no, I am showing that your two claims conflict. That
| doesn't support either of them.
| quesera wrote:
| If one can disbelieve the Primacy of the Pope, and
| instead that the Pretender wearing the Pope's garments is
| in fact the anti-Christ, and still believe they are an
| adherent of Catholicism, then they have asserted a Schism
| in the Church and that other Catholics are Apostate. You
| may choose to continue to use the label "Catholic", for
| convenience or perhaps because you think you are the One
| True Catholic, but the word no longer has meaning.
|
| For a Church to place a permanent label on a person who
| holds Apostate beliefs is simple paternalism. A self-
| declared Atheist is not a Catholic, no matter what any
| dude with a pallium or a ferula might have to say about
| it.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Is there like a hotline to report comments like theirs?
| Seems like the Catholic church would want to crack down on
| the bullshit.
| Boogie_Man wrote:
| The prevailing wisdom has been proven wrong on this occasion. He
| is very much a continuation of Francis's school of thought in
| spite of the "fat Pope thin Pope" wisdom, and he is an American
| who has been elected Pope, which was almost unthinkable because
| of America's economic, political, and mass media domination of
| the western world. Very unexpected
| dylan604 wrote:
| > The prevailing wisdom
|
| I'm so sick of prevailing wisdom with people just making shit
| up just to fill time on 24/7 news coverage and people can have
| their talking head shows with diverse "views".
| bombcar wrote:
| This is basically 99% of it, based on two or three datapoints
| until suddenly it doesn't matter anymore.
|
| See: "Can't select an American pope until America is not
| powerful anymore."
| throw310822 wrote:
| If he's on the same positions as Pope Francis but he's
| American, then this is a great move by the Catholic Church.
| Many Americans will naturally root for "their" Pope, and this
| will lead them away from the positions of Trump and the
| Evangelicals.
| MegaDeKay wrote:
| Seems that the new pope has strongly criticized Trump and
| Vance in the past. This is going to get interesting...
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-
| pope-r...
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| I mean Trump's own VP has strongly criticized him in the
| past, it's the herpes of political positions.
| thrance wrote:
| I doubt so, Christian Republicans conveniently ignore the
| parts of the Bible that directly contradict their ideology.
| How else could J.D. Vance consider himself a Catholic when
| his actions so directly go against the teachings of Christ?
|
| More generally, I think religion doesn't really inform your
| political views. It can certainly reinforce them post-hoc,
| but it certainly isn't the basis of one's morality.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Well then, if organised religion has no sway on people's
| beliefs and actions, we can as well close the whole show
| and send home all those priests, bishops and cardinals,
| imams and mullahs, rabbis and brahmins, etc. etc.
|
| The Pope, like most leaders, is not someone who has
| absolute power on what others should think and do; but is
| someone who can exercise a force of attraction in a
| specific direction. And he is very likely to have a
| stronger ability to attract and influence Americans because
| of his origins.
| matteotom wrote:
| This (continuing Francis' school of thought) should be rather
| predictable - Pope Francis appointed the majority of voting
| cardinals, so it's not a stretch to think this is generally his
| intended outcome.
| collinmanderson wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_XIV
| HughParry wrote:
| Posted on the other thread as I thought it was pretty
| interesting:
|
| >Roughly 0.5% odds on him on polymarket before he was announced
| alexchamberlain wrote:
| I don't understand what people were basing that on; the
| conclave is a completely secret process?
| RandomBacon wrote:
| The winning lottery numbers are a secret too before they're
| drawn; people just like to gamble.
| gkoberger wrote:
| EDIT: I was wrong, he was quite down the list! He only appears
| in the chart because he ultimately won, so higher contenders
| dropped off.
|
| --
|
| He seemed to hover around 1%, which was the second highest
| behind Tagle (~20%)
|
| https://polymarket.com/event/who-will-be-the-next-pope?tid=1...
| fasthands9 wrote:
| That link isn't showing most of the options. I believe there
| were at least 10 above him. Just individually look at the
| lines for Zuppi, Pizzaballa, Sarah, etc.
| martinclayton wrote:
| What happens if Charlie Stross meets the Pope?
| Muromec wrote:
| Another conclave obviously
| lihaciudaniel wrote:
| Anyone interested in st. malachi prophecy of popes, one should go
| on google books to find it and read it.
|
| In essence, it foretold last pope was francis, as peter the
| roman....
| nathell wrote:
| From [0]:
|
| > Rev. Robert Prevost bears responsibility for allowing former
| Providence Catholic H.S. President and priest Richard McGrath to
| stay at the high school amidst sex abuse allegations that dated
| back to the 1990s.
|
| > That's according to Eduardo Lopez de Casas, a clergy abuse
| survivor and national vice president of the Chicago-based
| Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
|
| [0]: https://willcountygazette.com/stories/671124585-if-he-saw-
| an...
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Yes, but find a catholic priest who doesn't share that
| responsibility.
| Boogie_Man wrote:
| There are several important American bishops who have made
| serious strides to protect children. This is an ignorant
| statement.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| I'm just looking at this out of statistical curiosity: of
| these bishops you mention, were they in a position in the
| hierarchy that would be subject to this responsibility
| during the 80s or 90s? They always select popes that have
| been high up in the hierarchy for a while. Not that they
| have to select cardinals, but it takes that much to be a
| cardinal no less.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| It's not, really; the Catholic Church (among most other
| religious orders) routinely prioritises self-preservation
| over the safety of children.
|
| If we were to use "was in proximity to allegations of child
| abuse and didn't act on it" as a barometer for who was
| permitted to ascent to the papacy, we'd have a pretty small
| pool to choose from.
| Boogie_Man wrote:
| Your statement which I responded to was "find a catholic
| priest who doesn't share that responsibility". If you
| pick a random one, odds are they don't.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| That's probably a sufficient enough pool though.
| luckydata wrote:
| every human organization will do that
| Henchman21 wrote:
| One or two remaining good apples doesn't mean the barrel
| isn't rotting.
|
| A religion that sets up clergy to provide guidance on
| family matters while simultaneously barring said clergy
| from _having or knowing about family first hand_ is
| monumentally silly. I'll try not to denigrate, but c'mon...
|
| The current zeitgeist is that Catholic priests _are
| pedophiles_. This is a widely held belief _because it is so
| frequently true_.
| Boogie_Man wrote:
| I am not Catholic and priests should be permitted to
| marry.
|
| The zeitgeist is inaccurate. Sexual abuse and subsequent
| cover ups were a massive problem that has largely been
| addressed, but the numbers of offenders are
| proportionally lower than those in public schools. From
| wikipedia:
|
| "Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft, the
| author of a 2002 report on sexual offenses in schools,
| said sexual violence is much more prevalent in schools
| than in the Church.[315] Ernie Allen, former president of
| the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children,
| stated: "we don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of
| this [sexual abuse and pedophilia] or as a place that has
| a bigger problem [with this issue] than anyone
| else."[316]"
| ImJamal wrote:
| > I am not Catholic and priests should be permitted to
| marry
|
| Doesn't seem likely since none of the Churches that
| existed prior to the Protestant Reformation allow it.
|
| All of the ancient churches, including the Catholic
| Church, do allow men who are already married to become
| priests. The rules are more strict for Catholics than the
| others.
| pqtyw wrote:
| > All of the ancient churches, including the Catholic
| Church, do allow men who are already married to become
| priests.
|
| Certainly not in general. You either have to be Eastern
| or Greek Catholic, Anglican/Episcopal convert etc.
| Overwhelming majority don't have that option.
| Loughla wrote:
| Wait what am I missing? Catholic priests who were married
| before becoming priests is a thing.
|
| Our local priest is married with kids and grandkids.
| betterThanTexas wrote:
| I believe you're still expected to be celibate once
| taking your vows.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| No, married priests are not expected to be celibate (a
| term that in Catholic contexts specifically means
| "unmarried") after taking their vows, they remain
| married.
|
| Nor are they expected to refrain from sex within
| marriage, which may be what you mean.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Wait what am I missing? Catholic priests who were
| married before becoming priests is a thing.
|
| Since, IIRC, the 1200s (may be off by a couple
| centuries), there has been a practice (not a doctrine)
| prohibiting ordination of married men in the Latin Rite
| of the Catholic Church.
|
| Because this is a prohibition but not a doctrinal
| invalidity, it does not invalidate otherwise-valid
| ordinations (i.e., by Bishops holding valid apostolic
| succession), and the prohibition was never applied to the
| Eastern Churches that were at the time (Inthink the
| Maronite Church was) or later came into union with Rome.
| There is also now a special exception allowing (with
| individual permission, not automatically) married
| Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and are
| otherwise eligible for ordination as Catholic priests to
| be ordained in the Latin Rite despite being married. So
| it is possible to encounter married priests in the Latin
| Rite (Western) Catholic Church, but the door is not
| generally open to married men becoming priests.
| Boogie_Man wrote:
| This is an overgeneralization. By the fourth century it
| became standard to forbid marriage because was believed
| that previously permitted marriage was only for
| individuals who remained celibate within the marriage.
|
| I find this to be unlikely.
|
| This position also ignores the East, as we tend to do,
| although I will admit they understood themselves to be
| changing convention when permitting it.
| betterThanTexas wrote:
| > By the fourth century it became standard to forbid
| marriage because was believed that previously permitted
| marriage was only for individuals who remained celibate
| within the marriage.
|
| On the other hand, de-facto marriages (say, a live-in
| servant woman the priest treated like a wife, including
| having sex with her) were overlooked by the catholic
| church on continental Europe well into the high middle
| ages.
| arp242 wrote:
| > The current zeitgeist is that Catholic priests are
| pedophiles. This is a widely held belief because it is so
| frequently true.
|
| Just not true; the rate isn't really higher than what you
| see at football clubs, scout clubs, etc. What made it so
| bad in the catholic church are the cover-ups. Lots can be
| said about that. It was really bad. But the notion that
| many (or all) Catholic priets are pedos is complete
| bollocks.
| hajile wrote:
| The Bible agrees with your musing as it says bishops are
| to be be married with kids. Peter (who the Catholics
| claim as the first Pope) was married as the Bible says
| Jesus healed his mother-in-law.
|
| 1 Timothy 3:1-7
|
| [1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of
| a bishop, he desireth a good work.
|
| [2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one
| wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to
| hospitality, apt to teach;
|
| [3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy
| lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
|
| [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his
| children in subjection with all gravity;
|
| [5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how
| shall he take care of the church of God?)
|
| [6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall
| into the condemnation of the devil.
|
| [7] Moreover he must have a good report of them which are
| without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the
| devil.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I would suggest you read the original Greek if you want
| to hang your textual arguments on specific words, and
| then also realize that the Latin translation which is
| canonical for Catholics is also a translation. A lot is
| lost in both directions.
| kergonath wrote:
| Looking for the original words in the bible is a fool's
| errand. It was written in many languages by many people
| over many centuries. Every bit of the bible was
| translated.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Not most of the New Testament. The Old Testament is a
| different story.
| hajile wrote:
| That's an appeal to ignorance. You can look up the Greek
| yourself (I'll link a basic translation below). There's
| just not much room to mistranslate "one wife", or
| "husband".
|
| The official Catholic translation agrees with KJV as does
| Thomas Aquinas in his commentary. In fact, I don't know
| that there's ANY disagreement about this translation
| anywhere.
|
| The clear issue is that the Catholic Church believes (and
| states) that their ecclesiastical authority supersedes
| even the Bible on not only this minor topic, but more
| important ones too.
|
| https://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-2.htm
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| "Episkopos" literally translates to "overseer" ("epi" =
| "on/over"; "skopo" = "watch/behold/contemplate").
| "Guardian" is also in LSJ, as is the translation you give
| of "bishop." It's likely this is the unambiguous word for
| "bishop" in this text, which is pretty funny.
| hajile wrote:
| https://www.etymonline.com/word/bishop
|
| > Late Latin episcopus in Spanish became obispo, in
| Italian vescovo, in Welsh esgob. The Germanic forms
| include Old Saxon biscop, Old High German biscof.
|
| Episkopos literally changed over time into the English
| transliteration of Bishop.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| You are misusing transliteration _and_ , more
| importantly, making the error of assuming that because
| something is the etymological root of a term that it can
| have had no other meaning when it was written than that
| term for which it is the root.
|
| Yes. _Episkopos_ is where we get "bishop " and
| _presbuteros_ is where we get "priest", but their use for
| distinct positions in the heirarchy of orders are newer
| than the NT itself, in which they are used more loosely
| and apparently, at least in some cases interchangeably.
|
| Confusing knowing etymology (either forward or backward)
| for knowing meaning in context is a common, but
| potentially very serious, error.
| ImJamal wrote:
| You are clearly taking it out of context (not your fault,
| translations and commentaries are often bad) because Paul
| wasn't married and had no kids.
| hajile wrote:
| I'm clearly quoting a large section of the chapter and
| quoted the entire part before it starts discussing
| deacons. Paul was an evangelist who preached, converted,
| then moved on. He wasn't really a bishop. He also wrote 1
| Timothy.
|
| You can look it up in the original Greek, but translation
| is extremely clear with the approved Catholic
| translations saying the same thing.
|
| Thomas Aquinas in his Latin (and in the English
| translation of his writings) agrees with the translation
| and also agrees that priests fall under the Bishop, but
| then seems to completely ignore the obvious
| contradiction.
|
| Finally, mandatory celibacy wasn't mandatory until the
| second Lateran Council in 1139 with the admittance that
| it was ecclesiastical rather than dogma (with the ruling
| clearly going against the New Testament).
| cycomanic wrote:
| Yes imagine this amount of abuse and cover ups would be
| exposed to have happened in mosques. I am 100% we'd be
| seeing a huge outrage politicians shouting for
| institutions to be prohibited, police raids and plenty of
| arrests... While for the Catholic Church nobody even
| questioned that they just "investigate" internally
| instead of reporting everything to the authorities. Why
| did none of those higher ups who helped cover up the
| abuse get arrested as an associate to a crime?
| BirAdam wrote:
| Pedophiles go where children are: schools, churches,
| mosques, temples, sports clubs, dojos, etc.
|
| The issue with the Catholic Church is that it is the
| largest church on the planet and therefore is in the news
| more often. People, however, are pretty much the same
| wherever you put them. Most are good, some suck.
| pqtyw wrote:
| > This is a widely held belief because it is so
| frequently true.
|
| How frequently? The issue is them covering up those
| crimes and protecting the perpetrators. It's like saying
| that BBC is run by podophiles (when it was "just" aiding
| and abetting them).
| CalChris wrote:
| The operative word was _amidst_.
| BJones12 wrote:
| Seeing as he's now head of a religion that believes none of us
| is perfect (Romans 3:23) it's unsurprising to think someone may
| allege that he is not perfect.
| eldaisfish wrote:
| bad faith response.
|
| No one, from any religion, should directly or indirectly
| support crimes against minors. If people really cared about
| kids, we would protect them from sexual abuse from priests
| and prosecute priests via the legal system.
| BJones12 wrote:
| > If people really cared about kids, we would... prosecute
| priests via the legal system.
|
| Prevost has literally said to alleged victims that they
| should go to the police.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| So he "literally" said he won't do anything about it
| until children can muster the courage and resources to
| prove in court they were abused.
|
| This is "why didn't she go to the police" for children.
| The police are not to be trusted, certainly not to
| against the Catholic Church.
| anon291 wrote:
| Then who should investigate? The church cannot do
| anything to anyone they investigate other than 'order'
| them to remain in a monastery (which, they can leave at
| anytime since this is a free country and church rules are
| not law).
| dttze wrote:
| They could just out these pedophiles and remove them from
| positions in the church, but they rather hide their
| crimes and shield them.
|
| They did absolutely nothing until it became too hard to
| ignore reality and now they are dealing with that.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| Please do not be naive. This was not a stray accusation
| from an opportunistic adult, This was multiple
| accusations to the same people from children.
|
| I would think the bare minimum is when multiple children
| tell you they are being molested by the same person, you
| tell that person they are fired if they are seen near a
| school, and you interview other children at the school.
| Or you go to the police yourself and ask them to
| investigate. You know, common sense things. You don't,
| for instance, do this.
|
| > "As the Archdiocese of Chicago had already placed
| restrictions on Ray being in the company of minors for
| nine years prior to his residence at St. John Stone
| Priory and communicated these when seeking approval from
| the Provincial, Robert Prevost, Cardinal Prevost was
| aware of the danger that Ray posed to minors when he gave
| approval," the letter says. "Nonetheless, Ray was
| permitted to live at the Priory in the vicinity of an
| elementary school without informing the administration of
| the school. By doing so, Cardinal Prevost endangered the
| safety of the children attending St. Thomas the Apostle."
|
| I would invite you to apply skepticism to the adults who
| famously covered all of this up, and not to catholic
| children.
| lucianbr wrote:
| I believe the church can also do these two things: if a
| person is a priest, remove their priesthood, and if
| civilian, excomunicate them.
|
| Not to mention saying things like "we disapprove of this
| behavior".
|
| Overall, I think your claim that the church cannot do
| anything except the one thing you named is obviously
| false. There are in fact many things the church can do.
| Otherwise nobody would give a damn who is Pope. Just a
| guy who can not do anything.
| bluGill wrote:
| the law is better equiped to investigate and unbiased.
| Thus better let the law figure it out. People have been
| falsely accused of crimes, so you dare not do much until
| a poper investigation is complete. Once the investigation
| is complete you now have better understanding of the
| truth.
|
| Also christianity has always preached foregiveness. They
| often shouldn't do anything about past sins without being
| hypocrytical. If the law takes over they don't need to
| figure this out.
| Capricorn2481 wrote:
| > the law is better equiped to investigate and unbiased
|
| It's the bias of the Church and the unwillingness to
| involve the law that people are criticizing.
|
| Also "The law is unbiased" is a new one. They are as
| unbiased as you and I.
|
| Very disgusting that, to this day, this cover-up is
| defended.
| anon291 wrote:
| > if a person is a priest, remove their priesthood, and
| if civilian, excomunicate them.
|
| This is a fundamental misunderstanding of catholic
| doctrine. One cannot have their priesthood 'removed'.
| However, they can be banned from the public performance
| of it, which is usually the punishment doled out.
|
| As for excommunication... excommunication is removeable
| via confession, which is freely given.
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| Here's a somewhat different description of the situation, which
| I found useful:
|
| "[A] priest convicted of sexual abuse of minors was allowed to
| stay at an Augustinian priory near an elementary school and
| continue functions as a priest until later removed, and then
| laicized in 2012. However, Prevost is said to have never
| authorized that particular situation, the priest was not an
| Augustinian, and it took place before the Dallas Charter."
|
| https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-franci...
|
| Edit:
|
| There is also this discussion of an incident in Peru:
|
| "More recently, questions were raised about Prevost's knowledge
| and handling of abuse allegations in his former Diocese of
| Chiclayo. Two priests were accused of molesting three young
| girls, with the allegations surfacing in April 2022 during
| Prevost's tenure as bishop. The case has been a source of
| frustration for local Catholics due to its slow progress and
| unclear resolution.
|
| "Some accusers have claimed Prevost failed to properly
| investigate the allegations and covered up for the accused
| priest, but the diocese has firmly denied this, stating that
| Prevost followed proper procedures. They stated that Prevost
| personally received and attended to the victims, and reportedly
| opened an initial canonical investigation. He also encouraged
| the victims to take the case to the civil authorities. In July
| 2022, Prevost sent the results of the investigation to the
| Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) for review. His
| supporters stress that he has documents from the DDF and the
| Papal Nunciature in Peru which also indicate that he was not
| only attentive to the presumed victims, but that he did all
| required in Church law in following procedures set out for
| these cases.4
|
| "However, in May 2025 allegations emerged that the diocese paid
| $150,000 to the three girls to silence them. Described as
| "longtime public critics of Prevost," the girls reportedly
| blame Prevost for covering up their sexual abuse by the priest.
|
| "The allegations, reported in InfoVaticana, described the
| Peruvian scandal, which was the subject of a national
| television report including an interview with the girls last
| fall, as the "stone in the shoe for Cardinal Prevost."
| rollinDyno wrote:
| It's worth mentioning that defenders of Prevost in Peru are
| saying that those allegations were manufactured by his
| political enemies. Prevost was active in the fight against
| the Sodalitium, a catholic society with ample accusations of
| brainwashing and sexual abuse. This society was recently
| supressed by Bergoglio.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Congrats to the Americans on winning the World Christian
| Championship!
| throwanem wrote:
| Only in the Latin Orthodox division.
| timeon wrote:
| Most Christians are Catholics.
| bregma wrote:
| Most Catholics are Christian.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| All Catholics are Christian, not all Christians are
| Catholics.
| hnal943 wrote:
| no
| zemo wrote:
| not in the US
| eesmith wrote:
| Most Christians are not Catholics, though it's close and
| recently was true.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination says
| just less than half of Christians in 2024 were Catholic
| (48.6%), down from 50.1% in 2011.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| He no doubt means the largest Christian church (though
| from a Catholic perspective, there is only the Church and
| those who are in schism, heretics, etc.).
| moomin wrote:
| I think the relationship stays with the orthodox churches
| is "It's complicated."
| cm2012 wrote:
| Catholics are a minority in the us
| TZubiri wrote:
| No, I think in the US most Christians are Protestant.
|
| I didn't qualify it as Catholic Championship because I
| thought any "World Championship" would imply a central
| authority and thus Catholicism would be implicit. But then
| again it may be organized by a Federation.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Of course, but the Protestant division had trouble organizing
| a World Championship and instead they have hundreds of
| Regionals.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Finally, a Pope who'll stand up for the 2nd amendment!
| TheAmazingRace wrote:
| I know you probably were being sarcastic but this would amuse
| me greatly if true.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Please call it by its proper name, the "Top Christ Following
| Nation of the Year Award".
| seydor wrote:
| Well the markets are up, that must mean something :) More
| importantly , the conclave did not overshadow any new AI model
| releases.
|
| Lots to learn about the Pope Leo XIV. I liked his speech
| comeonbro wrote:
| As a record of how likely people considered this outcome:
|
| Prevost was hovering around 1% on Polymarket, and was <0.5%
| between white smoke and announcement.
| andrepd wrote:
| Among the most unlikely papabile I would have preferred someone
| like Tolentino.
| oytis wrote:
| Sounds like an amazing opportunity for insider trading
| Onavo wrote:
| Isn't the max profit limited by counterparty liquidity?
| Polymarket won't pay out anything extra.
| bowsamic wrote:
| I wouldn't be shocked if that's one of the reasons why they
| sequester
| connicpu wrote:
| The sequestering goes back centuries, but it's certainly a
| reason to keep doing it beyond just removing outside
| influence once the process begins.
| b800h wrote:
| There was a horrendous problem with gambling on the
| election at one point. I believe the most recent episode of
| "Tasting History with Max Miller" covers this.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| Yes, but how much liquidity was available?
| jowea wrote:
| Well, seems that conclaves really are notoriously unpredictable
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| "people" "Polymarket"
|
| How many non-technical people are on polymarket? That seems
| like a poor sample size.
| haunter wrote:
| Is he a Cubs or White Sox fan though?
| jm4 wrote:
| Do the White Sox still have any fans?
| dannyphantom wrote:
| ...yes :(
|
| I was ~8(ish) when my parents took me to their last World
| Series. Now, I'm a fan fueled by nostalgia and a deeply
| ingrained belief that ' _THIS_ is the year they will go ALL
| the way! '
|
| One day it'll pay off
| nkrisc wrote:
| Well, he's Catholic, so I think White Sox is more likely.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| He's a far south sider. 99% chance of being a Sox fan.
|
| EDIT - apparently a Cubs guy
|
| Incidentally, the steel mill very close to where he grew up
| was idled due to the effects of Trump tariffs this week.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Well, no heuristic is perfect.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| During those years when he was a young kid, the White Sox
| were a _very_ good team.
|
| The Cubs were _awful_. But they had Ernie Banks.
| sailfast wrote:
| Many MANY many north siders are catholic as well.
| tptacek wrote:
| He's a Cubs fan, according to ABC News.
|
| (Interesting given he's a south sider).
| senderista wrote:
| I used to keep two ball caps in my car and switched when I
| crossed Madison.
| turtletontine wrote:
| The quote I heard was "You hear him described as a quiet,
| humble man. That's perhaps how he survived growing up on the
| south side while being a cubs fan"
| strictnein wrote:
| Sounds like that was incorrect:
|
| https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/05/08/pope-leo-xiv-is-a-
| cu...
|
| > But later in the day, an ABC7 reporter caught up with one
| of the pope's older brothers, John Prevost, and asked him to
| confirm the report.
|
| > He said it wasn't true.
|
| > "He's a Sox fan," John Prevost told ABC7.
| vFunct wrote:
| The whole Catholic aesthetic is amazing. Really is the tops.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| When you're under its thumb of oppression, all of the aesthetic
| takes on a very dark and sinister authoritarian tone and
| becomes symbolic of a lifetime of repression and coercion.
| Source: raised by an extremely abusive Catholic deacon.
| moralestapia wrote:
| When you're embraced by its grace, all of the aesthetic takes
| on a very bright and uplifting inspirational tone and becomes
| symbolic of a lifetime of guidance and empowerment. Source:
| raised by an extremely loving Catholic mother.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| I'm not sure if it's your intention, but telling that to
| someone who was abused, and repeating it in a mocking tone,
| might not be the sell you want to.
| nessbot wrote:
| No fan of the RC church here but I didn't hear any
| mocking. Just pointing out a counterfactual experience.
| HaZeust wrote:
| No one would have this loaded tone when counteracting
| someone's trauma in ANY subject - besides that of
| religion. It is a subject with a uniquely deep
| entrenchment of someone's fundamental life experiences
| and beliefs, and is the only subject where someone would
| have the gall to do such a thing; out of defense of, what
| they believe, is their very _essence_ as a person.
|
| There is absolutely no shot that someone would respond to
| someone sexually abused by their parents with, "On the
| other hand, I have a loving spouse that makes that same
| action a very loving and peaceful experience!" It's
| brazenly distasteful.
| khazhoux wrote:
| There was no mention of sexual abuse.
| HaZeust wrote:
| We call those "analogies", my friend.
|
| When someone shares that their time in the Church was
| marked by coercion and abuse, responding with "well, my
| experience was uplifting" can feel dismissive of their
| trauma. It's similar to hearing a survivor of sexual
| assault and replying, "my sexual experiences have all
| been wonderful." Both experiences can coexist as true,
| but leading with your positive story in that moment risks
| minimizing the other person's pain. It's distasteful, and
| is not conducive to a productive dialogue.
| pc86 wrote:
| Honestly not even sure it's meant to be a counterfactual
| experience, just more pointing out that the original
| comment isn't really germane.
|
| "The aesthetics of $THING are really very impressive
| whether you believe the underlying mythology or not."
|
| "Yeah well _I_ had a bad experience with $THING so _I_
| don 't get any joy out of it all because it's _dark_ and
| _sinister!_ "
|
| ...ok? What's the response to something like that
| supposed to be? Is this Reddit where we should fall over
| each other to apologize to someone we've never met about
| a thing that theoretically happened decades ago and also
| presumably happened to hundreds or thousands of other
| people? It just doesn't make any sense.
| bravoetch wrote:
| Religious people are quick to put aside the parts that
| don't suit them. This is a fully dialed-in example of it
| in the wild!
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Tone over the Internet is read by the reader overlaying
| their psychological convolution function on the text
| being consumed.
| bitzun wrote:
| My enjoyment of things is somewhat diminished by knowing
| that the thing engages in a vast conspiracy to commit and
| conceal abuse worldwide.
| aipatselarom wrote:
| My faith in Christ is way stronger than the influence of
| a small group of crooked and virtueless human beings.
|
| Even if 9 out of 10 of cardinals, priests and worshippers
| were crooked, my faith in Christ wouldn't move one inch
| (2.54cm); it might actually become even greater.
|
| I think there is a profound difference on how two
| different kinds of people approach religion.
|
| On one side, I've never given much care to what the
| "social opinion" of something is in order to engage with
| it or not. My choice to follow Christ is rooted on
| myself, not on what I'm told to be right or wrong.
|
| On the other, I can understand people who choose to
| associate/dissociate from specific groups/trends based on
| what they hear on the news/radio/etc... and I think
| that's completely valid as well. There was a even time in
| our past where having this trait was a desirable thing!
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| People mad you were loved downvoted you. lol
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| That's true of literally everything though. No matter the
| environment you were raised in, having abusive parents will
| cause instinctive emotional repulsion to the things they
| filled their life with.
| laughingcurve wrote:
| Very good point, and I agree completely.
|
| My source: Warhammer 40,000
| echelon wrote:
| It truly is. As is the Ancient Roman aesthetic.
|
| There's a reason why Final Fantasy, Game of Thrones, Lord of
| the Rings, and many more fantasy series lean heavily into the
| look and feel.
|
| I'm glad we have so many diverse cultures with such rich
| artistic depths and backgrounds to draw from.
| initramfs wrote:
| religions aren't an aesthetic. they're more than that.
| initramfs wrote:
| funny how one downvotes a comment whenever it sounds contrary
| to the presumed aesthetic.
| pc86 wrote:
| Commenting on votes is boring (and violates guidelines) but
| you probably got downvoted because they're talking about
| "the Catholic aesthetic" which is 100% a thing, and you
| started responding to "Catholicism is an aesthetic" which
| is a statement nobody said.
| initramfs wrote:
| I did not state Catholicism is an aesthetic. I replied to
| vFunct's comment "vFunct The whole Catholic aesthetic is
| amazing. Really is the tops." "with religion is more than
| an aesthetic." An aesthetic is using symbols and
| atmosphere, architecture, to create a beauty. A religion
| may use these objects, but also has values that do not
| depend on them.
|
| Also, another person posted: " echelon "It truly is. As
| is the Ancient Roman aesthetic. There's a reason why
| Final Fantasy, Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, and
| many more fantasy series lean heavily into the look and
| feel."
|
| So people suggesting video games and tv shows, even with
| lots of violence (particularly GoT) is an "aesthetic", is
| a lot more shallow than my basic point that religions
| aren't primarily aesthetic. Maybe you replied to the
| wrong comment.
| pc86 wrote:
| "The Catholic aesthetic" refers to the aesthetic aspects
| of Catholicism.
|
| "Religion is more than an aesthetic" is 100% true but
| nothing in the vFunct's statement suggests or implies
| anything to the contrary. So you're replying to something
| nobody said.
| griffzhowl wrote:
| It has a close rival in the Bulgarian Orthodox church, from
| which seemingly the entire metal aesthetic derives
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o81A31hlgEA
| DocTomoe wrote:
| Ah, schemamonks. If you are even a little interested in
| obscure mystical traditions, you really should look into
| this.
| cdelsolar wrote:
| yeah Catholicism is kind of cool. I'm a lapsed Catholic myself
| (haven't been to church since I was like 12, except for
| weddings) but for occasions like this I feel a little bit more
| Catholic.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| I might be atheist by now, but credit where it's due.
| Catholicism is not Evangelicism, where anything goes. Without
| a central doctrine, many American Evangelics just became...
| creepy as hell.
| nyokodo wrote:
| You're always welcome to come back.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| They've had 2000 years to perfect the show, of course they know
| how to make one.
| xhevahir wrote:
| Seems like Protestants and people in majority-Protestant
| countries are struck by the bells-and-smells but I think the
| Catholic Church isn't especially distinctive in this regard.
| Catholics favor a pretty muted look to things compared with the
| Eastern churches.
| anon291 wrote:
| No it's the opposite. The eastern churches are very thread
| bare. Catholics have icons statues and every other kind of
| art whereas the eastern church went through iconoclasm. A lot
| of the eastern stuff today is due to influence from the west.
| This is especially true of the eastern Catholics.
|
| For example, the Kerala church was so against statues and
| images that basically all the art we have from them are
| crosses. This was characteristic of the church of the east.
| The eastern Orthodox went through iconoclasms and some even
| have issues with statues still.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| It's certainly intentional. Before even museums, you local
| church probably had the highest concentration of man made
| beauty and opulence of any place you'd visit in your lifetime.
| It's a source of awe, and gives hope that if you believe, maybe
| you can get a little piece of it, if not in this life, then
| surely the next.
| anon291 wrote:
| The average European peasant was exposed to more beauty than
| a rich American.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Looks like he's a compromise candidate between the Church's
| liberals and conservatives [1]. (American and African Catholics
| are on the conservative end.)
|
| [1] https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/evidence/cardinal-
| prevo...
| afavour wrote:
| > "Cardinal George of Chicago, of happy memory, was one of my
| great mentors, and he said: 'Look, until America goes into
| political decline, there won't be an American pope.' And his
| point was, if America is kind of running the world politically,
| culturally, economically, they don't want America running the
| world religiously. So, I think there's some truth to that, that
| we're such a superpower and so dominant, they don't wanna give
| us, also, control over the church."
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-pope-could-it-be-american-c...
| bbor wrote:
| For what it's worth, I was just reading that Leo wasn't seen as
| "completely" American due to his many years in Peru -- he's
| even a citizen. Take that as you will.
| rootsudo wrote:
| For what it's worth, Peru is in South America. Still
| American, Technically.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| From reading online comments, I'm starting to believe that
| those who reside outside the US are more strident defenders
| of the idea that "US citizens only" = "American" than US
| citizens themselves.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Not in Central America. We call US citizens "Gringos"
| Unfortunately, this does carry a variable negative
| weight.
|
| Now, Latin Americans living in the US proudly call
| themselves "Americans"
|
| Edit: Albeit long, the correct gentilice for the US is
| "Estadounidenses" as in "Estados Unidos de America"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the correct gentilice for the US is "Estadounidenses"_
|
| Which nobody uses. (It's also meaningful to note that I
| would call myself an American in English but not in
| Spanish.)
| amalcon wrote:
| "Estadounidense" is also a bit odd, since there are _Los
| Estados Unidos Mexicanos_ (the formal name for Mexico). I
| don 't think it is likely to confuse very many people,
| but still odd.
| temp0826 wrote:
| If you say "Mexico" in Mexico, most people will think
| you're referring to Mexico City.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Mexico City was "Mexico DF", but was changed years ago to
| CDMX. That stands for "Ciudad de mexico"
|
| I think there are legal implications. Akin to "Washington
| District of Columbia"
|
| Decades ago, Mexicans refered to the capital as "el DF"
| But I dont know about more recently.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Really? Do people call the city just "Mexico", by itself,
| not "Ciudad de Mexico" or similar?
|
| There is a similar situation in Quebec (the province and
| its capital city are both just called "Quebec" in French,
| whereas in English we use Quebec/Quebec City). However,
| there is usually no ambiguity because French grammar
| requires the definite article for (masculine) names of
| large territories like countries and provinces, but not
| for cities. E.g. "Je vais _au_ Quebec "[1] = I'm going to
| Quebec (the province) vs. "Je vais _a_ Quebec " = I'm
| going to Quebec City.
|
| I'm not sure if there is any similar grammatical
| distinction in Spanish.
|
| 1: _au_ is a mandatory contraction for a + le
| fernandopj wrote:
| Yes, there's true to that, if only because "we" (latin
| americans) have given up to that discussion and just
| don't want to be confused with USA citizens.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think most people worldwide basically know what you
| mean when you say American, but are actually referring to
| a person from the US, via context. It is pragmatic label.
| They aren't from the US so they don't have to worry about
| some identity based thing or feeling like they are
| stealing the name from two continents, for their one
| country.
|
| On the other hand, some of more conscientious people in
| the US are feeling a little awkward about the name these
| days. So it isn't surprising that we'd be the ones
| objecting.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _some of more conscientious people in the US are
| feeling a little awkward about the name these days. So it
| isn't surprising that we'd be the ones objecting_
|
| If the folks who got us into this mess with label
| obsession move on to something less charged like USian,
| that's probably for the net good.
| dingnuts wrote:
| if the language police want to tell Americans what
| they're allowed to call themselves and expect any actual
| adoption they had better come up with a better word than
| "USian". How do you even pronounce that? Oosh-an?
|
| But also sure, telling Americans to rename things, that
| hasn't caused ANY backlash now resulting in the renaming
| of huge bodies of water to stupid things, keep up the
| cultural dictates, it's totally working!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| The whole enterprise of constantly renaming things is
| stuoid. But there are groups on the idiot left (LatinX,
| USian, xey/xem) and right (freedom fries, Gulf of
| America) who enjoy it. Between gender and race-based
| language policing and a nationality-based one, I think
| the latter is a safer place to constrain them.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think ultimately we won't be able to refer to anything
| without offending somebody, given how polarized the US
| is. Of course my side's backlash is totally reasonable,
| actually, it is an inevitable response that was caused by
| the other side trying to force some top-down change via
| the language police.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > some of more conscientious people in the US are feeling
| a little awkward about the name these days
|
| I guarantee less than 1% of Americans feel like this or
| are even thinking about the issue at all.
| kklisura wrote:
| Then Pope Francis was American as well.
| umanwizard wrote:
| "American" in English is the demonym for the US. It doesn't
| have any other meaning except in rare and unusual
| circumstances. The fact that it means something different
| in some other languages doesn't change that fact.
| tptacek wrote:
| 1955 born (chicago) 1977 seminary grad (chicago)
| 1982 ordination (->rome) 1985 canon law doctor
| (->peru) 1999 midwest augustinians (->chicago)
| 2001 global augustinians (->rome) 2015 bishop
| (->peru) 2021 dicasterate (->rome)
| fblp wrote:
| Seems like he's spent 2 years in the US since he was 27.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| At 69 that's pretty close to half of his life, and since
| it's the early half there is more weight to it as it
| forms the context from which the rest is understood.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Well, I don't know if it would be fair to compare him to
| your typical midwest American boomer who's been living in
| the suburbs since they were 27 and shows up in the middle
| of the day to protest against apartments going up in
| their neighborhood.
|
| /s
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Wait till you see how long Cardinal Pizzaballa who was
| viewed as the most likely Italian contender for the
| Papacy, has spent in the Holy Land and not Italy.
| anonymars wrote:
| > Cardinal Pizzaballa
|
| Not going to lie, I had to check that this was a real
| name (it is)
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| I think it was Aristotle who said "Give me a child until his
| mid-twenties, and I will give you a complete American."
| yieldcrv wrote:
| even as a joke of Aristotle living 2,000 years before the
| United States existed, I don't get the comedic affect
| calebkaiser wrote:
| It's a play on the popular quote "Give me a child until
| he is 7 and I will show you the man", attributed to
| Aristotle
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| Attributed to Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the
| Jesuits, although this is disputed.
| mvieira38 wrote:
| Americans will say they are Italian because their great
| grandma ate spaghetti once, but God forbid someone is
| American because he was born there
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Well, Trump is trying to prove otherwise. I guess this
| would be one of the few backfires if such an act did make
| it through.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| When the war comes, dual citizenship might become
| complicated. Certainly a pope cannot be a citizen, but
| for others.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| GP is right, he is not "completely" American in the sense
| that he is both American and Peruvian because of his dual
| citizenship. He also spent most of his life outside of the
| USA.
|
| Which I think is a great thing as the representative of a
| worldwide religion. Born in the US, an English-speaking
| country in North America, lived in Peru, a Spanish-speaking
| country in the South America, then in Italy, an Italian-
| speaking country in Europe.
| bbor wrote:
| I mean, this is supposedly the logic of the electing
| cardinals, not randos. They intentionally were avoiding an
| American pope until now, and this was (again, supposedly) a
| mitigating factor!
|
| Personally I don't believe in nationalism, so he's just a
| dude from Chicago if anything.
| brudgers wrote:
| I suspect that's going to be a political talking point
| sooner, not later.
| swat535 wrote:
| He is moderate. Even, with his speech and choice of clothing,
| somewhat confrontational with Francis.
|
| Traditional papal symbols of Benedict XVI return and that
| whole speech of "Do not be afraid to evangelize with the
| truth" gave me a sense of confrontation with the modern
| ideology.
| javiramos wrote:
| America is a continent you know
| Clubber wrote:
| Technically 2.
| raddan wrote:
| That's an interesting quote. I guess I interpret it as "America
| has gone into political decline." I'm a bit surprised to hear a
| Trump appointee say that, but given the current
| administration's actions, it's hard not to agree.
| jsnider3 wrote:
| He wasn't a Trump appointee.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_George
| senderista wrote:
| "Robert Barron, bishop of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester
| in Minnesota, was appointed less than a week ago by
| President Trump to the new White House Commission on
| Religious Liberty."
| michaelt wrote:
| Honestly it looks like we've got a HNer quoting a
| journalist quoting a bishop quoting a cardinal.
|
| The cardinal who said 'until America goes into political
| decline, there won't be an American pope' died in 2015
| (i.e. before Trump's first term)
|
| The bishop who quoted them does hold the post you mention
| - but they didn't originate the quote, they just quoted
| it.
| Calwestjobs wrote:
| Great symbol was - every cardinal standing on balconies
| with/besides him.
|
| No media covered / decoded what that gesture signifies.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| It symbolizes the unity of the Church (and the College of
| Cardinals specifically) with and supporting the new Pope;
| its not exactly opaque.
| echoangle wrote:
| Is that unusual?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| No, its a normal part of the process mentioned briefly
| (but not explained, perhaps because the symbolism is...
| really exactly what it seems on the surface) in most of
| the "what will happen with a new Pope" stories.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I guess I interpret it as "America has gone into political
| decline." I'm a bit surprised to hear a Trump appointee say
| that
|
| What do you think the premise of the motto Make America Great
| _Again_ is? The difference between Trumpists and others who
| see a decline is that the former see the 2016 and 2024
| elections as reverses in the decline, whereas other see them
| as sources or exacerbations.
| SirensOfTitan wrote:
| Anyone who sees Trump as either an aberration or a savior
| is deeply deluded on the state of America.
|
| In my opinion, the US world order's decay was unmasked in
| 2008, and it has been accelerating since. The two economic
| realities between the poor rural America and the rich
| coastal cities (and even within them there is so much clear
| wealth disparity) have only gotten worse, and the political
| and bureaucratic system isn't really capable of skillfully
| dealing with it.
|
| Trump actually speaks to the realities that few politicians
| will (Bernie Sanders did too in 2016, hence his appeal),
| though his prescribed solutions are likely just
| accelerating the country's demise.
| dmix wrote:
| Well said
| mildred593 wrote:
| There is strong suspicion that the recent popes are not what they
| say they are. In fact, there is a growing debate to know if the
| popes since Pius XII are really popes. We, Catholics, believe
| that the pope must declare the catholic doctrine, cannot change
| it since it was revealed by Jesus-Christ. This was always
| believed throughout history and was formally defined in the 1st
| council of the Vatican. But it seems with the Vatican II council
| and what happened afterwards, the recent popes did not follow
| this rule. This is clear evidence that those are false and not
| agreed by God.
|
| The fact that St Malachie prophecy does not account for this new
| pope is another clue that there is something fishy.
| krapp wrote:
| Found the sedevacantist!
| lostlogin wrote:
| I had to look up your comment.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
|
| Maybe they are a conclavist, and have elected their own pope?
| throw310822 wrote:
| You had me up until Jesus dash Christ.
| tptacek wrote:
| A week or so ago there was a thread about the Traditional Latin
| Mass (TLM) and a discussion about why it was disfavored by
| Francis. This is the kind of thing I was talking about there.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43750950
| throw123xz wrote:
| > The fact that St Malachie prophecy does not account for this
| new pope is another clue that there is something fishy.
|
| Or, hear me out, the prophecy is bs. That wouldn't fit your
| "puzzle" though.
|
| Next you're going to mention Nostradamus. Seems to be a trendy
| thing to do these days.
| asdf6969 wrote:
| Congratulations on becoming a Protestant
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| I strongly believe the American choice was a strategic decision
| made by a group of highly intelligent individuals.
| echelon wrote:
| To placate or appeal to the current American leadership?
|
| What's the desired outcome? European, NATO, or Ukrainian
| security guarantees?
| ok_dad wrote:
| From what I read, the new pope is much like Francis on human
| rights and political topics, but a bit more conservative
| about church doctrine. Perhaps it's to have a counterpoint to
| Trump in America, to show that not all American-born leaders
| are trash? Time will tell, I suppose.
| wahern wrote:
| I wouldn't presume Prevost is more doctrinally conservative
| than Francis, just because Francis wasn't as liberal as
| popularly claimed. Rather, American conservative bishops
| attempted to paint Francis as doctrinally liberal as part
| of their rhetorical strategy to attack Francis' non-
| doctrinal liberalism (e.g. on high-profile but non-
| doctrinal matters related to discipline, liturgy, etc).
| Similarly, progressive activists chose to interpret
| Francis' policies as doctrinal shifts, when they weren't.
| Though it's possible the latter phenomenon was something
| Francis was content to leave uncorrected. Francis seemed to
| embrace ambiguity in his pronouncements as a method of
| rapprochement.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Thanks, I am not that informed, I don't know why I even
| commented.
| vixen99 wrote:
| Here's an oddity: apparently Noam Chomsky doesn't fully
| agree with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmSJnuF7_zg
| SirSavary wrote:
| What relevance, in any way, does this hold to the current
| discussion?
|
| Additionally, Noam refers to Trump's statements from the
| beginning of the Ukraine war. Trump's position on the
| matter has done a total 180 since. Why would Noam
| continue to hold the same view if Trump doesn't?
| register wrote:
| To exert political pressure on the current American
| leadership by influencing the masses and achieve the
| objectives of the Catholic Church? Have you forgotten what
| happened with Wojtyla and Solidarnosc?
| progbits wrote:
| Current USA leadership is already taking actions well
| aligned with the church (such as stripping rights from
| women, homosexuals).
| lenerdenator wrote:
| On some things.
|
| On others, like social safety nets, rights for migrants
| (particularly those from Latin America where Leo XIV
| spent a lot of time), and militarism, the RCC and Trump's
| GOP are at stark odds.
| BirAdam wrote:
| While the Church is conservative in some ways people
| dislike it also advocates things like peace, ending
| capital punishment, and nondescrimination based upon
| race. In my home city, the Church was the only place that
| wasn't racist. For my entire life, the Church has been
| the only place in America with a majority that didn't
| want to bomb poor brown people all over the planet. In
| modern America, not wanting to bomb people is... umm...
| foreign to both sides of the political spectrum.
| dathinab wrote:
| > What's the desired outcome? European, NATO, or Ukrainian
| security guarantees?
|
| that would be pretty dump to try, I don't think there are any
| such goles
|
| > To placate or appeal to the current American leadership?
|
| only we speak about "appealing to them to be more human",
| "appealing to them to follow christian values", denouncing
| people which claim to represent christian values in their
| action which in fact are opposite to what the Roman Church
| things Christian values are etc.
|
| if we speak about directly influencing politics, especially
| geopolitics that seems very unlikely to be the intend, or
| doable
| axus wrote:
| They picked an American, who actually lived and worked in Peru,
| and not archbishop of New York that Trump suggested.
| jsnider3 wrote:
| If they want someone who can effectively oppose Trump, why
| would they pick someone he suggested?
| amelius wrote:
| What did any pope actually do to oppose anybody?
| srameshc wrote:
| Is it possible that this move is to reinstate Catholicism in
| the United States, given that Evangelicals appear to be gaining
| influence?
| defen wrote:
| What do you mean reinstate? The country was founded by the
| descendants of people who for the most part hated
| Catholicism.
| carefulfungi wrote:
| Yes, but... the Spanish reached present-day New Mexico
| before the English reached present-day New England.
| defen wrote:
| Sure, but the Spanish colonization had virtually no
| impact on the ethnic, political, or religious development
| of the United States other than some water and land
| rights in the Southwest.
| carefulfungi wrote:
| I suppose like so many historical discussions, it depends
| on where you draw the starting line. Personally, I find
| understanding the colonization of the Americas and the
| emergence of the United States more effectively as a
| continuum that includes the Spanish, who were the
| dominate initial "new world" colonial power for a couple
| hundred years. Not to mention, who actually funded
| Columbus ;-). I understand this isn't the popular or
| common place to draw the starting line when reading US
| history, though. (And maybe not even a good way - just a
| way that I find personally more interesting.)
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| >Sure, but the Spanish colonization had virtually no
| impact on the ethnic, political, or religious development
| of the United States other than some water and land
| rights in the Southwest.
|
| Texas, California, Florida, totally unimportant backwater
| states, right? No Latin American culture, ethnicity,
| political or religious influence to speak of.
| defen wrote:
| How much Latin American representation would you say
| there was in the US colonies and United States before
| 1950?
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Probably meant 'reinvigorate'.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Maryland was founded as one of the original colonies as a
| haven for Catholics. There have always been Catholics in
| the US, though certainly it has been a bumpy ride; there
| were questions about how accepted JFK would be as the first
| Catholic president.
| pqtyw wrote:
| > original colonies as a haven for Catholics.
|
| That didn't last thar long though. Since it was overtaken
| by Protestants who banned Catholicism (like it was banned
| in all the other colonies ) in 1689.
| dathinab wrote:
| I think Catholicism has much bigger problems in the US then
| evangelicals gaining tracking.
|
| Like people which by the Wikipedia definition of fascist
| being fascist using Catholicism as a tool to push their
| believes which are not at all compatible with the current
| world view represented by the Church in Rome.
|
| A Pope which is able to say "I denounce ... as unchristian
| and un-american" which isn't some random person in Rome but
| someone seen as an American is kinda useful if you want to
| reduce the reach of such influences.
| mightyham wrote:
| Who are you talking about?
| jowea wrote:
| Same thought could have factored in Francis' conclave for LA,
| but % of Catholics continued to fall.
| rocqua wrote:
| My national news agency (the NOS) reported that this happened
| despite his nationality, not because of. According to their
| article, the dislike of most of the world against American
| happenings made him a less likely candidate.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| I consider that as very unlikely, as he wasn't on top of the
| list of favorites. But of course we don't really know.
| ndegruchy wrote:
| So, he's Bob Pope?
|
| ...I'll see myself out.
| bgwalter wrote:
| I would have expected an Eastern European or American pope for
| obvious political reasons (think Karol Wojtyla). The political
| commentators will go wild in the next week.
| dougbrochill wrote:
| >Prevost earned his bachelor's in mathematics from Villanova
| University
|
| go birds
| mac3n wrote:
| not about this conclave, but those who find papal elections
| interesting should look up the election of the Doge (duke) of
| Venice.
|
| https://www.theballotboy.com/electing-the-doge
| imzadi wrote:
| "He is the first North American to be elected pope and, before
| the conclave, was the U.S. cardinal most mentioned as a potential
| successor of St. Peter."
|
| Is that a typo?
| przemub wrote:
| Where?
| imzadi wrote:
| Successor of St Peter?
| einhard wrote:
| They are referring to Peter the Apostle, who was the first
| bishop of Rome [0]
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
| moomin wrote:
| Yes, the "on this rock I will build my church" guy.
| resize2996 wrote:
| No.
| theelfismike wrote:
| St Peter was the first Pope; all Popes after are successors to
| him
| imzadi wrote:
| Ah, I see. Thanks.
| perihelions wrote:
| If they're constructed as ordinals, then, why do they call
| them cardinals?
| psunavy03 wrote:
| Cardinals are cardinal and Popes are ordinal. It's math.
| ang_cire wrote:
| No, St. Peter passed away several years ago.
| neilellis wrote:
| We could have had a Pope Bob, missed opportunity.
| ipince wrote:
| Pope Bobby Frank I
| VikingCoder wrote:
| Some jokes I saw on Reddit:
|
| He is to be referred to as, "Da Pope."
|
| "Ketchup to be banned in the Vatican."
|
| "He's going to replace Communion Wine with Malort."
| idontwantthis wrote:
| I hope they bring Fred Armisen in for the SNL impression.
| sauwan wrote:
| I liked calling him the "Ope Pope"
| tptacek wrote:
| I'm born and raised in Chicago and I only started hearing
| "ope" last year.
| ralfd wrote:
| Dislike Chicagoans ketchup?
| sailfast wrote:
| Yes. I think at this point it's more of a meme than a trend,
| but tbh I will not take Ketchup on my Hot Dogs / Red Hots
| just as a shibboleth signal.
|
| That said, there are exceptions (my sister is dead to me
| though...)
| codemac wrote:
| they certainly don't appreciate it on their hot dogs.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Beyond the age of 8, apparently.
| southp4w wrote:
| being from the non-Chicago part of Illinois, I love piling
| ketchup on hotdogs in Chicago just to see the looks of
| disbelief and scorn. Makes the hotdog taste that much
| better!
| tenpies wrote:
| Yes, it's very much anathema to put ketchup on a hot dog, at
| least among Chicago hot dog enthusiasts.
|
| For those unfamiliar, Chicago is also one of those American
| cities with its own style hotdog, so it's something of the
| local culture:
|
| > All-beef frankfurter, on a steamed poppy seed bun, topped
| with yellow mustard, chopped white onions, bright green sweet
| pickle relish, a dill pickle spear, tomato slices, and a dash
| of celery salt.
|
| From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_hot_dog
|
| Obviously, this is only as serious as you take hot dogs, but
| they are very good and compared to deep-dish pizza, the
| Chicago-style hot dog feels almost healthy.
| walrus01 wrote:
| Deep dish pizza, I'm not so sure is going to find many fans in
| Rome.
|
| Just put a cover on top of it and call it a calzone, I guess.
| tptacek wrote:
| He's a South Sider (Dolton) and South Side Chicago pizza is
| cracker-thin.
| tart-lemonade wrote:
| Thin-crust (or "tavern style" as some call it) has been
| widespread across the city for quite awhile.
|
| > As of 2013, according to Grubhub data and the company
| Chicago Pizza Tours, thin-crust outsells the more widely
| known deep-dish style among locals, with GrubHub stating
| that deep-dish comprises only 9% of its pizza deliveries.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_pizza#Thin-
| crust...
| tptacek wrote:
| I'm not saying we own thin-crust Chicago pizza, just that
| deep dish was not a thing on the south side when he lived
| there (it wasn't in the 80s and 90s when I grew up there
| either).
| skyyler wrote:
| Do people actually think deep dish is the only kind of pizza
| people eat in Chicago? I thought that was a meme.
| sailfast wrote:
| Daaaa Pope.
|
| Coulda been Pope Ditka.
|
| Also... Bears fan from [deepest darkest] Peru could've gone
| with Pope Paddington? (I kid because I love)
| pluc wrote:
| How appropriately disconnected from the church to elect an
| American.
| CharlesW wrote:
| How so? The U.S. is the third-largest national Catholic
| population in the world, and it's by far the single largest
| national contributor to the Church's global finances. Plus,
| anything that can bend the arc of U.S. history toward the
| Catholic missions of social justice and human rights is going
| to matter more in the next four years than it ever has.
| pluc wrote:
| It kinda has a shitty reputation right now, especially in
| Europe. This will embolden the clown in Chief and that isn't
| good for anyone.
| CharlesW wrote:
| It's possible. My take is that a Pope who's relatably "like
| them" will be more effective at reminding U.S. Catholics
| that they may need to choose between their faith and
| Trumpist idolatry.
| krapp wrote:
| > My take is that a Pope who's relatably "like them" will
| be more effective at reminding U.S. Catholics that they
| may need to choose between their faith and Trumpist
| idolatry.
|
| I mean... they clearly already have. If Trump supporting
| Catholics haven't changed their mind by now I don't think
| an American Pope is going to convince them. And unless
| we're assuming a third Trump term I don't see what the
| point would be. The damage has been done.
| luckydata wrote:
| you're wrong. This election was made EXACTLY because the
| Church feels there's a need to counterbalance the influence
| of the current american president with a strong local voice
| american catholics will pay attention to. They did the same
| when the Soviet Union was a thing by electing Carol Wojtyla
| (John Paul II)
| velcro wrote:
| You're probably talking about Peter's Pence collection
| contribution which is just pocket change (a few millions).
| Dioclesian revenue, lease income, Vatican's wealth fund
| generate billions. Lets not forget state support which the US
| doesn't have - for example if you register as a catholic in
| Germany 8-9% of your income tax goes to the church directly -
| to the tune of about 6 billion per year altogether.
| bitmasher9 wrote:
| How much real estate does the Catholic Church own in the
| US, and how much appreciation has that seen since 2020?
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _You 're probably talking about Peter's Pence collection
| contribution which is just pocket change (a few millions)._
|
| Pocket change for sure (13.6 million/28.1%, says
| https://zenit.org/2024/06/30/the-ten-countries-that-made-
| the...), but there's also U.S. congregational giving of
| ~$20 billion, and the U.S. is the source of most large
| Catholic hospital, university, and foundation endowments.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| Why was John Paul II elected? Because of politics.
|
| This could be a factor here too. To try to mend, or keep
| America in faith, according how you look at things.
|
| I'm wondering one thing - how will this affect Catholics in
| countries like Russia or China. I imagine their leadership will
| not like this at all, China especially. I know, not many of
| people there are Catholic, but still.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Unexpected. Good luck to him.
|
| A Pope and a Trump. Countries divided. Holy Roman Empire again?
| Trump would make quite acceptable Habsburg - lots of resources
| and uncanny ability to waste good potential and situations.
| seydor wrote:
| Will he be taxed on his foreign Papal salary? Or will he forego
| the salary , like Francis did?
| devrandoom wrote:
| If he is taxed, he should renounce US citizenship as he's very
| unlike to move back to the US.
| _dark_matter_ wrote:
| Very unlikely is an understatement. Francis never even
| visited his home country of Argentina after being elected as
| Pope.
| mFixman wrote:
| Francis was seen as being too close to the Kirchnerists in
| ideology and too conflicted with the Kirchnerists in
| actions when he was Archbishop. Visiting Argentina would
| have forced him to take a side and trigger a political
| crisis he probably wanted to avoid.
|
| As far as I know there's no similar conflict with the new
| Pope, and he wasn't even in America for the most important
| part of his church career.
| lormayna wrote:
| Really? I always heard that Francis was the first enemy
| of Kirtcherners
| mFixman wrote:
| Francis was the most important supporter of liberation
| theology in Argentina, which was very ideologically
| aligned with the Kirchners. He was also strongly opposed
| to almost every politician who opposed the government.
|
| Bergoglio had several conflicts with the Kirchner
| government when he was an Archbishop. Cristina didn't
| tell the position the government would take when he got
| elected Pope, but the government-aligned (but not
| government-controlled) mass media associations
| preemptively filled Buenos Aires with anti-Bergoglio
| propaganda.
|
| A week later Cristina met the Pope and announced that
| they were politically aligned, and the same mass media
| associations filled Buenos Aires with pro-Bergoglio
| propaganda.
| codethief wrote:
| Notably, in that case he might end up no longer being able to
| _enter_ the US at all:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration)
| umanwizard wrote:
| Whether they let the pope enter the US will be entirely
| based on whether the administration wants the pope to visit
| the US, not on some obscure immigration law that, according
| to the article you yourself linked, is almost never
| enforced even on normal people.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| He's a sitting head of state now. Even if he violated US
| law, he's diplomatically immune. One case of it being
| brought up in the past: https://2009-2017.state.gov/documen
| ts/organization/87327.pdf
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| It's not clear that he is diplomatically immune from US
| law if he retains his US citizenship. The source you
| linked was not a case of a US citizen pope.
|
| If the pope renounces his US citizenship for the purpose
| of having diplomatic immunity or treats his acceptance of
| the papacy as an expatriating act with intent to
| relinquish citizenship within the meaning of INA
| SS349(a)(4), he would not be inadmissible under the Reed
| Amendment: that amendment only applies when the reason
| for renouncing is to avoid taxation, and might not apply
| to relinquishment under SS349(a)(4) regardless of reason
| since it uses the verb renounce rather than relinquish.
|
| Why might the verb matter? The only parts of INA SS349
| that use the verb renounce are the ones about explicitly
| swearing or affirming an oath or affirmation of
| renunciation, not the other potentially expatriating
| acts. Relinquishment is the broader term in the statute
| which encompasses all such acts.
|
| And I say "might" only because this amendment has been so
| rarely enforced that the courts haven't had occasion to
| rule on it. Only two people have ever been denied
| admission to the US under the Reed Amendment. It was a
| very badly drafted legal provision.
| thimabi wrote:
| At least according to customary international law, a head
| of state has full sovereign immunity regardless of any
| nationalities that they might hold. By the way, the
| immunity covers not only the head of state, but also the
| head of government and the Secretary of State.
|
| If the Pope were a mere diplomat, his immunities would be
| restricted to the acts directly related to his job in any
| country of which he's a national or permanent resident.
| That's because, unlike sovereign immunity, diplomatic
| immunity is based on a Vienna Convention full of
| restrictions like that.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Even if the reed amendment were suddenly enforced for some
| reason, diplomatic visits by heads of state like the Pope
| operate under a completely different set of rules than
| normal tourists. Modi has famously been banned from
| personal visits to the US for decades, but he has visited
| the US on diplomatic business as recently as Feb.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| That would only apply if he were to renounce for the
| purpose of avoiding taxation, as opposed to for the purpose
| of having his sole allegiance be that of the city-state and
| the church over which he rules, or for the purpose of
| having diplomatic immunity during visits to the US.
| tptacek wrote:
| Apparently heads of foreign states are exempt.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| What's your source on that, at least in the case when the
| head of the foreign state also remains a US citizen?
|
| There's also the interesting question of whether he will
| remain a US citizen after all, or whether taking the office
| of pope will count as him relinquishing US citizenship under
| INA SS349(a)(4):
| https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-
| law0/L... In the latter case, the tax question would not
| arise.
|
| Existing US Department of State policy applies an
| administrative presumption to most cases of accepting foreign
| government employment that the person does not intend to
| relinquish US citizenship unless they affirmatively state
| otherwise, but they don't apply any such presumption to
| becoming a foreign head of state or a foreign head of
| government. They actively analyze such cases individually
| with no default presumption.
|
| Pope Leo XIV will lose his US citizenship due to his
| acceptance of the papacy if and only if he intended to
| relinquish US citizenship by that act, based on the standard
| of proof of the preponderance of the evidence (the same as in
| civil lawsuits). He has the right to dispute the question in
| court if he and the US Department of State disagree on the
| answer, but I imagine this would in practice be handled more
| quietly for such a high-profile case.
| BirAdam wrote:
| I put no such assumptions on this. If Trump gets angry with
| His Holiness, Trump will probably have Little Marco revoke
| the Pope's citizenship.
| anon291 wrote:
| There is no way in hell they'd revoke his American
| citizenship. American Catholics would be up in arms.
| toast0 wrote:
| That law states
|
| > A person who is a national of the United States whether
| by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by
| voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the
| intention of relinquishing United States nationality--
|
| It would seem there would need to be an intention to
| relinquish; which I don't necessarily think is tacit in
| accepting the office of Pope.
| Towaway69 wrote:
| Apparently Popes don't receive a salary, all expenses are
| covered by the church. Neither is there a retirement package
| since it's a job for life.
|
| I couldn't imagine a Pope applying for a pay raise. Or rather,
| to whom would the Pope got to get a pay raise ... hm ;)
| anon291 wrote:
| He's a religious priest which means he cannot own anything
| other than personal accoutrements. Even if he were to take
| paid employment before becoming pope, he would have to give
| it away.
| ralfd wrote:
| Is Pope Leo eligible to be voted President of the United States?
| mjirv wrote:
| sure, why not?
| 9dev wrote:
| Because he is the head of a foreign nation, and will hold
| that office till death. You cannot be head of multiple
| nations at once.
| normie3000 wrote:
| Tell that to King Charles.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > You cannot be head of multiple nations at once.
|
| Says who? Is it actually prohibited in the us constitution?
|
| The british monarch is head of state of multiple nations,
| and has been for over a century.
| 1-more wrote:
| I think the more fitting example from that island is the
| personal union whereby the monarchs of England and
| Scotland happened to be the same person, but England and
| Scotland were still separate states. This started with
| James VI and I who became king of Scotland in 1567 and
| became king of England in 1603. This state of affairs
| continued (with I guess some de facto if not de jure
| interruptions) until the creation of the Kingdom of Great
| Britain in 1707, after which time the monarch held one
| title over one state.
|
| Throughout that time and afterwards, the monarch of
| England & Scotland was often also the monarch of other
| territories too, so that "one title" is eliding a bunch
| of stuff.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| Napoleon - Emperor of France and King of Italy
|
| King George VI/Queen Elizabeth II/Charles III - Monarch
| over several British Commonwealth realms.
|
| Wilhelm II - Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia
|
| To name a few who disagree.
| svieira wrote:
| The grand title [1] of Karl Franz Josef Ludwig Hubert
| Georg Otto Maria [2], the last Emperor of Austria is over
| 120 words:
|
| His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, By the Grace of
| God Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia,
| Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria and
| Illyria; King of Jerusalem, etc.; Archduke of Austria;
| Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow; Duke of Lorraine,
| Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Bukovina; Grand
| Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia; Duke of
| Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and
| Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator, of Teschen, Friaul,
| Ragusa and Zara; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of
| Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trento and
| Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in
| Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg
| etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro and on the Windic
| March; Grand Voivode of the Voivodeship of Serbia
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_title_of_the_emper
| or_of_... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_A
| ustria#Titles,_s...
| moogly wrote:
| > and will hold that office till death
|
| Ratzinger resigned.
| fernandopj wrote:
| If you "relax" your notion of what is a "nation", even
| POTUS is at fault at this rule - USA has states (50),
| territories (5), unhabited territories (9), district (1),
| and a lot of extra-continental bases and even disputed
| territories. [0]
|
| I believe USA also claims land around any Apollo device at
| the Moon. [no source]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territ
| ories...
| madcaptenor wrote:
| If we're talking about claims to the moon, the Bishop of
| Orlando is Bishop of the Moon, because the Apollo
| missions took off from Cape Canaveral, in the Diocese of
| Orlando.
| Tomte wrote:
| Macron. France and Andorra.
| jltsiren wrote:
| That's a republican idea (with a small r), or maybe a
| nationalist one. Monarchs on the other hand had a habit of
| collecting titles. If you only had one title as the head of
| one political entity, you were obviously a very
| insignificant leader. Conquered territories often continued
| to exist as separate entities that just happened to have
| the same monarch, rather than being annexed into the
| dominant country.
| mac3n wrote:
| Otto [von] Habsburg
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Habsburg)
|
| By the Grace of God Emperor of Austria; Apostolic King of
| Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia,
| Galicia and Lodomeria; King of Jerusalem etc.; Archduke
| of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow; Duke of
| Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and
| Bukowina; Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of
| Moravia; Duke of Silesia, Modena, Parma, Piacenza,
| Guastalla, Auschwitz and Zator, Teschen, Friuli,
| Dubrovnik and Zadar; Princely Count of Habsburg and
| Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent
| and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and
| Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenburg
| etc.; Lord of Trieste, Kotor and the Windic March, Grand
| Voivod of the Voivodeship of Serbia etc.
| tedivm wrote:
| To be president you have to be a resident for the previous 14
| years, so he wouldn't be eligible unless he moved here today
| and waited 14 years. He'd be 83 at that point.
| ralfd wrote:
| Quora says:
|
| > Interestingly, the Constitution does not specify whether
| the 14 years have to be consecutive, nor is the 14 years
| must occur immediately before the person becomes president.
| Herbert Hoover, for example, lived in London from 1910 to
| 1917, and when he ran for election in 1928, he had only
| lived, on his return, to the U.S. for 11 years. This did
| not disqualify him from the presidency.
| tantalor wrote:
| Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
|
| No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And
| no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them,
| shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
| present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,
| from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
| peeters wrote:
| This doesn't seem to comment on preexisting titles if I'm
| reading it correctly?
| henryfjordan wrote:
| I'd read it as requiring the Pope to renounce his title if
| he wanted to be President of the US unless congress votes
| that it's OK.
|
| But also the emolument clause is effectively unenforceable
| and the whole "insurgent" ruling basically made it
| impossible to challenge a presidential candidate. If Trump
| wants a 3rd term, for instance, I'm not sure what mechanism
| would prevent him at this point.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| That just prevents the awarding of titles by the US, and
| prevents people _already_ holding an office of the US from
| accepting a title. It doesnt seem to me to prevent anyone
| already holding a title from being eligible for office.
| runako wrote:
| FWIW this has been read out of the Constitution. I doubt it
| would be applied in practice.
| 9dev wrote:
| Does that mean a president could be knighted, as long as it's
| a queen or princess doing the knighting?
| cj wrote:
| Quick googling on honorary knighthood:
|
| > [Honorary knighthoods] are a way for the UK to recognize
| the achievements of individuals who are not UK citizens.
| They are awarded on the advice of the UK Foreign and
| Commonwealth Office, and are conferred by the Crown.
|
| > In the US, accepting a title of nobility from a foreign
| state is prohibited without the consent of Congress.
| However, this prohibition is different from accepting an
| honorary knighthood, which is more of a recognition or
| award rather than a title of nobility.
| 90s_dev wrote:
| Why would that even be a good thing? Religion is inherently
| above politics. Politics is concerned for the temporal good of
| its subjects.
|
| Religion is concerned for the ethical and spiritual good of its
| subjects. Politics are short sighted and can never produce a
| paradise. Religion can produce a paradise in the soul of one
| even in the worst political and economic circumstances.
|
| Jesus was homeless and broke.
| neaden wrote:
| Is he the first US Citizen to be head of a foreign state or
| have their been others?
|
| Edit: Did some googling and found Toomas Hendrik Ilves was a
| naturalized US citizen who renounced his citizenship before
| becoming an Estonian ambassador and later President of Estonia.
| Not seeing any who actively held US citizenship while being
| head of state.
| jw1224 wrote:
| This is some excellent trivia. Thanks!
| thimabi wrote:
| If my memory doesn't fail, there has also been an American
| adventurer called William Walker who doubled as president of
| Nicaragua back in the 19th century
| neaden wrote:
| Just read a little about him, seems like a very weird guy
| who basically invaded Nicaragua and Bolivia on his own and
| declared himself president. It looks like he never had full
| control over the country and wasn't recognized as the valid
| president by most other nations, but he does seem to be the
| next closest.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| Boris Johnson was also born an American citizen, but
| renounced it before coming prime minister. Not technically
| head of state (the queen was), but close enough.
| sailfast wrote:
| Missed opportunity for Pope Ditka. :/
| TheBlight wrote:
| Why is this on HN?
| ragazzina wrote:
| A historical event of potential cultural significance.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| So we can have a dozen threads arguing about what the term
| "American" means.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Smart play for the Vatican to go with an American Pope to avoid
| tariffs!
|
| (Credit: https://x.com/ArmandDoma/status/1920530249567056056)
| gku wrote:
| Yes, everybody knows that Vatican is the industrial heart of
| the world
| carabiner wrote:
| I really wonder if he's converted to neapolitan pizza at this
| point.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| I just like that he was a math major.
| tptacek wrote:
| He was a substitute science teacher at St. Rita, on the South
| Side (when we were in 8th grade in Catholic school on the South
| Side, Rita is one of the high schools that came and pitched to
| us; Marist and Carmel were the two big draws for boys, McCauley
| for girls). Can you imagine how weird it would be to have a
| high school science teacher that _went on to become pope_?
| Sharlin wrote:
| > Can you imagine how weird it would be to have a high school
| science teacher that went on to become pope?
|
| Soon on Netflix: the spiritual (heh) successor to _Breaking
| Bad._
| pavlov wrote:
| In his time around the end of the 19th century, Leo XIII was
| known as the "Social Pope" and "Pope of the Workers". He wasn't a
| radical but opened the door to modern thinking in the church.
|
| Presumably there's some symbolism to why the new pope wanted to
| adopt this particular name.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Popes usually go for symbolic names, so the Leo XIII connection
| seems unavoidable.
| jowea wrote:
| I think unavoidable is the wrong word, he surely picked the
| name because of this connection.
| pc86 wrote:
| Symbolism is a huge part of what name you select which is why
| its been a minute since a Pope Innocent or Pope Pious.
| davidw wrote:
| As a YIMBY, I could go for a Pope Urban.
| fakedang wrote:
| Request understood. Here's an Urban and his massive
| ironcast cannon.
| jowea wrote:
| Pius XII is controversial because of WW2, but I don't see
| anything particularly bad with the latest popes with
| Innocent. Is it something related to his predecessors?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_XIII
| pc86 wrote:
| Yeah I was mainly referring to II and III :)
| swyx wrote:
| i looked it up because i was curious:
|
| Alright, so here's the scoop, rapid-fire style:
|
| ### *Pope Innocent*
|
| There were _13_ Popes named Innocent (yes, really), and a few
| of them made serious waves:
|
| * *Innocent III (1198-1216)*: Easily the GOAT of the
| Innocents. He: * Claimed supreme authority
| over all European monarchs (lol divine-right checkmate),
| * Launched the Fourth Crusade (the one that sacked
| *Christian* Constantinople, oops), * Convened the
| Fourth Lateran Council (massive doctrinal flex:
| transubstantiation, papal primacy, etc.).
|
| * *Innocent VIII (1484-1492)*: The most _not_ innocent. He:
| * Issued the witch-hunting bull *Summis desiderantes*,
| basically legalizing the Inquisition's nastier tactics,
| * Had *illegitimate children*--not exactly celibate--but hey,
| nepotism was in vogue.
|
| * *Innocent X (1644-1655)*: Known for looking super grumpy in
| his portrait by Velazquez, and for: *
| Condemning the Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty
| Years' War because it weakened Catholic power.
|
| ### *Pope Pius*
|
| There were _12_ Piuses (yeah, they were into repetition),
| with *Pius IX* and *Pius XII* being the most talked about:
|
| * *Pius IX (1846-1878)*: Longest reigning pope _ever_ (31
| years!). Key things: * Declared the *dogma of
| the Immaculate Conception*, * Convened Vatican I (the
| council that said the pope is infallible when speaking *ex
| cathedra*), * Lost the Papal States--literally went
| from a prince to a prisoner in the Vatican.
|
| * *Pius XII (1939-1958)*: Controversial because of WWII.
| * He's accused by some of staying silent during the
| Holocaust, * Others argue he did more behind the scenes
| and saved many Jews secretly. * Canonization is still a
| hot topic for him.
| bombcar wrote:
| > There were 12 Piuses
|
| http://www.popepiusclock.com is a thing
| paulvnickerson wrote:
| Pope Leo 13 wrote this encyclical:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum
|
| My guess is new Pope Leo 14 will try to thread the needle on
| rising global interest in experimenting with socialism and the
| possible ramifications of AI automation.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| The book you want to read about what he was about is this one
| (reprint): "The Church Speaks to the Modern World: The Social
| Teachings of Leo XIII" [0]. You can find his encyclicals,
| speeches, etc. here [1].
|
| [0] https://a.co/d/gmUTo49
|
| [1] https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en.html
| antognini wrote:
| There's also more baggage associated with choosing the name of
| a very recent predecessor. Choosing Francis II would alienate
| certain factions in the Church, choosing Benedict XVII or John
| Paul III would alienate others. Reaching further back in time
| is more of a signal of unity.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| John-Paul II chose his immediate predecessor's name, and _he_
| had combined those of his two most recent predecessors.
|
| The three most recent popes are the longest run of Popes with
| none choosing the name (counting JPI as choosing both of two
| recent predecessos) of a recent (one, two, or three back)
| predecessor since the 1500s.
| antognini wrote:
| Yes, it of course happens, but when it does it is usually a
| signal that the new pope intends to continue with the
| vision of his predecessor.
|
| (John Paul II is also something of an anomaly, because John
| Paul I died barely a month into his papacy and so didn't
| have time to put in place any real agenda. John Paul II was
| more commemorating John Paul I the man.)
| tptacek wrote:
| Prior to Francis, the last pope we had from a religious order (as
| opposed to a career diocesan) was Gregory XVI in 1831. Now we've
| had two religious popes in a row --- Francis, a Jesuit, and then
| Leo, an Augustinian.
| dzdt wrote:
| Can you explain this like I'm 5?
| tptacek wrote:
| You can (sort of) divide Catholic clergy into diocesan
| priests, who spend their careers managing the clerical
| hierarchy of a specific region, and religious-order priests,
| who belong to religious orders within the church --- the
| Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, etc. The
| "religious" Clergy are thought to be in some sense less tied
| up in church politics.
| wheels wrote:
| There are a few different orders within the catholic church
| with some of their own intellectual, practical and
| traditional differences. Most popes don't come from any of
| the orders. The last two popes did. That's historically odd.
| Francis had been the first one from his order ever, even
| though it's the largest one.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's part of the hierarchy of the church.
|
| Diocesan priests "work" for the bishop in a particular
| geographical area and are in the "corporate" hierarchy of the
| church.
|
| Religious orders are sort of independent from the the church
| hierarchy and report through to the leader of their order, at
| a global level. They often focus on specific things and may
| have different vows. Franciscans are known for their work
| with the poor and personal vows of poverty, for example. Also
| the order is a community that has its own governance.
|
| I have friends who are in a similar organization as nuns.
| They govern themselves democratically and globally. It's
| pretty amazing - we helped them setup their real-time voting
| system to manage their community. Each group is different.
| marczellm wrote:
| To the other useful answers I just want to add that if you
| think about monks, nuns and friars, that covers a large
| portion of what a Catholic religious order looks like.
| sharpy wrote:
| I thought an American pope would be the last thing Vatican wanted
| (to avoid being seen too close to US)
| lenerdenator wrote:
| "Pope Bahhb? Oh yeah, used ta take communion from him down at da
| Catlick Church off Wacker Drive." - Some guy in Chicago right
| now, probably.
| samgranieri wrote:
| As a Catholic from the Chicago area I'm shocked and surprised he
| was elected. My group chats and social media is just blowing up
| with regional pride. God bless Pope Leo XIV!
| Balgair wrote:
| Now the real question: Is he a Cubs or Sox fan?
| valj wrote:
| Cubs
| tart-lemonade wrote:
| Indeed, and he's from Dolton (a southern suburb) and lived
| in Hyde Park (south side of Chicago) for awhile. (Not that
| it's uncommon for south siders to favor the Cubs, but it
| certainly is amusing.)
|
| https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/05/08/pope-leo-xiv-is-a-
| cu...
|
| https://abc7chicago.com/post/2025-is-new-pope-cardinal-
| rober...
| dang wrote:
| Related: https://catholicreview.org/chicago-native-cardinal-
| prevost-e...
|
| (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43928742, but we merged
| that thread hither)
| mrlonglong wrote:
| He is not a US citizen. He might have been born in the States but
| he is a fully naturalised citizen of Peru.
| davis wrote:
| Being born in the US means you are a citizen. He holds dual
| citizenships
| mrlonglong wrote:
| I stand corrected.
|
| I'm seeing a lot of shade thrown at the new Pope just for
| opposing Trump and his policies. Some even go as far as to
| call him a "woke Marxist Pope". Not very christian.
| Reventlov wrote:
| Francois was born in Buenos Aires, how is that the first american
| pope ?
| magneticnorth wrote:
| At least in (USA) American news sources, "American" means from
| the USA. Francis was the first pope from the Americas.
|
| See Wikipedia for deeper discussion of the use of the term in
| English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)
| throwaway7783 wrote:
| Great time to watch the movie "Conclave"
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Slightly related: the movie "Conclave" (2024) is a great and
| surprising thriller. Critics consensus from RottenTomatoes:
|
| > Carrying off papal pulp with immaculate execution and career-
| highlight work from Ralph Fiennes, Conclave is a godsend for
| audiences who crave intelligent entertainment.
|
| [video trailer] https://youtu.be/JX9jasdi3ic?si=sYwqRlK-4hYUnsAa
| anonymousiam wrote:
| The New Pope Robert Prevost is a registered Republican
| https://x.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/1920534168301130101
| nozzlegear wrote:
| This doesn't seem terribly surprising given the church's
| position on hot-button issues like abortion. But it's also
| worth noting that registering as a republican doesn't mean
| you've voted for every republican on the ticket (and vice
| versa).
| 90s_dev wrote:
| I hope this Pope recognizes that the only way to lead is a
| personal martyrdom of self interest.
|
| A true leader must _pave_ the way, not merely _point to_ it. "I
| must decrease so that my children can increase" in the words of
| St. John the Baptist and the actions of St. Joseph, who St. Luke
| calls the father of Jesus, and who is the living image of the
| father.
|
| St. Joseph's staff only sprouted the life of lilies because it
| was dead first (Hebrews 9:4, which book the Blessed Virgin Mary
| probably wrote).
|
| (Also Chicago represent!)
| Kye wrote:
| Chicago: known for wind, one of the world's largest furry
| conventions, and the first American pope.
| quesera wrote:
| Actually not known for atmospheric wind, but for bloviating in
| a windy way.
|
| With the construction of tall city blocks and the breezes off
| of Lake Michigan, the atmospheric use has become somewhat more
| true. No more so than most USAmerican cities though.
| Kye wrote:
| This seems to be a matter of some debate: https://en.wikipedi
| a.org/wiki/Windy_City_(nickname)#Etymolog...
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| Pope Leo made it easy for the furries to pick his fursona.
| lupusreal wrote:
| [As an American] an American pope seems very tacky. They should
| have picked an African or Italian
| nozzlegear wrote:
| [As an American] How could somebody's nationality seem "tacky?"
| Since we're both Americans, that's the sort of thing that we'd
| both consider a faux pas, at the very least, to say about
| anybody else's nationality.
| asdf6969 wrote:
| Work on your self hatred and open your mind please. There's
| nothing tacky about an American pope. What are you talking
| about?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| " That the spirit of revolutionary change, which has long been
| disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond
| the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate
| sphere of practical economics is not surprising.
|
| The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the
| vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvelous
| discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters
| and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals,
| and the utter poverty of the masses; the increased self reliance
| and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also,
| finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy. The momentous
| gravity of the state of things now obtaining fills every mind
| with painful apprehension; wise men are discussing it; practical
| men are proposing schemes; popular meetings, legislatures, and
| rulers of nations are all busied with it - actually there is no
| question which has taken deeper hold on the public mind."
|
| From the last Pope Leo over 100 years ago.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| That definitely rhymes, more than rhymes actually.
| Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe wrote:
| Neat thanks.
|
| Btw how do you know this?! Have you memorized stuff of all the
| passed popes?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| These are the types of things talked about in small groups
| near your local cathedral by members of groups like Opus Dei
| everywhere around the world. All are welcome :)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I don't think Opus Dei spends a lot of time discussing
| _Rerum Novarum_ , honestly.
| kergonath wrote:
| The last Leo was a notable pope. His views are well known.
| You don't need to memorise everything, a lot of what they've
| said over the years is available in books or online.
| ben_w wrote:
| Pope Quartz: https://xkcd.com/2501/
|
| I was raised Catholic and couldn't have even told you
| there'd been a single Pope Leo, let alone 13 of them before
| today. The only Pope quote I could even give you is the
| term "Ex Cathedra".
| PortiaBerries wrote:
| It never ceases to amaze me how poorly catechized the
| majority of cradle Catholics are. I don't intend this to
| be directed at you, but it's a standing joke among
| traditionalist Catholics that "I was raised Catholic" is
| the preamble to a statement of either ignorance or
| heresy.
| ben_w wrote:
| > I don't intend this to be directed at you, but it's a
| standing joke among traditionalist Catholics that "I was
| raised Catholic" is the preamble to a statement of either
| ignorance or heresy.
|
| It's cool, no offence taken.
|
| My mother took it all very seriously, but she was also
| syncretic New Age/Hindu/Catholic; she got me baptised at
| birth and took the lead with Sunday school and going to
| Church etc, my dad was mainly interested in getting me
| into a good school that was Catholic but himself was
| atheist.
|
| I actually read the entire New Testament while at school,
| took it at face value, thought "this doesn't work, does
| it?" and went to Wicca for a bit before deciding that
| wasn't for me either.
|
| I think at no point did anyone bother to explain the
| structure of the Catholic church, they just kinda assumed
| we all knew it, when what we knew was from pop culture. I
| think your local priest was unavoidable knowledge, but
| pop culture gave me bishops, the Pope (but not the fact
| that his official title isn't that until it came up on
| the quiz show QI), and the obvious joke about Cardinal
| Jaime Sin. The actual education gave me no sense of ranks
| or the organisation or how nuns and monks fit in -- just
| the same five bible tales (birth, walking on water,
| feeding of 5000, eye of the needle, death and
| resurrection) over and over again. With singing.
|
| The pattern you've noticed, I think also applies to the
| UK citizenship test: there's a general sense that most
| people born with UK nationality wouldn't be able to pass
| the test to become a citizen as an adult.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Growing up Catholic we learned all that stuff at CCD
| which was a Wednesday night "Sunday school". Otherwise no
| idea how you would pick it up without google.
| Archelaos wrote:
| This is the beginning of perhaps the most famous of Leo
| XIII.'s many encyclicals, entitled "Rerum novarum" from 1891.
| To my knowledge it is the first of many papal encyclicals on
| social issues. It thus marks an important point in church
| history (and beyond that in the history of ideas in general).
|
| For further details see the encyclical's Wikipedia entry at
| https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_Novarum
|
| For the text itself: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-
| xiii/en/encyclicals/docum...
| Sharlin wrote:
| There are already a plenty of analysis pieces published by
| reputable news sources that discuss the new pope's chosen
| regal name and its significance, in particular in relation to
| the last Leo and his views and important writings.
| Qem wrote:
| I wish him wisdom and good luck to take the task. Hope he
| continues the great work Francis was doing to help the civilian
| palestinians facing IDF massacres and starvation in Gaza. Francis
| called the parish there every day, and even donated the
| Popemobile to be turned into health clinic for the children of
| Gaza. See https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/the-
| popemobi...
| michaelsbradley wrote:
| Rev. P. Robert Francis PREVOST, O.S.A. (now Pope Leo XIV),
| Address to the Synod of Bishops, 2012
|
| https://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/...
| At least in the contemporary western world, if not throughout the
| entire world, the human imagination concerning both religious
| faith and ethics is largely shaped by mass media, especially by
| television and cinema. Western mass media is extraordinarily
| effective in fostering within the general public enormous
| sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the
| Gospel. However, overt opposition to Christianity
| by mass media is only part of the problem. The sympathy for anti-
| Christian lifestyle choices that mass media fosters is so
| brilliantly and artfully engrained in the viewing public, that
| when people hear the Christian message it often inevitably seems
| ideological and emotionally cruel by contrast to the ostensible
| humaneness of the anti-Christian perspective. If the
| "New Evangelization" is going to counter these mass media-
| produced distortions of religious and ethical reality
| successfully, pastors, preachers, teachers and catechists are
| going to have to become far more informed about the challenge of
| evangelizing in a world dominated by mass media. The
| Fathers of the Church, including Saint Augustine, can provide
| eminent guidance for the Church in this aspect of the New
| Evangelization, precisely because they were masters of the art of
| rhetoric. Their evangelizing was successful in great part because
| they understood the foundations of social communication
| appropriate to the world in which they lived. In
| order to combat successfully the dominance of the mass media over
| popular religious and moral imaginations, it is not sufficient
| for the Church to own its own television media or to sponsor
| religious films. The proper mission of the Church is to introduce
| people to the nature of mystery as an antidote to spectacle.
| Religious life also plays an important role in evangelization,
| pointing others to this mystery, through living faithfully the
| evangelical counsels.
| selectnull wrote:
| Pick your username: Leo
|
| That username had already been taken. How about Leo14?
|
| Fine.
| smnrg wrote:
| Many Italian newspapers (example: IlPost) and, I suspect, many
| non-US media, report this as "the second American Pope, the first
| from the USA."
|
| Which, I think, is fair, as South and Latin are also America. And
| so is Canada. And so was Francis.
|
| But I usually find it a hard concept to convey to my fellow local
| USsians.
| macspoofing wrote:
| >to my fellow local USsians.
|
| I think you illustrated why the concept exists. USA actually
| has "America" in its name, unlike others - hence 'Americans'
| and not 'USsians'.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-08 23:00 UTC)