> "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."
That's an interesting thought but if they're actually that concerned about it then they'd wait longer than four months. It probably has more to do with America's predominant religion being protestantism by a very wife margin for most of the country's existence. We didn't have a Catholic president until Kennedy and even then proving to the common American that Catholics aren't insane Vatican mindslaves was considered a hurdle he had to overcome.
If there's a political motive in not choosing an American pope until now it's that for most of American history it wouldn't have granted them any influence over American politics. If there's a personal motive it's that until recently they felt insulted that America went for almost 200 years before finally electing a Catholic president.
> America's predominant religion being Protestantism
Tangent: Protestantism is not a religion. The religion is called Christianity. I have seen this trend for quite a while of Protestants (or people born in Protestant countries) of referring to Christianity branches as religions. I find it very segregational. The whole point of all the branches is the same guy whose name begins with C.
But yes, given the state of America today, having an American pope will definitely be an interesting development in the context of many lobbying groups wishing for a vaticanised America.
Nit: "Christ" is actually a title, not a name — it's the English version of the Greek Χριστός (christos), from the Hebrew mashiach (in English, messiah, anointed one).
His name was Yehoshua (or Yeshua or Y'shua, "Yahweh is salvation" — in English, "Joshua") whose Greek version is Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous, anglicized to "Jesus", although the Spanish pronunciation hay-sooss is closer to the Greek).
I don't consider myself part of any organized religion at this point, but I grew up going to this really iconoclastic presbyterian church where we only ever talked about the two testaments of the Bible and the only formal rituals we had were eucharism and the baptism (which, IIRC is because those are the only two rituals with a basis in the gospel) and from that perspective it's always seemed like whatever catholicism is, it's not the same religion as our relgion because they have all sorts of extra stories and tradition that seemed entirely foreign. We didn't even have an antagonistic relationship with them, our pastor never talked about other religions during sermons because he wanted to avoid our church getting involved in any of the negative aspects of christianity and focus only on the sort of positive community-building that jesus does in the gospels. The catholics have a massive canon of saints who they pray to instead of god, a church that claims to derive its authority from jesus himself via claiming one of the disciples to be their first pope, and a tendency to put mary the virgin at the forefront of everything (not that protestants ever had anything against her, but the catholic preoccupation with her really is bewildering from a protestant point-of-view) that seems irreconcilable from the the viewpoint that the religion begins with the old testament and ends with the new testament. I don't even consider myself a christian anymore and yet I still sometimes find myself feeling like Catholicism is no less alien than islam.
That said, looking back there were a couple problems with the protestant viewpoint: one is that there's no attempt at explaining god's apparent 2000-year vacation and another being that the bible was effectively nonexistent until the council at Nicaea and I'm not sure what legitimacy there is in them having any authority to decide what is and is not canon unless you accept the catholic church's authority.
> Tangent: Protestantism is not a religion. The religion is called Christianity. I have seen this trend for quite a while of Protestants (or people born in Protestant countries) of referring to Christianity branches as religions.
Deciding what is a “branch” of a religion versus whats is an independent “religion” is more subjective than objective. This might become clearer if we move away from Christianity for a moment, and look at the same question for some non-Christian religions
Consider the southern Indian religious movement of Ayyavazhi - most people, both in India and outside it, consider it a branch/denomination/sect of Hinduism, including even many followers of Ayyavazhi - but some of its followers and leaders insist it is a separate Dharmic religion [0]. The question is (in part) political - Dravidian nationalists and Tamil nationalists are more likely to call it a separate religion, Indian nationalists (Congress) and Hindu nationalists (BJP) want to view it as part of Hinduism
Meanwhile, most people consider Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism to be separate religions from Hinduism - but the British courts in India decided they were branches of Hinduism, a classification still followed by the Indian legal system to this day. Many Hindu nationalists promote the idea that these traditions are branches of Hinduism, even though most of the Indian followers of those religions reject the idea.
It is standard to classify the Alevis in Turkey as an Islamic sect - yet the Turkish government wants to insist on the idea they aren’t even a sect, just a “cultural movement”, to promote the fiction of a homogeneous Turkish Islam - but while some Alevis are fighting for government recognition as a separate sect of Islam, there is a movement among Alevis (Ishikism) which claims it is a separate pre-Islamic religion, and its Islamic content is just a superficial distraction (dissimulation) to prevent persecution. Meanwhile, many hardline Sunnis around the world agree that Alevis are a non-Islamic religion - and some of the most hardline Sunnis will even say that of mainstream Twelver Shi’a.
So, the boundary between “branch of a religion” and “separate independent religion” is more subjective (theological and political) than objective.
I hear you about these being a bunch of different branches of Christianity. But the difference between branches of Protestantism and Catholicism is old and significant.
It'd be like saying "Talking about Rust is segregational. It's just all branches of programming languages starting with C". Technically true, but not a useful distinction.
> It'd be like saying "Talking about Rust is segregational. It's just all branches of programming languages starting with C". Technically true, but not a useful distinction.
That analogy is not valid. Protestants argue that catholicism does christianism in a sloppy way, whereas they do it right. If you're going with a programming language analogy, it's like a C++ programmer arguing that onboarding cppcheck and --Wall --pedantic is the only acceptable way to work with C++, and everyone else is doing it wrong.
>That analogy is not valid. Protestants argue that catholicism does christianism in a sloppy way, whereas they do it right. If you're going with a programming language analogy, it's like a C++ programmer arguing that onboarding cppcheck and --Wall --pedantic is the only acceptable way to work with C++, and everyone else is doing it wrong.
Every sect within a religion is going to argue that they are the ones doing it right and the others are either wrong or at least suboptimal depending on the state of inter-sect relations. I would peg the Protestants as C and the Catholics as C++ in this analogy, as the chief defining feature of protestantism is that they do not acknowledge the legitimacy of just about everybody who has ever claimed to speak on God's behalf past a certain point; thus, like C, their view of religion is inherently stagnant. They don't necessarily deny that God continues to interact with his creations, but they've realized that statistically speaking any given prophet or saint has an approximately 0.0 probability of actually conveying messages from God so they'll just stick with the ones that are so old that just about everybody [who calls themselves christian] already agrees on them. This is similar to the way that many C programmers are really C++ programmers who got tired of all the dumb new C++2x bullshit and just want to write computer programs.
Both the protestant religion and the C programming language have viewpoints that make sense given the histories of their respective subjects, but the major drawback of these viewpoints is that they have chosen to limit themselves to only iterating through new interpretations of old ideas; both of them are fundamentally incapable of innovation because being incapable of innovation is the fundamental core of their belief systems. Thus, if God ever really does try to leave the protestants a voicemail or if bjarne stroustrup ever does come up with an idea that isn't terrible and needlessly complicated, both the protestants and the C programmers will miss out on it.
I will not even attempt to speculate as to which programming languages should represent islam and judaism in this analogy because i do not want to die or have my account banned.
That's really not fair because the different sects and denominations of Christianity have different apocrypha and different translations (or lack of translations) of the source texts.
And of course they vary widely in rites, practices, and liturgy.
People think they are closer than they are. The difference between the protestant denominations, catholic denominations, mormans, jehovah's witnesses, etc are quite major and in a very real sense the separation between these different sects of Christianity are essentially only a few steps removed from the separation Islam has from Christianity.
In the end Christianity is just a branch of Judaism ;)
It's unlikely that Protestants (including all the weird splinter groups/cults/sects in the US), Catholics and Orthodox will ever reunite into the same church again, so calling them separate religions is fair I think.
>In the end Christianity is just a branch of Judaism ;)
hoo boy, be careful who you say that around, some of the jewish denominations have some very strong opinions about Christians calling themselves jews lmao.
anyways, I think beyond there being a major disagreement on whether there's any legitimacy to jesus being worshipped as a messiah or the new testament as a whole, the primary reason why they're considered separate religions is that judaism is ultimately centered around the fathers of the jewish/Israelite ethnic identity making a sacred covenant with God that cements them as his chosen people, whereas christianity's basis lies in Jesus' sacrifice forging a new covenant between God and all peoples (jewish and gentile alike). The reason why there's so much undying support for israel among modern evangelicals is that they believe judaism is still a legitimate religion because in their view there's no reason why the old covenant shouldn't still be valid for Jewish people who never partook in the new covenant.
But the numerous reunions effected by the Catholic Church have been nothing short of miraculous.
For starters, there is a Catholic Church corresponding to every Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church in existence. Belarussian Orthodox Church/Belarussian Catholic Church. Including some unique outliers: Melkites, Maronites, Chaldean Catholic.
These Catholic Churches "returned" to communion when their head bishops decided to rejoin after centuries of schism. Thereafter, these churches are open to new individual converts, as well as entire parishes or eparchies coming into communion anew.
Furthermore, the Personal Ordinariates were erected quite recently to accommodate conversions from the Anglican church. It began long before that: the Catholic Church has received Anglican priests, with their families, ordained them as Catholic priests, and set them to parish ministry. Yes, even the married ones. Some Anglican priests or bishops became prelates, and entire parishes converted to the Catholic faith. They even retain their own liturgy, "Divine Worship", which is based on the Book of Common Prayer. If you're a fan of the old Tridentine liturgy, just imagine if that were presented in English instead!
Today there are no fewer than 24 Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, including a brand-new Eritrean Catholic Church, corresponding to the split in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
So I disagree with your pessimism because we have plenty of examples, in the distant past as well as quite recent history, where Protestants and Orthodox alike have come back into communion with the Catholic Church. Thanks for bringing it up!
Anything is a religion if enough people agree to it. If Scientology can call itself a religion than "Protestantism" is legit.
It seems that the baptist subsection of Christianity already have a bunch of different interpretations of Christian scripture. Historically it's only a matter of time before the inevitable schism, and then they also get to claim to be a different religion.
> Anything is a religion if enough people agree to it. If Scientology can call itself a religion than "Protestantism" is legit.
Protestantism, by definition, is Christianity. The very nature of protestantism is that the Catholic church needed to fix errors and discrepancies. If anything, protestantism advocate that they do christianism right, whereas the Catholic church is a tad sloppy.
I am an Orthodox Christian and I can tell you that to us, Protestantism definitely looks like a completely different religion.
Despite claiming that they follow Christ, our and their definition of "following" is so different that what they do and believe often looks unrecognizable.
The same can be said about the difference between Catholics and Protestants. Despite our disagreements, the Orthodox and Catholic churches still share a lot theologically. The same cannot be said about Protestants (although, that also depends on what denominations you consider).
It's not to say that we don't share any values. We actually do and there are many individual Protestants that behave in a more Christian way than some members of the Orthodox Church.
However, that is not a highly relevant factor. For one reason or another, there are many atheists and members of other religions that do as well. But those still remain clearly separate and would never be classified as Christians.
Eh. While the correct term is denomination, in practice the separate arms of Christianity have fought each other and function separately. Like Sunni vs Shia vs other muslims.
Anti-Catholicism runs deep in America, but the particularly weird issue is the converts. People who convert into Catholicism tend to be much more conservative than those born into it, often much more so than actual Church doctrine. Hence the Vance controversy.
OTOH, 6 of the 9 supreme court justices are catholic so there might be some influence there although I think the influence is probably more from the somewhat uniquely American brand of conservative Catholicism.
Gorsuch was raised Catholic, and thus the Catholic Church still considers him a member. Gorsuch hasn't publicly stated whether he considers himself Catholic or not. In 2017, one of his friends said:
>Trent, Gorsuch’s close friend, said he believes Gorsuch would consider himself “a Catholic who happens to worship at an Episcopal church.”
For whatever reason, and I guess this is mostly based on my experience with my Catholic friends and family, even if they are not lawyers the Catholics just love arguing about rules. Perhaps that's because Catholic Dogma and Tradition is complicated. In any case, I suppose that means it should be unsurprising that a lot of Catholics end up studying Law and as a result provide a wide pool to draw from when it's time to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court.
Give Twitter another 24 hours to stew over his past ministry and his Peruvian citizenship, and one will find our modern Know Nothings making similar hullabaloo.
Is it even viable to run for pope as a priest who spent his whole life in a first-world country? I can't imagine somebody who has spent a significant portion of his life doing charity work or spreading the church to some new population losing out to some guy who spends his whole career preaching to a crowd of predominantly-white bourgeois Americans in a boring midwestern suburb where the biggest problem is either too many DEI programs in local schools or not enough DEI programs in local schools.
The concern is that America would be too powerful if they had this power over Catholicism as well. There's no concern about waiting until it's time to appoint the next one.
Then they appoint somebody else and wait until he dies and then appoint Pope Americus the First. The hypothesis is that they didn't want an American pope until America is in decline and that America is in decline due to the re-election of Donald Trump. I will admit the part about Donald Trump is something i assumed with no basis and it is possible that the OP did not mean to say that America is in decline solely as a result of this, but whenever i read about America losing its international influence it's always somebody complaining about the tariffs or insulting Canada or whatever.
Anyways, nothing can end America on such a short timescale. Even if Donald Trump's recent decisions will cause the downfall of America's global pseudo-empire we are not anywhere near a point of no return and he could give up on playing "5D chess" and fix this all within a month; some opportunities would be lost which leads to some unrecoverable economic damage but we'd still be largely in the same position as we were six months ago; consequentially, any fears they may have had about appointing an American pope during a period of global American hegemony are still valid.
In the past, it was a long trip from home to Rome, and a long trip back. Might as well spend some time in Rome with old friends you haven't seen in a decade.
These days, the cardinals have probably been messaging one another on Facebook all the time.
They had to. They are locked there, isolated, until they elect. That is how catholic pope elections work. Their job is to elect and then move on their normal duties and interactions.
Why? Is there any reason for anyone in the world to think this behavior will change suddenly? Is there a reason the church wouldn’t think the US has a crisis of faith if those in power and their followers are so willing to commit sin against their fellow man? Clearly we all know how Jesus proclaimed, “Gather ye the masses of immigrants and send them to another country, lest they not be tortured for their grave sins of migration.”
> That's an interesting thought but if they're actually that concerned about it then they'd wait longer than four months.
Are you suggesting that the decline has only been apparent since Trump's re-election? For some (myself included), America has been in obvious political decline for some time - highlighted and spurred along by some significant events (Trump's first election and the nature of US involvement in Gaza to name a couple).
I personally don't think it makes any sense to claim America's in a decline on a short-term basis; my point is that a decline is inherently something that would only be visible over a longer scale of time.
The reason I said "four months" is because America's media establishment has been pushing this narrative that the tariffs and the argument with zelensky have somehow ended american hegemony overnight; I personally believe it's impossible for these events to cause a noticeable decline on such a short basis because there's far more to america than merely not taxing imports and giving limitless amounts of free stuff to ukraine with no strings attached, but I have developed a pavlovian response to the phrase "America's in decline" because it really is all about Donald Trump with these people.
I would personally put the origin of "America's Decline" at 9/11 because that was the beginning of America's self-doubt about what their place in the world is and what it should be. Everything since then has been the five stages of grief on a nationwide scale. Currently we're somewhere between Depression (stage 4) and Acceptance (stage 5) which is why we gave up on Afghanistan, and also why so many people are opposed to funding Ukraine; there's a legitimate fear that arming the Ukrainians will in some way come back to bite us in the ass 20 years later just like arming the mujahideen did.
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.
> 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.
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.
I disagree. 1% issue aside - There are things Trump has done that have no American precedent, such as Jan 6th, openly insisting he'll run for a 3rd term, and too many others to list here. In that sense he is absolutely an aberration.
"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."
Thanks for this. The quote-of-a-quote in the original article was confusing, made worse by the fact that it was said by Robert who is not the new Pope, formerly known as Robert.
I wouldn’t assume that just because Trump appoints someone to a commission, they and Trump see eye-to-eye about whatever.
Bishop Barron is pretty middle-of-the-road as far as US Catholic bishops go - he’s not much of a progressive, but nor is he a traditionalist or hardline conservative. On most issues on which Pope Francis and President Trump disagreed, Barron’s views and instincts are closer to the late Pope (who made him a bishop and then gave him a diocese) than to Trump’s
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.
I've heard people expressing disappointment (or triumph) because there's an American pope now, as if that would somehow strengthen Trump's position, but I don't see how.
Trump doesn't control him and the pope owes no allegiance to Trump, but as an American pope, I think American Catholics are more likely to listen to him, and I think his moderate views could do a lot of good to the extremism of US politics.
I agree. There is no reason to expect the Pope to just back the country he is a citizen of, let alone the current government of his country. Popes have not usually done so in the past.
When I Google for massacres of Christians, all I find are links to Islamic factions in Africa and the Middle East. Where in America are Christian communities being wiped out by terrorists?
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.
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.
As for being completely American: dual citizen of U.S. and another country here. On each April 15, the U.S. still considers me completely American even though I haven’t earned a cent there in over a decade. So in an official sense, that moniker sticks to you like Super Glue.
Granted, the new pope may have a wider scope of cultural influences than many, if not a majority of Americans, it sounds like his formative years were spent in the U.S. so I’d call him American.
There’s a really interesting question here. Will the USA claim the right to tax the new pontiff? Likely answer is no, but legally the statute suggests yes. But who knows? There’s never before been a US citizen who is also a foreign sovereign.
> There’s never before been a US citizen who is also a foreign sovereign.
Éamon de Valera was born in New York City in 1882, and served as President of Ireland from 1959 to 1973
Bhumibol Adulyadej was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1927, and served as King of Thailand from 1946 until his death in 2016
That’s just two US-born individuals who became head of state of another country, there may be more.
I assume both were US citizens at birth (de Valera was born into poverty, abandoned by his Spanish father, reputedly an artist; Bhumibol‘s father was a student at Harvard)-whether or not they ever formally renounced their US citizenship, I don’t know
I was wondering whether Wikipedia would comment. They don't, but somebody already edited Bhumibol's article to say that "His father was enrolled in the public health program at Harvard University, which is why Bhumibol was the only monarch to be born in the US until the 2025 papal conclave elected Pope Leo XIV."
There are some sources indicating that children of foreign sovereigns would be exempt from automatic citizenship, but Bhumibol's father wasn't the king, just the king's brother.
Éamon de Valera's case is unambiguous.
There are surely other world leaders who spent significant time in the US - Benjamin Netanyahu spent some time in the Philadelphia area as a child, for example. And a little bit of research turns up Naftali Bennett, prime minister of Israel in 2021-22 - he was a US citizen (born in Israel to US citizen parents) until he had to renounce his US citizenship when elected to the Knesset.
Famously Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel (which is a largely ceremonial post), which presumably would have come with Israeli citizenship, but he turned it down.
I believe King Rama IX was not technically a U.S. citizen because his parents were considered foreign diplomats. In any case he never tried to claim citizenship and was only ever considered Thai.
So, a foreign prince (not the King, his brother) enrols as a student at Harvard - would he be considered a “foreign diplomat”? He wasn’t formally acting as a diplomat, and unless he happened to be officially accredited to the State Department as one, I doubt he would have technically counted as one either. Was he present in the US on a diplomatic/consular visa, or a student visa?
Also, in most countries (the US included), one’s status as a citizen/national is legally independent of whether one tries to “claim” it.
Not a foreign sovereign - Boris Johnson was never head of state, only head of government - a distinction often forgotten in countries like the US which merge those two offices into one. (Which is not about the UK being a monarchy-parliamentary republics such as Ireland, Malta, Germany, Austria, Israel, keep the two distinct)
> Does, which what I think you are getting at, the law apply to a head of state?
I don’t know if he will exempt as head of state, but as ordinary US citizen he will be paying taxes to US as his income exceeds FEIE exemption threshold.
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.
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.
What? Speaking from experience, the country you go to after 20s is the one you choose, not the one you were forced to live in. This has a huge factor in your thinking more than the number of years on paper.
On the nature/nature aspect people are already predominantly nature. For the nurture component of the residual the early years are very formative. As an expat who has spent much more of my life outside my country of birth than in it, and knows many other expats who have done the same, from my observation our upbringing still dominates our behavior. It is also a selection criteria bias where expats are more likely to identify with other expats even when not from the same country or residing in the same country which is one of the reasons expats tend to form communities with other expats. The problem with self assessing behavior is that the same biases which determine behavior is used for assessing the behavior where much of what is considered merely normal is ignored leading to over-weighting the size of the unusual component.
Sure, but the fact that he stayed there for many many years means that it suited him. If you want the change countries the Church has processes for that.
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.
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.
I get the joke but it goes the other way around. Martini is a common family name from the north of Italy (Carmelo is common given name in the south). The drink was named after the name of company producing it (actually half of it.) The company was named Martini because that was the family name of the founder.
Nobody claims the pope. This is a weird take. We are not talking about some sport celebrity.
It’s true that the man was born in the USA and was a bishop in Peru. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Peruvian catholics were happy to have a pope who lived their country.
> The Peruvians definitely seem to be happy about it
I don’t really see that from the articles you linked.
It’s all quotes about how the Pope is Peruvian (definitely true as he indeed has the Peruvian nationality) and how Peruvian people feel blessed in that.
Even your last article reinforces that he is a dual citizen with knowledge of both culture which obviously makes people joyful.
I have yet to see people argue if he is more American or more Peruvian apart from here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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!
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.
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.
"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.
Really? Do people call the city just "México", by itself, not "Ciudad de México" or similar?
There is a similar situation in Quebec (the province and its capital city are both just called "Québec" 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 Québec"[1] = I'm going to Quebec (the province) vs. "Je vais à Québec" = I'm going to Quebec City.
I'm not sure if there is any similar grammatical distinction in Spanish.
"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.
Not in English. I know in the Spanish speaking world there's a single American continent, but as far as I know across the English speaking world it's taught as two continents, North and South America. We have the term "the Americas" to refer to both.
I really think this is a failure of education, teaching kids that there are N continents as if that were some kind of objective truth, as opposed to the reality that the definition of “continent” is at least partially conventional, so there are several different values of N which are arguably correct - anything from 4 to 7 is mainstream (at a global level)
Wikipedia is helping, though.
It says (I didn’t know this) that the “single American continent” model was mainstream in the US prior to WW2, so even if there is now a single definition in the Anglosphere, that’s a relatively recent development.
I remember as a kid believing that the Americas contained three continents-North, Central and South. I’m sure I’m not the only person to have ever thought that, and given how conventional these definitions are, can it really be said to be wrong?
Well, in Ecuador and Peru, where I used to travel for 2 months, a lot of people were making a point of saying "América del Sur" to differentiate their place from the USA.
How would you argue such claims, geographically and/or accurately speaking? — Other than: that’s how I was taught it is; or that’s how my favourite teacher/book/source-with-some-authority says it is.
There is no generally-agreed-upondefinition for “continent”, in the same way that there was no generally-agreed-upon definition of “planet” prior to the IAU 2006 General Assembly.
Continents are identified by convention (and there are a few competing conventions) rather than any strict criteria.
I was taught (in Europe) that there are 6 continents, 1 of which close-to-uninhabited: Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, America, Antarctica. This convention is the same as the one for the UNSD “continental regions”. The five interlocking rings of the Olympic flag represent these five inhabited continents.
There’s another convention that considers Eurasia to be a single continent. And another that even considers Afro-Eurasia to be a single continent.
You could educate yourself, you know, instead of trying to regurgitate something that someone else said that you thought looked clever.
What would you call Americans? United Statesians?
There are two countries called the United States in North America, there's the United States of Mexico, and the United States of America. People from the United States of Mexico are called Mexicans, and people from the United States of America are called Americans.
And what about people from the continent of North America? There's called North Americans, just like people from South America are called South Americans.
> There are two countries called the United States in North America
No, actually, there aren't.
> there's the United States of Mexico, and the United States of America.
No, México’s formal English name (which is an exact literal translation of its Spanish name) is United Mexican States (it is Estados Unidos Mexicanos not Estados Unidos de México)
> I think this would translate to Mexican United States
If Estados Unidos existed in Spanish as a compound, non-proper, noun phrase—that is, if "a united states" was a generic name for a thing—rather than Unidos and Mexicanos both being adjectives that modify Estados, then that would be a plausible translation. But that's (1) not the case, and (2) even if it was the case, that's not how it is used in the actual official name of the country of México.
> you're mixing up the word order.
To be clear, you are asserting that the government of México messed up the word order in its own official English name.
Sorry, I did not realize this was the official translation.
I was just commenting on the fact that adjective order in Spanish is usually reversed vs. the English one, and the adjective closest to the noun remains closest to the noun.
Wikipedia mentions that an alternate official name is Estados-Unidos Mexicanos:
> All three federal constitutions (1824, 1857, and 1917, the current constitution) used the name Estados Unidos Mexicanos[29]—or the variant Estados-Unidos Mexicanos,[30] all of which have been translated as "United Mexican States"
Interesting that it's still translated this way. I'm wondering if there are some political considerations there (eg to avoid being called the "Mexican US"). Thanks for your response. I learned something today.
The terms “yank” and “seppo” were more common in older generations of Australians. If you could go back to the 1940s, I think you’d hear both terms a lot (in certain informal contexts)
One still occasionally hears “yanks”, but it is quite rare. “Seppos”, one more often hears joking about calling Americans that than anyone actually doing so-and the rare occasions the term is used (as opposed to merely mentioned), are (in my personal experience) self-conscious exercises in derogatory jocularity-related jocular coinages are “Sepponians” and “Seppostanis”
Of course, it is a big country, and terms which have fallen out of general use may be retained or revived in some pockets-I can only describe my own personal experiences
Since this is a thread about the new pope, note that Catholic doctrine interprets that passage to mean you can only divorce if the original marriage was invalid. The Greek word, porneia, has more literal or abstract interpretations depending on context. Protestants and Orthodox[1] interpret it to mean illicit sex, particularly adultery, but Catholics interpret it to mean something closer to incest, which would imply a marriage was never valid in the first place. Catholic doctrine argues this interpretation is easier to square with the preceding statements by Jesus in Matthew that "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." That is, that marriage is indissoluble by man--i.e. a spouse can't dissolve a marriage just be screwing around. And also squares with Mark, who mentions no exception. OTOH, that's arguably asking too much of the text.
[1] That said, depending on which Orthodox theologian you ask, Orthodoxy doesn't permit remarriage, either. Some Orthodox will tell you that a second marriage isn't a sacramental marriage; that the original marriage is never dissolved. Rather, "remarriage" is a form of "Ekonomia", wherein the community sort of ignores some misbehavior, or withholds judgment, so as to avoid cutting a person off entirely. Pope Francis explicitly mentioned this concept of "ekonomia" when discussing his preference that (civilly) remarried Catholics be permitted the Eucharist. And he arguably had this concept in mind when advocating for the blessing of people in same-sex relationships.
I know many American evangelicals who believe Catholics are not true Christians, and as such, when they're talking about Christians they are not including Catholics in that discussion.
I was in an interview once and the prospective employer asked me what church I attend. I replied, "Catholic." He said, "Is that even Christian?" So, yeah, plenty of Americans have a skewed view of Catholicism.
As discrimination based on religion is illegal in most of the world, it’s also probably exposing the person asking and the company to a lot of potential legal risk. It’s a big no where I live and part of the things you are explicitly trained to never ask about.
Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are distinct and relatively recent (18th and 19th century in origin) strands within Protestantism (both being particularly prominent in the US.) They aren't equivalent to Protestantism.
More or less, though it's such an umbrella term at this point that a self-described "evangelical" may disclaim Protestant identity, not having an awareness of the historical link and intending to convey that they don't feel aligned with a Protestant denomination such as Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc. I've met many Evangelicals who said something along those lines when the subject came up in conversation.
Here's the big secret, just about every serious Christian doesn't believe other Christians are true Christians. It's a highly interpretive religion, and just about everyone goes off the deep end interpreting it. It's a sin to think this way, but it's a tautology because the foundational belief is that everyone is a sinner to begin with. TLDR, what you are describing is correct and expected. Original sin is not a bug, but a feature in Christianity.
My sin is that I believe others are sinners, but the reason for my sin is because I am sinner - trippy stuff :)
What part? I see you have a lot of faith-based links in your profile. Perhaps you think you are some kind of authority. Maybe you are! I have the wonky belief that God talks through us all, so anything you say, I'd actually take quite seriously.
Not sure if your vote is a religious thing or a political one. Basically you can vote for a satanist to take over a government. But you are damned if you are a satanist or in govt run by one.
Do you remember a president from those eras who when asked whether he believed that he was duty bound to uphold the Constitution answered “I don’t know.”?
> It’s funny seeing people talk about the decline of America.
Nixon said many things that were nearly as offensive to the rule of law and separation of powers as outlined in the constitution, even if they weren't as ignorant as anything Trump has said
He said the quiet part out loud but that doesn't change the fact that presidents have been ignoring the constitution for decades.
It's a trivial example but Biden trying to unilaterally declare the ERA law was absurd and his student loan forgiveness was obviously going to be found unconditional and he did it anyway.
Those aren't the actions of someone who takes the constitution seriously.
Whether you agree with it or not, at least the Patriot Act was passed by Congress and not simply Executive Orders because it's too inconvenient to work with Congress on legislation.
It's very difficult to challenge because the secret nature of it.
In order to sue, you have to prove standing and in order to have standing, you have to know you were harmed. It's hard to prove you were harmed if everything is top secret.
If we ever hit a point where nobody is talking about America being in decline, that will mean we are entering decline.
I do think we’ve been in a down period when it comes to politics for a while but I am mid to long term optimistic about things getting better. This is not the first time we’ve had crazy massively divisive politics or populist crackpottery. Overall I do not think we are in any kind of terminal decline.
What is happening is that other countries are rising. I think that’s good for us. When America was the only superpower it made us lazy and foolish.
Look at how it works out in the corporate world. Take Intel for instance. They had a near monopoly for about a decade on top performing CPUs and it destroyed the company. Google carved out a monopoly on search and they are complete trash now. Pride cometh before a fall because pride causes the fall.
What other countries are rising? I mean China is an obvious one but seems to be struggling. Europe is in decline. India continues to struggle.
If anything, the US has pulled even further ahead since 1990. Back then the USSR was a near-power to the US, but has fallen significantly since then.
Since all power is relative, you’d need to see the US falling relative to another country. And right now, I don’t really see a country on that trajectory.
China is gaining power as we speak. And USA is abdicating that power. Also, Russia seems to be a big winner currently, America will help them keep parts Ukraine and prepare for another invasion.
It’s certainly an amusing thread to read, the US has more power, no it has less, China is pulling ahead, actually it’s struggling, so is India, or not.
China is not without problems and had some problems in economy. This situation allows them to get ahead, internally plausiy blame Trump even for issues that existed even before, get new aliances and power.
America is not gaining power, that part is pure wishful thinking.
My optimism for the US is quite limited, because they have kinda knowingly dismantled their own democracy, and are in the process of dismantling it even more, while the president tries as hard as possible to become a Putin-like dictator, and important decisions are made by tech giant owning oligarchs. A while longer and the US might enter a civil war or will simply lose all good will it had directed towards it in the world and will then stand alone, while other countries enable the US' competitors. If Americans do not change something about their trajectory soon, it will not end well for them, and probably not end well for many other countries either.
The US has a history of hitting rock bottom every so often. First constitutional crisis leading to the replacement of the articles of confederation, civil war, Great Depression and the new deal, the Vietnam era, and now the collapse of the post Cold War order.
I am not sure fascism will take here. Americans might think they want it until the fascists start telling them what to do. We are kinda starting to see that.
We will see more. Wait until some stand your ground red blooded American homeowner guns down a bunch of ICE goons doing a warrantless raid on the wrong house. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet. I’ve been checking the news for it daily. Then Trump tries to confiscate guns. I’ve been predicting for years that it’s MAGA who will try to “come for the guns.” That will be a hoot as they say a few hours South of where I am.
Of course they still have the culture war card. For some reason trans derangement syndrome (TDS) still has a hold on people. I don’t understand why that particular thing works so well, even on some people you would not expect.
> I don’t understand why that particular thing works so well, even on some people you would not expect.
When you engage these sorts of people and ask the right follow-up questions, there's some common underlying concerns that underpin the polite fictions.
I've found that for men, they are scared that the next woman they look at covetously might have been AMAB. Even if they understand that there is a difference between sex and gender, they are scared that their acquaintances aren't, and are terrified of the prospect of being "tricked" into being attracted to someone who they see as a man. For women, I've found that they see men as biologically and intrinsically dangerous, and that a tiger doesn't change its stripes just because they are alienated from masculinity.
Not that I agree with either viewpoint. Being worried about being "accidentally gay" speaks more to underlying insecurities surrounding masculinity, and "men are inherently dangerous" is just misandry. But I'm no longer surprised by TDS.
I don't think this is happening organically. Trans people are such a small percentage of the population but we've been getting a ton of media coverage. There's a concerted effort on the right to demonize us and that filters down into the culture.
I can't speak to men but women are so much more comfortable around me since I came out. Most of my partners and friends have been cis women. One of the best parts of transitioning is random women will come up and talk to me when I'm running errands. This started happening early in my transition when I was very much visibly trans. People can be weird around me if they haven't met a trans person before but the people who are hostile tend to be terminally online.
I'm not trying to downplay the inordinate amount of media coverage transfolk are getting.
However, effective propaganda needs an audience willing to listen and accept the things they're being told. I don't think that propaganda turns good people hateful. Instead, I believe it gives people predisposed to certain hateful beliefs a socially acceptable excuse they can repeat for feeling the way they do.
> For women, I've found that they see men as biologically and intrinsically dangerous, and that a tiger doesn't change its stripes just because they are alienated from masculinity.
This is demonstrably true in many scenarios. Such as, males being transferred to women's prisons because they say they are women. As a consequence, female prisoners have been sexually assaulted and raped by these men. Drawing attention to this isn't misandry, it's reality.
So...there's a funny little consequence of putting in the work to have those real-life conversations, and that's that one starts to be able to see "past" post-hoc justifications like yours.
Trying to argue the "facts" with anonymous internet denizens is pretty much useless, because especially in today's post-truth landscape, you can find justification for any horrendous opinion if you dig deep enough. That is even assuming the person you're talking to is even real and not an AI, a bored sociopath on an alt account, a paid shill or otherwise.
Thankfully, spaces like these are very much not representative of real life, where most individuals are nice, decent people minding their own business, and "saving face" isn't seen as such an imperative away from the public scrutiny of the internet.
> For some reason trans derangement syndrome (TDS) still has a hold on people. I don’t understand why that particular thing works so well, even on some people you would not expect.
I think it work as good as it does since there are no trans people around most people at all. It is a TV thing.
Outside of big cities I have never seen anyone. Prevalence measures varies but in my 30k pop county there should be like from 3 to <1.
I live in Fargo, ND. Conservative, small city. I work with 3 people who are trans and know another 3 outside of work and regularly see others around town. It does seem like a trend and I doubt most of them have dysphoria, but they're around and visible even in conservative areas.
Fargo is the main population centre in North Dakota though, right?
But ye the line between bisexual and transsexual have been blurried lately. Or maybe better put, I am not keeping track of the trends since I am no longer a student.
It's not their responsibility to present themselves to you for enumeration and measurement, festoon themselves and their cars with trans pride tattoos and flags and bumper stickers, or allow you to sexually assault them by inspecting their genitals before playing sports or taking a shit.
Maybe they're just ordinary every day people, going about their ordinary every day lives, all around you, without you even knowing about it, because it's none of your business.
In fact, maybe that's what transphobic bigots with Trans Derangement Syndrome most fear, that they are surrounded by everyday normal trans people going about their everyday normal lives, but they don't even know it, and that is why they are so obsessed with inspecting other people's genitals and denying them human rights.
Any transphobic bigots with Trans Derangement Syndrome want to chime in and explain exactly why you're so obsessed with other people's genitals, which are none of your business? Or Trump voters who support him and his normative gender role enforcers grabbing women and children by the pussy to judge whether or not they're allowed to play sports or use public restrooms, all in the name of "protecting women", at the same time as they celebrate taking away women's right to abortion? Care to share your browser history, so we know if you're jerking off to the same secret obsession that gets you so hot and bothered in public?
NORTH CAROLINA: Anti-trans Trump-endorsed Republican candidate for North Carolina governor Mark Robinson called himself a 'Black Nazi,' admitted to liking trans porn:
>“I like watching [transgender slur] on girl porn! That’s fucking hot! It takes the man out while leaving the man in!” Robinson wrote in one comment verified by the outlet. “And yeah I’m a ‘perv’ too!” -Mark Robinson aka "minisoldr"
Unjustly confronting women, accusing them of being men, and expelling them from the bathroom just because they don't look stereotypically feminine enough for you is not "protecting women". It's as sexist and bigoted as it gets.
WASHINGTON, DC: Lauren Boebert & Nancy Mace confront woman they thought was trans in ‘predictable’ Capitol bathroom incident:
>A misguided attempt to enforce Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s discriminatory anti-trans bathroom policy at the Capitol led to an embarrassing misstep by GOP Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina who were involved in an incident on Thursday that transgender Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride's office called “predictable.”
>The pair confronted a cisgender woman in the restroom, mistakenly believing her to be the Delaware Democratic lawmaker, who is the first out transgender member of Congress. McBride had previously said she would follow House rules after Johnson banned transgender people from using the bathroom in line with their gender identity. The incident has reignited criticism of Johnson’s anti-trans bathroom regulations, which critics say endanger and harass all women.
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS: Woman says Boston hotel guard told her to leave bathroom because she ‘was a man’:
>Same-sex couple says they were appalled after being confronted and wrongfully accused in women’s restroom.
>A couple visiting Boston says they were left confused and appalled after being forced out of the Liberty Hotel during a Kentucky Derby party on Saturday, following what they describe as being confronted and wrongfully accused in the women’s restroom.
>Ansley Baker and her girlfriend, Liz Victor, both cisgender women, said a hotel security guard entered the women’s bathroom and demanded Baker leave the stall she was using, claiming she didn’t belong there.
>“All of a sudden there was banging on the door,” Baker recalled to CBS News.
>“I pulled my shorts up. I hadn’t even tied them. One of the security guards was there telling me to get out of the bathroom, that I was a man in the women’s bathroom. I said: ‘I’m a woman.’”
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA: Cis Woman Mistaken as Transgender Records Being Berated in Bathroom:
>A woman in Las Vegas says she remains shaken from her experience last week when another woman berated her in a public restroom for being transgender. The problem is that she's not trans, and, as she puts it, regardless of whether she had been, the entire situation was plainly wrong.
>In Las Vegas, Jay, a 24-year-old cis woman, was driving with her boyfriend on Thursday when she said she had to use the restroom.
>Jay says the couple stopped at Rampart Casino after being out all day to fix a seat belt on their car.
>Because she knew she would take longer, she gave her boyfriend some money to gamble while he waited and she went to the bathroom.
>"As soon as I got in, I went straight to a stall," Jay tells The Advocate. "About a minute or so in, I start to hear a woman being extremely aggressive. At first, I wasn't hearing exactly what she was saying until I started hearing her say, 'Trans, figure out your identity at home ... they better not come out of there. .. that's not allowed ... that's a boy, [and] they think this is [OK] because it's being taught in schools.'"
Yeah, they do, don't they? And because of that, it's really tough to be trans or gay or whatever in a small town. And that drives people into the closet, and drives them to leave.
How much do you really know about those people you never saw again after high school?
Aren't the normies using ChatGPT to generate something closely resembling plausible answers now, exactly because Google's quality has dipped? Jeez, the normies I know sure are, to a man...
“ 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.”
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).
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 :)
I dunno, they spent a ton of time talking about how to get rid of the last pope, so who knows which other "Actually believe the teachings of Christ" popes they bad-mouth when they get together?
Personal experience: when I was in high school in my country there was a teacher who was in Opus Dei. He tried to recruit students by leaving them a letter and inviting them to a "scholarship". I got such a letter, I was so excited. The school found out about that and investigated. We're a mixed-race country. The Opus Dei teacher has invited exclusively white students. He had invited top students #2 to #4 in my class by grade, but not #1, who was black.
i know what you mean, although they're not single-race (i hate using this expression, omg) in a binary way. or at least only if you exclude the minorities in these countries who still make it diverse, be it in a small way.
while it wouldn’t surprise me to learn they might be discussing this, but if they were it would almost certainly be in disgust—opus dei is very very extreme in their dislike of ideas such as those from pope leo.
one of my grandparents dabbled, and every single one of them i’ve met were very… trying to be kind here… veerrry very into the church. not a normal into the church, much more extreme. i’m desperately trying not to use the c word, but it really does fit. if one finds themselves being taken in, truly, please, take just a lil bit and learn how orgs like scientology and heavens gate etc… recruit people. the recruitment similarities are uncanny. the after effects are uncanny.
As long as you aren't a smug asshole about it, most religious people don't mind talking about religion with atheists. You have to be honestly interested in what they have to say and not just looking for a way to 'prove them wrong'
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.
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".
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.
Growing up to Scottish and Irish Catholics in England, I remember talking to a bunch of Ulster protestants as a teenager when the topic turned to religion - I said "Well, I was raised Catholic but I'm not really a believer of any kind" and the response was "Ah, so you're one of THOSE Catholics!".
Literacy is a great gift which shouldn't be squandered: much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more. To try to make knowledge of ones spiritual heritage out to be "fetishization" is inappropriate in my estimation. This reminds me of a story told by Dr. Scott Hahn, a Catholic biblical scholar, about an experience he once had (closely paraphrased):
Questioner: "Why do we need to know all of this [bible study, theology, etc]? I can just think of the medieval peasant who is illiterate and thus disqualified from any and everything that you're talking about."
Dr. Hahn: "I think the best response to your question would actually come from the medieval peasant himself, because if you could imagine him standing here next to me he would look at you and say, 'You're using me as an excuse? You have books, you have literacy, you have access to these resources, and you're using me as an excuse to not take advantage of them?'"
Bibles were the first book to sell in large numbers when the printing press was invented.
Before that the church did expect at least priests and monks and nuns to be able to read the Bible, and there were a lot of them.
Most is strictly true, but you are talking about a millennium between the clear primacy of Rome and the invention of the printing press, and half a millennium since so its not hugely more.
Finally, historically most people could not own books and had no to limited literacy. Literacy is not necessary to be a good anything, but its definitely better to be literate and have access to things to read.
There's a standing joke among cradle Catholics that while they are taking food to impoverished LGBT prostitutes in the skid row, traditionalist Catholics are trawling the books looking for an excuse in the Canon to stay comfy at home at night.
> 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.
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.
> Also, most Catholics are born in catholic families so it's not like they chose catholicism over something else.
I do not know whether that is true any more, at least in all countries. At one Catholic parish I knew in Britain about half the congregation were adult converts.
Then there are a lot of people who leave and return. I might count as that - Catholic family, was agnostic (and married in registry office, which turned out to be useful), and now am definitely a Christian but feel denomination does not matter and do not really accept much of the Catholic theology (and some of its practical consequences, such as no women priests really bother me). OTOH I have not, and would not, formally leave the church either.
No idea how old OP is, but I think there's a pattern amongst Millennial cradle Catholics in particular. You grow up with it, maybe you went to Catholic grade school and high school, perhaps even a Catholic college (Notre Dame if you're lucky, Creighton or Marquette if you didn't get that 1500 on the SAT or a 34 on the ACT that you wanted). And then there's sort of a fork when you hit adulthood. You either drop it and never come back, or you passively drift away and then one day you get married and have kids and start taking it seriously again. I knew the reference because of the latter. I suspect there's a lot of Millennial Catholics who are like that.
This is to say, or rather explain, that I respect those who convert and have a predilection to Traditionalism. Part of the reason cradle Catholics drifted away is that the boomer generation basically ruined the mystique and the tradition, so when you're a kid it just felt like another chore.
I was raised atheist and the education I received on religion was also firmly from an atheist (I guess anthropological?) viewpoint. What we were taught was that religion in theory (e.g. what is written in the holy books) and religion as it's actually practiced can often be quite different and none of them is realer than the other. Or something like that, it was a while ago.
I would generally agree, except that there is a very well know Pope Leo that anyone who has taken any European history should know about. Pope Leo X that was Pope when Martin Luther kicked off the reformation.
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.
Someone asked me the same question! I just know that popes pick their names to indicate what their priorities are. Francis picked a totally new name. I think that in itself signals a time of change in the church, we can also look to st Francis And the traditional association with kindness, mercy, not to mention his "Rule" (basically that Christ had no possessions).
Typically the previous pope with that name is where you look. Maybe the first too. Leo I stood up to Atilla the Hun. Leo XIII championed trade unions and workers rights (though also rejected socialism). Make of it what you will.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
Yes, but the past half century has been a rather unusual time for the Church since it's coming out of one of the more consequential ecumenical councils. It typically takes the Church a few generations to come to an agreement about the meaning of an important council. But in the immediate wake of it there's usually a wider diversity of visions.
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.
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].
> 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).
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."
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.”
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.
A lot of the church abuse scandal happened during a couple of decades when the church's handling of the cases were the result of following the then scientific consensus on the matter. The church was not alone in this. The scientists told us they could be reformed.
Just look up the history of what was going on in Germany following the same advice.
It's a relatively new thing where we just declare pedophiles unfixable and jail them. In the past, the social scientists told us that it was the result of the environment.
> A lot of the church abuse scandal happened during a couple of decades when the church's handling of the cases were the result of following the then scientific consensus on the matter. The church was not alone in this. The scientists told us they could be reformed.
That is not what happened though. Is there any evidence that the church decided that it would hide and cover up accusations of abuse and move clergy around to avoid them being charged and convicted because that was the "scientific consensus"?
Certainly many within the church believed they could reform the abusers in their midst, but that's a wholly different statement than claiming the coverups, which are what's being discussed here, were due to this belief and not that they were merely protecting their own and putting their own judgement above the legal system in which they lived.
I'd wager that the rates of abuse in public schools are not as high as in Catholic schools. I'd go so far as to say that there isn't necessarily anything about Catholicism that produces more pedophiles than normal, and that there aren't necessarily more pedophiles employed by Catholic schools than by others.
However, it seems likely that there's something about the institution that produces more molesters than normal, and clearly there is something about the institution that causes it to lean towards quieting and covering up accusations rather than rectifying them. It doesn't really have anything to do with the reformability of pedophilia; the church faces the necessity of changing either how it handles molesters, or how the nature of its organization seems to create more molesters. The problem is that the church is an institution that seems loathe to change in general.
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.
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.
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]"
> 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.
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.
> 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.
I am talking about men who are already priests cannot marry. I think you are talking about men who are married becoming priests which is allowed in the Catholic Church and well as the East.
None of the Eastern churches allow priests to marry.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
Being a married Anglican priest is basically the only conventional way to do that. The discipline of celibacy is otherwise strictly observed.
Of course, if a married Eastern Catholic priest decided to join the Latin Church with the rest of his family, this could happen too.
But generally, a married man will want to discern the diaconate, as the priesthood will simply be out of the question, except in these exceptional circumstances.
> 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.
What also made the abuse scandal so bad was that it is predominantly a problem of homosexuality. And the Catholic Church has been quite accustomed to ordain gay men to the priesthood and accept them into monasteries. And this is not generally a problem if the men have good self-control and they can uphold their vows.
But if homosexual men begin to dabble in pederasty and begin to abuse their positions of power against vulnerable and defenseless boys, this is a real scandal, and the Church has been quite embarrassed for people to find out just how prevalent homosexuality is among the ranks of clergy and religious. And the general public and the mainstream media know this, and they have leveraged that embarrassment against the Church in order to discredit her.
And the homosexual aspect of all of this tends to get swept under the rug and sort of ignored, because the general public, in a hypocritical sort of way, doesn't really mind if men are having sex with boys, at least they're not supposed to, but the absence of little girls from the records has been difficult to deny.
The Church can try and correct this by denying entry to homosexual men. But then she will have a profound vocations crisis if she is selecting heterosexual men and hanging the gays out to dry with nothing at all to do. More than a vocations crisis, she will be accused of being "unwelcoming" and "unjust" towards gay men entirely. So she is truly upon the horns of a dilemma.
> In 2022, alleged victims of abuse in 2007 by priests Ricardo Yesquén and Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzáles said Prevost failed to investigate their case.[58] The Diocese of Chiclayo stated that Prevost followed proper procedures, met with Ana María Quispe and her sisters in April 2022 to personally attend the victims, encouraging civil action while initiating a canonical investigation (which he sent to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith).[59][60] The sisters stated in 2024 that no full penal canonical investigation occurred, and an article from América Televisión agreed the church's investigation was not thorough.[61][62]
Please consider whether you might be prejudiced, and whether the things you believe might be false. Your assertions certainly are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
> 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.
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.
You argued that I was mistranslating. I showed that the etymology and transliteration made a mistranslation effectively impossible. You then completely ignore the evidence to make up an assertion about changing semantics with ZERO proof (even though the burden of proof is on you).
The only reason the word bishop exists in English is because we needed a loan word for episkopos. It has served that purpose and in the religious context has had no significant change in semantics.
As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1
> But since Dionysius declares that there are three orders, namely, bishops who rule, priests who enlighten, and deacons who cleanse, why does the Apostle make no mention of priests?
> The answer is that priests are included under the term, bishop, not as though the two orders are not really distinct, but only nominally. For priest is the same as elder, and bishop the same as overseer. Hence priests and bishops are indiscriminately called both bishops and priests.
> As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1
Aquinas is writing a narrative more than 1,000 years after the fact rationalizing how it is possible for the biblical narrative to be consistent with the order observed later. He does a very good job of that. It is not, in the slightest, evidence that the three-orders system and the particular roles assigned to each—which has evolved considerably over time since it is first clearly attested within the Catholic Church, without even considering what Protestants and newer movements claiming the title "Christian" have done with it —actually existed at the time of the NT and was being referenced therein.
This makes no fundamental argument aside from "we decided to change things to be different from what is in the Bible".
The clear reference was to the overseer of a church or what would be considered a pastor or priest. All bishops are priests.
Mark 10:8-9 KJV
[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
This shows that even if you considered bishops to be a new creation, they shouldn't abandon their family for the position. And of course, the order of deacons isn't necessary of commentary as it is specifically addressed in the next part of 1 Tim 3.
I am the one who argued you might be mistranslating (not the person you just replied to), and I am now somewhat convinced that you are, and that the intent of 1 Tim was to discuss church leaders in a more general sense than the modern term of "bishop." The etymology bears very little weight on the actual meaning of the translation. Lots of words change meaning over time.
Your quote of Aquinas also appears to disagree with you, and takes "episkopos" more generally than the modern usage of "bishop." It actually seems that the catholic bishops may have adopted a word that was in common use for an overseer of a parish.
More recent translations and scholarly commentaries all turn away from the "episkopos" = "bishop" idea. Again, the literal translation of "episkopos" is "overseer."
Aquinas takes it in the only sense that would make sense if you could. These verses discuss the overseer of a church and the rest of the chapter discusses the requirements to be a deacon of a church. The two are completely linked by the context.
Because it is discussing churches, it would be saying that priests must be married. As all bishops are priests, it would apply to them as well.
Even if you took the broader position that it must apply elsewhere, the Catholic Church has only three orders -- deacon, priest, and bishop. These verses MUST be discussing either priest or bishop meaning at least one of those two is not following what Paul 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).
That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree?
"You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance.
If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.
> That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree?
You are not making a good argument. If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that.
> "You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance.
Fine, ignore the scholars. Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position. If it was that clear you should be able to find somebody who agrees with you.
You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation. This is why there are thousands of different churches. Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture. You are trying to prove Christians, or maybe just Catholics, are idiots or whatever you are trying to do. If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility.
> If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.
Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture.
The Catholic Church believes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15
> So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter
There is clearly things outside of scripture they believe.
Anybody who can follow basic logic can come to the Catholic position from the Bible as I have already mentioned.
Premise 1: The apostles are bishops.
Premise 2: Paul was an apostle.
Premise 3: Paul was not married and had no children.
Therefore bishops are not required to be married and have children.
> If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that.
Can you point to a bishop appointed by Jesus' 12 disciples who was not married with children? If not, then you are making a baseless assertion.
> Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position.
Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children. Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible.
> You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation.
You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems. The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation. It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms.
> Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture.
If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole?
> If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility.
Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts. You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable.
> Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture.
Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here.
If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said.
> Premise 1: The apostles are bishops.
What evidence do you have for this? Apostle means "messenger" or "sent forth". This is far different than Bishop which means "overseer". Paul was certainly familiar with both terms (calling himself a "servant of God, called to be a apostle (messenger)").
Ephesians 4:11 (KJV)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Paul sees a clear distinction between the messengers and those who would oversee the churches. This is why he doesn't see his writings as hypocritical and why the other two premises simply do not matter to the conclusion.
> Can you point to a bishop appointed by Jesus' 12 disciples who was not married with children? If not, then you are making a baseless assertion.
First let me say more than just Paul was unmarried. John was also unmarried. There is also debate if Peter's wife was alive. We only hear about his mother in law, not a wife.
In terms of bishops consrecated by the apostles, we do not have a huge amount of evidence for most, but almost everybody believes St Ignatius of Antioch was unmarried.
> Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children.
You can't use the verse we are debating to prove your point.
> Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible.
OK? You did see that I said "Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position". I know Protestants rejected this understanding. My point is that if everybody in the Church disagrees with your understanding for the first 3/4 of the existence of the church then you are in the wrong.
I don't care what they think on the Bible because they reject what all the early Christians believed.
> You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems.
You are literally saying you know what the Bible means better then almost every Christan who has ever lived. Only a minority of modern Christians agree with you. That is a steller example of pride.
> The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation.
Nobody is saying there is a mistake. I am saying you are misunderstanding and your only evidence is your interpretation and some people 1500+ years after it was written.
> It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms.
This is a bad example. They do not deny that Smith taught polygamy. They belive that Woodruff received a revelation telling them it is no longer permissble.
Nobody is claiming there is a new revelation when it comes to the bishop topic.
> If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole
That makes absolutely no sense. If I write the statement "the sunrise was beautiful." Somebody could say I believe the sunrise was ugly. Does that mean that my statement is a farce? No, it just means they don't know what I was saying.
> Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts.
This is not an adhominen. I am literally trying to help you out and give you constructive criticism.
> You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable.
I take issues with your interpretation. You clearly don't understand and context and are saying if the Bible isn't worded in the exact way I want it to be, then it doesn't mean what it says.
> Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here.
You sure love the phrase ad-homenem despite not knowing what it is. Telling somebody they don't understand something isn't an ad homenem. I am not attacking your character or anything like that.
> If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said.
It has a massive bearing because you can see that nobody took it to mean what you are claiming it means. Surely the Apostles and early bishops would not have had unmarried bishops if that is what they thought it meant.
> What evidence do you have for this? Apostle means "messenger" or "sent forth". This is far different than Bishop which means "overseer". Paul was certainly familiar with both terms (calling himself a "servant of God, called to be a apostle (messenger)").
Apostles are bishops with a special role due to personally meeting Jesus. Of course since it is only implied in the Bible you are going to reject it.
> Ephesians 4:11 (KJV) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
> Paul sees a clear distinction between the messengers and those who would oversee the churches. This is why he doesn't see his writings as hypocritical and why the other two premises simply do not matter to the conclusion.
Apostles are bishops, but not all bidhops are apostles so it would be accurate that not everybody had an apostle.
That quote also doesn't deny that somebody could have multiple roles. Surely an evangelist would also be a teacher? Surely prophets are also teachers (teaching the prophecy they received)?
> almost everybody believes St Ignatius of Antioch was unmarried.
Speaking of him, read Philadelphians. He makes the assertion that the apostles were married men (including Paul). What he makes of himself, it either implies that he is married or would like to be (to be like those others).
> You can't use the verse we are debating to prove your point.
I'm asserting that it says what it says. YOU are the one who must prove that Paul didn't mean what he said.
> You are literally saying you know what the Bible means better then almost every Christan who has ever lived.
To the contrary, YOU are making an assertion that everyone believes this, but are then failing to show any proof except clear cases of "nobody knows, but I'll assert that they were unmarried anyway".
> only evidence is your interpretation and some people 1500+ years after it was written.
Even the Catholic Church didn't mandate celibacy until nearly 1200AD. You are making a very fallacious argument both on this count and that an appeal to authority or extra-Bibical tradition isn't an argument to overturn what the book clearly says.
> the Church disagrees with your understanding for the first 3/4 of the existence of the church then you are in the wrong.
This is a very misleading representation of history. Locking the Bible behind a Latin barrier meant that most people couldn't read and question and most who could read Latin had no access to a Bible and it seems that most of those who did had very little inclination to read it. Of those priests or educated laity who did read and question, most were captured and tortured until they died or recanted.
Under such ignorance and extreme pressure to comply, an appeal to tradition is especially weak.
> This is a bad example. They do not deny that Smith taught polygamy. They belive that Woodruff received a revelation telling them it is no longer permissble.
The very core of their beliefs around the requirements for becoming a God are rooted in this claim and having multiple wives is a necessity for this in the afterlife (not to mention that God is believed to have multiple wives). While I disagree that polygamy is good (it seems to always result in misery), I do respect the LDS who stick to their book no matter what.
> Nobody is claiming there is a new revelation when it comes to the bishop topic.
If there's no new revelation, then the old revelation still applies, but is being ignored.
> it just means they don't know what I was saying.
Explain what you mean without then.
> Telling somebody they don't understand something isn't an ad homenem. I am not attacking your character or anything like that.
Telling me that I am prideful or uncharitable or not humble has NOTHING to do with the topic aside from trying to attach a bad label on me so the logic can be ignored. These are textbook examples of ad-hominem attacks.
> Apostles are bishops with a special role due to personally meeting Jesus. Of course since it is only implied in the Bible you are going to reject it.
Of course. It is inductive reasoning. You start with the conclusion that it must be so then try to find reasons it should be true. That's been this entire conversation. Deductive reasoning would lead to the conclusion that I am correct in my assertion, but the Catholic Church says otherwise, so you must fabricate reasons however feeble to justify them.
You haven't even hit on the actual reasoning from that 1139 decision either. Their argument was nothing like what you are trying to push. It was the argument that they otherwise couldn't keep the priesthood from becoming nepotistic with the priest father passing the role to his son.
But this doesn't hold any weight either.
First, passing on the priesthood was a strict requirement in the Old Testament, so it certainly isn't necessarily bad.
Second, if it IS being passed along for purely nepotistic reasons, they would be duty-bound to remove the offending priest and their children from their office. There's an entire hierarchy that should in theory be aimed at exactly this. The ruling speaks in at least some degree to their inability to govern their own priests.
Third, an inability to stop your priests from doing something bad is not a reason to do something else against the Bible in response. The correct response is a reformation of your clergy.
> Apostles are bishops, but not all bidhops are apostles so it would be accurate that not everybody had an apostle.
This does not hold. Paul was an Apostle, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of him overseeing a church. Instead, he would travel to a place to preach for a time then move on to the next place right up until his final voyage to Rome where he was killed.
As I recall, the Catholic view is that Paul was a Bishop because he layed hands on others, but of course, this is an argument that proves too much as the priest/bishop arrangement by their own admission did not exist at that time and as such he could not be a bishop in that manner, but also not an overseer of a church.
> That quote also doesn't deny that somebody could have multiple roles. Surely an evangelist would also be a teacher? Surely prophets are also teachers (teaching the prophecy they received)?
Certainly, but likewise, it does NOT indicate that Apostles and Pastors/bishops are always linked.
> 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).
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.
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 för 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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
> excommunication is removeable via confession, which is freely given.
Lifting an excommunication has a higher bar than just absolution of sins in confession. It requires permission of the local ordinary (usually the diocesan bishop), and for excommunications for especially bad things like desecrating the Eucharist or violating the seal of confession, it requires permission of the Apostolic See.
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.
That's the thing...you would not be fortunate. The institution exists because it is a net benefit to humanity.
> Is there a single entity to have ever existed in the history of humanity that has more blood on its hands?
Depending on how you count, probably many. In wars, more than 98% of casualties are attributable to political wars that had no religious motivation, and fewer so of Roman Catholic motivation. So, whatever those political entities are.
A confounding factor in answering the question is that the Catholics have been around for 2000 years, and many violently bloody entities fell after comparably short periods of time. For example, the Khmer Rouge existed for 4 years and killed 3 million people, no religious entity could attain the same level of bloodshed over their long existence even if they tried, which they don't.
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.
I think that gets close since you can hear them from the reaction around you, but I don't think it's a equally distributed.
You may have regions where the fans are very vocal but you also have a lot of regions where people don't care all that much especially if you are in a region that got eliminated in an early round
I'm in the UK and you simply didn't have that kind of reaction because Anglican church does not care about the pope. I asked my friend group if they've heard there was a new pope elected and their reaction was "what happened to the last one?".
It was on the news but there were no bells ringing etc. Same as in your football example I suppose.
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.)
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.
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.
What I was thinking is that a billion people all around the globe got an involuntary information upload all at roughly the same time.
Being on the street hearing the bells and recognizing what it meant while a huge number of people all around the globe have the same realization at the same time feels somehow incredibly connecting, and not even necessarily at a religious level.
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.
Yes the whole world is somewhat curious who the president is but especially in timezones where it's inconvenient to follow that it's more a "we'll read it in the news later" thing.
The fact that a new pope has been elected is an information is information you don't need to look for because it's announced through one of the oldest public announencement systems ( the church bells )
> 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.
Blue starts at Saskatchewan not MB. Please stop spreading this idea that everyone on the Prairies is analagous to a bible-thumping Albertan. Rural Ontario also
goes mostly conservative ; just like every other province, the split is urban and rural. Alberta and Sask buck this trend by having much higher consistent Con representation in the big cties. Manitoba does not. Only 2 Winnipeg ridings went Con and one was due to heavy vote splitting. Northern Mb is a consistent safe riding for the ndp or libs which is unheard of for a rural riding in AB or Sk.
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.
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.
> 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.)
It definitely can’t be “ancient times” because the Sistine Chapel chimney was only added in the 18th century to protect Michelangelo’s frescos from the soot of burning ballots (1417 is just the oldest known reference to the practice, it’s likely older than that).
The whole black smoke/no smoke didn’t start out as a signal but everyone kept trying to interpret them as such in the 19th century. Black smoke meant no election and no smoke was ambiguous so they eventually switched to white smoke to keep the public from going crazy speculating. L
The first reference to non-black smoke I can find is in "Conclave di Leone XIII" by Raffaele De Cesare about the 1878 conclave (Leo XIII’s election):
> "Cardinal Borromeo, tasked with burning the ballots, burned them without straw, and the smoke was barely visible. There were few people in the square. The external steps of St. Peter's were full of onlookers until midday, but after the smoke, it slowly emptied. No one supposed that the Pope had been elected." (translated from Italian)
The 1914 conclave is the commonly accepted date because Pius X decreed in 1904 that all papers relating to the election (not just the ballots themselves) were to be burned after the voting. Since they’d burn all the others papers (without wet straw) only after a successful election, it would produce a lot more white smoke so the Catholic church made an administrative decision to make that into an explicit signal (though I think they use something to “enrich” the color now).
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?
It's one of the classic falsehoods that programmers (or perhaps more accurately, product managers) believe about localization: that location equals language.
Yeah I usually don't pay attention but as an American, rock on Pope Leo! I think this is a nice plus in a sea of minuses that has hit the USA lately as far as it's status in the world looking more and more like the bad guy.
It’s not free money, it’s high risk with a net positive expected return. Any significant profit would carry an irresponsible level of risk. Significant profit without significant risk would take many bets, which means sustaining the accuracy advantage over broader subject matter, which means lots of time spent, which means it’s time for money, which is just a job.
Suppose I gave Provost 5% chance of winning the papal election. Then I would have been more accurate than Polymarket. But I wouldn't call betting on what I perceive as 5% chance of winning "making free money"; from my perspective it would still be a wild risk to bet any significant money on that outcome.
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.
> he expressed sympathy for George Floyd and criticized U.S. immigration policies
> Prevost advocated for stronger Church action against climate change
> Prevost opposes the ordination of women
> Prevost opposes euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. [...] In 2012, he criticized popular culture's sympathy for the "homosexual lifestyle" and same-sex families.
Are any of those views any different from any previous Pope?
The difference the media likes to talk about between "liberal" and "conservative" popes (and candidates) is not in the beliefs but which parts of those beliefs they communicate effectively. Perceptions are also heavily influenced by what the media choose to report (they are far more interested in some topics than others).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.)
My father-in-law grew up a few blocks from Prevost and they’re a Cubs household. The family switched a century ago, after the Sox gambling scandal. Serious business!
This is a straightforward consequence of how continents are defined by various cultures.
In Anglo cultures, there are seven continents, with a distinct North and South America, and Europe and Asia.
In Romance cultures, there are six continents, with a single America, and a distinct Europe and Asia.
In some eastern European cultures, there are six continents, with a distinct North and South America, and a single Eurasia.
Who’s right? Who’s wrong? It’s kind of meaningless; it’s not like these definitions are based on some semi‐objective characteristic like counting tectonic plates. In the Anglosphere, nobody is actually confused about whether “America” refers to the country or the continents. Canadians don’t appreciate being called Americans, and (in my experience) Mexicans don’t desire it either. If one wants to refer to North and South America together, there’s a perfectly normal way to do so: “the Americas.”
USian, aside from its lack of euphony and its general connotation of being used by know‐it‐all scolds, is particularly silly since the existence of two countries named “United States”—two North American countries named “United States”—means it’s just as ambiguous a country name as “America” is claimed to be.
Even though I consider estadounidense silly (why aren’t people of Estados Unidos Mexicanos considered estadounidense, exactly?), I use it when speaking Spanish, because that’s the way people say “American” in Spanish. I don’t explain to Spanish‐speaking people how ignorant they are for using such a silly, ambiguous word. One wishes the same courtesy were offered in the other direction!
While Americans can mean "from the US", the term "statunitensi" is how people from the US are commonly called in Italy. And in other countries. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and calling Americans for people from the US is just a figure of speech called synecdoche.
The United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (Spanish: Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata), earlier known as the United Provinces of South America (Spanish: Provincias Unidas de Sudamérica), was a name adopted in 1816 by the Congress of Tucumán for the region of South America that declared independence in 1816, with the Sovereign Congress taking place in 1813, during the Argentine War of Independence (1810–1818) that began with the May Revolution in 1810. It originally comprised rebellious territories of the former Spanish Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata dependencies and had Buenos Aires as its capital.
But then it clashes with the naming of other people that live in America. We south americans also call ourselves Americans because we live in América – taught as a single continent with two subcontinents. We call people from the US Estadounidenses because “Americans” wouldn’t make any sense for us.
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
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.
It's not as straightforward. Francis was voted by cardinals who were appointed by the much more conservative JPII and Benedict XVI, so it's not that easy to control or direct the outcome of a conclave.
1. If the pope were of median age for a Cardinal when selected, then about half the popes would still be around when he died. I don't have numbers, but my instinct would be that more senior Cardinals are more likely to be selected pope, which would mean a minority would be appointed by the previous pope at the time of the Conclave.
2. It was only in 1970 that an age-cap was put on Cardinals in the conclave, which significantly increases the power of the previous pope has on his successor; this disqualifies 117 out of 251 Cardinals today.
3. There are certain positions that customarily come along with a cardinality; following this custom diluted the pope's power a bit. Francis did not follow this custom[1]
If you want a discussion of the papal selection, you could do worse than this substack post[2] from a week ago.
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".
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.
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.
I agree that your statement about religion not informing political views is true of many people. I would argue that the "standard" positions of both major parties in America have components which seriously contradict standard Christian teachings. If one wanted to find a party that more accurately reflected Christian positions they'd have to do something like vote for the American Solidary Party, which is arguably completely ineffective (I still did it).
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.
As a practicing Southern Baptist, I don’t find Vance’s political ideology contradicts Christ’s teachings.
Could you provide some good exemplar backed by scripture please? Preferably not cherry picked lines that tacitly support your earthly ideology, please.
Okay, yes, we get it. But the United States as a name even is not unique to western hemisphere countries - the name of Mexico is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" - or United Mexican States.
We were the first country from the to be recognized by the Western Europeans, and the people at the time didn't anticipate the current situation, so forgive us for having a name in English that is a bit ambiguous, but how many people complain that there's no common name for Europe and Africa combined? Why is everyone so interested in lumping two continents together whose commonality stops with being the result of European colonialism and the consensus of a few mapmakers?
I'd argue that, Vikings aside, it is a bit weird to use the term "America" to describe lands that neither Christopher Columbus nor Americo Vespucci visited in their lifetime.
The USA may have been the first recognized country, but the term "America" was coined much earlier. But I'm a reasonable person - if we really want to keep it as two separate continents, "America" and "North America" works for me.
>TIL. That’s funny because afaik Mexicans refer to the USA as “estados unidos”.
Just as bad is that norteamericanos is the popular term for Americans (in the American sense), despite the existence of Canada and Mexico itself on the continent.
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?
I dunno, I had plenty of teachers who were monks. Admittedly they didn’t have the LinkedIn grind set to get to pope. Heck our CS teacher in high school was a monk too.
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.
The deliberations of the conclave are secret in perpetuity. It is not possible for your news agency to report on why this candidate was selected. Whatever they said is an outsider's guess.
Yep he's more of a citizen of the world than an American, otherwise I don't think he would have ever been considered. It also helps he was held in high regard by Pope Francis.
If you're talking about crossing country borders, then maybe. If you're talking about distance traveled, I would venture to guess that Americans on average travel further distances. The United States of America has states larger than many countries in Europe.
Citizens of the world usually refers to cultural exposure and appreciation for differences around the world. I have never seen it refer to distance travelled, however I can see how some Americans can use that definition to try and change the topic
I believe the question implied "in living memory". Popes notoriously don't directly speak up even against atrocities such as genocides, let alone act on it (with levers that are most certainly in their control, such as excommunications).
Pope John Paul II was a crucial figure in the fall of communism in Poland, even though he never opposed the state directly - just the fact that he was Polish and that the state couldn't censor his speeches and visits and demonstrated to the deeply religious nation that there is a path outside of the the one dictated by the state that is credited with a significant contribution to the forces that eventually led to the events of 1989.
I mean, the choice of John Paul II was also a "strategic" choice - he(or simply the fact that he was Polish) was credited with contributing to the toppling of communism and Poland, and in a broader sense with the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
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 Wojtyła and Solidarność?
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.
Maybe the Roman Catholic Church* is that way. Evangelicals are not. They are for whatever their crazy leaders want, including blowing up brown people whenever they get in the way or cross borders. Also counting fascism as family values.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
>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.
How different would US western expansion have been had the Spanish not colonized Central America and Mexico? What would European colonization of the Americas have looked like if Spain hadn’t extracted such great wealth? How much did the Spanish American war and the resulting transfer of Cuba, Philippines, and Puerto Rico to US control change the character of US power? How do you untangle the history of New Orleans without considering Spain? And what would be the cultural character of the southwest without Spain’s influence?
You and entropicdrifter are wrong and defen is correct. Defen said "Spanish colonization had virtually no impact on the ethnic, political, or religious development of the United States", as opposed to the Western Hemisphere. He is correct.
Whether Texas or California, the land that is now the American southwest was almost completely empty before the Mexican War; about 80,000 hispanos, or about 1% of Mexico's prewar population, mostly in New Mexico and southern Colorado. They were very, very isolated, living in "islands", and were already dependent on the US, not Mexico, for trade <http://web.archive.org/web/20070517113110/http://www.pbs.org...>. The American takeover and attendant influx of settlers completely changed the region; by 1860 California alone had 380,000 people] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Pop...> and was a US state.
*85% of Mexican Americans today are from post-World War II immigration.* As late as 1970 <http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/01/a-demographic-portrait...> there were five million people of Mexican ethnicity in the US, including one million born in Mexico. Now there are 33.7 million and 11.4 million, respectively. The number of people of Mexican ethnicity has grown by ~16X in 75 years (from ~2 million in 1940), while the US population has grown by ~2.5X. Had the Mexican-ethnic population grown by the same rate as the broader US there would be 5 million today, not 33.7.
History, even recent history, has been rewritten in peoples' minds by popular culture. Los Angeles's stupendous growth in the first half of the 20th century was driven almost entirely off of internal US migration. So many Iowans moved to LA that it was joked that southern California should be renamed "Caliowa". Almost everything we think of about the city, demographically speaking, is a post-1970 phenomenon.
"We didn't cross the border; the border crossed us" is only true for the aforementioned hispanos. If alien space bats had rotated the contiguous US 180 degrees in 1945, all other Mexican Americans would be living in Buffalo and Portland and Boston and Rochester and Detroit. Those cities would be known as the home of Cal-Mex and Tex-Mex cuisine, not LA and El Paso and Phoenix.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Infallible (i.e. with the authority of a church council) only when speaking ex-cathedra on matters of church doctrine. Its never clear what it applies to and its very rarely generally accepted (maybe once every 200 years or so) that it applies to a particular teaching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Frequency_...
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.
> 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.
I think the problem is a matter of definition, and a conflict in common uses of the word:
1. Formally a Catholic in the eyes of the church.
2. Calls themselves a Catholic
3. Is Catholic in their beliefs.
The last has a lot of grey areas as its not clear what you need to believe. There is no formal definition. its clear you do not have to agree with the Church on every single thing. On the other hand at some point (e.g. not accepting the trinity) you are seriously at odds with Catholic beliefs.
The first two definitions might sometimes include atheists.
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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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).
I ate Edwardo’s several times a month on the south side in the 80’s and 90’s, as did a sizable number of my friends. This is back before it became a chain (I guess technically the south side location was the second location, so it was already a chain) and they decided to take the best pizza on earth and make it mediocre-to-poor for a mass audience, which I guess happened in the early aughts?
So there is at least an existence proof for deep dish very much a thing for south side kids when he was in the vicinity.
Ha! Good to know. Friday is our pizza day, and we usually go with one local to us (Capri's), but on occasion do Aurelio's. I think today we'll have to do Aurelio's.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
I think he was chosen because people elsewhere don't likee American isolationism. They wanted to support the America that believes in the good, and we need support in these times. Maybe this Pope will be a strong advocate of peaceful co-existence, which is what we need.
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.
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.
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
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.
Looks like she gave up her US citizenship when she moved, as did Boris Johnson who was also mentioned. So I haven't seen anyone who retained citizenship and was a recognized head of state.
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.
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.
> [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.
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.
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.
That doesn't seem to mesh with the fact that religion has historically been deeply tied to politics and governance. Meddling in political affairs is a routine thing for organized religions. The very existence of the Pope is a power play designed to make the Church's power seem more legitimate and justified than politicians.
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.
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.
His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.
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.
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
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]
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.
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.
> 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.
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 §349(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.
> 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.
Yes, there does need to be an intention to relinquish US nationality in order for US nationality to be lost. It doesn't have to be explicitly stated, but it does have to be there. If it ever needs to be disputed in court, whoever is arguing loss of citizenship (either the government or the would-be former citizen) has to prove that intent by the same standard of proof that's generally required to win a civil lawsuit, preponderance of the evidence aka more likely than not.
I agree it's not clear that accepting the papacy involves intent to relinquish, but it's not clear either way. The Department of State (at first instance) or any court who considers the matter (if a dispute arises) would normally consider the individual situation in order to conclude what they think is the intent.
In practice, if Trump and Rubio don't want an international incident, they will probably just ask the Vatican what the Pope intended and go along with that.
If the Pope and the Department of State disagree on this, whichever party wants to prove the loss of citizenship will have to prove it in court. Rubio and his department don't get the final say, though they do get to make the initial administrative decision.
Depends on what the Pope himself wants, I imagine. Not every head of state or head of government wants to hold foreign citizenship.
Two examples from Canada: former Governor General Michaëlle Jean, who represented the Canadian monarch in Canada for day-to-day head of state duties, renounced her French citizenship when before becoming Governor General; and current Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney renounced his British and Irish citizenships before becoming Prime Minister. Neither renunciation was required according to law or constitutional convention, but they both wanted to remove any question as to their allegiance.
He might want to himself for tax purposes alone. I don't know how much the standard salary for a pope is, but I'm pretty sure it's above the threshold for the US "give us your foreign earned money" tax law.
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.
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.
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.
> Francis was the most important supporter of liberation theology in Argentina
Really? I am Italian, so I known Bergoglio only by name before he became Pope, but I always heard that he was not really a supporter of liberation theology.
Anyway, during his papacy he showed that he was influenced in many aspectes by liberation theology and peronism approach.
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.
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 §349(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 §349(a)(4) regardless of reason since it uses the verb renounce rather than relinquish.
Why might the verb matter? The only parts of INA §349 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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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!'
This pope has consistently criticized Trump, though in fairly mild terms. This brings the Catholic church closer to the US since American Catholics love it, but it's still a choice that opposes Trump.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The reason I bring it up is because of the deep relationship between aesthetics and institutional control. At one time these aesthetics were meant to enforce a classist, autocratic governance rooted in deception, oppression and information asymmetry.
The designs look nice, gold looks nice, the pope has some nice swag, but it's all a symbol of power. It's easy to forget that when you're lost in the sauce. SS uniforms looked slick as hell as far as uniforms go, but I wouldn't debate with a Holocaust survivor about why they should see the good in Nazis. The other people in this thread seem to have forgotten about the Crusades.
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.
I was also raised by a loving catholic mother, who let me go my way, out of the church. I eventually found my way back in, and feel similar to you as you do now.
IMHO, the GP has a right to share his experience here as we do ours. A thread on the election of a pope, with a subthread on the beauty of church, is a fair venue for sharing. There's no need for prejudice, disguised as policing, on either side.
Absolutely, there is nothing wrong with letting others know the other side of the coin. Moreover, I have done that respectfully, I never diminished the other guys' experience or called him fake or anything. He's mocking me in another comment already ... the tolerant ones.
This is a thread about the Pope, why wouldn't people be allowed to say good things about the religion it leads?
But guess what, some invisible hand hid my comments, even though the one where I expressed my opinion has more upvotes than downvotes and is not even flagged (cc @dang, perhaps you know what happened?). Is it breaking a policy? How is it different from the comment from @soulofmischief? Very tricky situation to be in, I can understand why someone would prefer to just hide it all.
I'm honestly tired of all this "I'm catholic and I am involved in the church" being enough to warrant attacks from random strangers.
Good news is the pendulum is swinging back, and it's swinging back hard! Deus vult! :D
Ah, I didn't meant to imply you did something wrong. I thought you were right to share.
Rather, I saw the start of a flamewar below (not caused by you) and I figured I'd say my piece. But it came out wrong and you got flagged undeservingly.
> He's mocking me in another comment already ... the tolerant ones
No one is mocking you. You appear to have some sort of persecution complex, and are using it to shield you from having to earnestly engage with my replies. You're literally suggesting there is some kind of conspiracy to be unfair against you. I have not downvoted or flagged any of your comments. Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of the crowd and open yourself to criticism.
> I'm honestly tired of all this "I'm catholic and I am involved in the church" being enough to warrant attacks from random strangers.
You didn't have to reply to my comment with an ignorant, invalidating, dismissive and patronizing take. That was your choice, and the consequence is that people might reply to you in order to point out faults in your attitude and message.
Just because you thought you were well-meaning doesn't mean you were. Your sour approach to discourse has made itself apparent in this thread. Many perpetrators of the Crusades also thought they were doing a good deed.
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!
There is no hypocrisy here. I am in good faith asking what proof you have to justify this unshakeable faith you're proudly declaring.
> You're not a teenager anymore.
Nor are you, I'm assuming, so please answer my question.
> I hope one day you are able to understand this and live in peace with others who do not wish you any bad.
You should not become so defensive when pressed for proof of claims you make about invisible patriarchs living in the sky and turning cities into salt because people had too much anal sex.
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.
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.
> Productive dialogue can only arise when all points of view are fairly considered
You have good intent, but I disagree and believe that "fair for all" does not mean "every viewpoint deserves the same consideration". Specifically, I have spent my entire life encountering Christians who try to tell me I've just had a bad experience and that things are great on their side of the pond, if I'd take a look. But I've read the Bible front to back, I was at the top of every class in my religious studies, I engaged critically with theology during my exposure to it. And my holistic experience revealed the deep hypocrisies, conspiracies and power structures inescapably tied to the Church's past and present.
The Catholic Church, and all Judeo-Christian denominations in general, are simply a vehicle for power and control. It treats its followers well, but those who don't fall in line are often subject to very dark corners upheld by violence.
The truth is that while you think your perspective is more considerate than mine, it's actually more ignorant. I have seen the things you've seen in the faith, but you haven't seen what I have seen. You have an incomplete picture about the realities of the Church.
And yes, it does get tiring and eventually a part of the overall trauma to have well-meaning people completely disregard the truths I share with them and tell me I don't know the Church for what it really is, retreating to their own limited experiences without considering the implications of mine. And while it wasn't your intent, as a group behavior it becomes patronizing. I'm glad you had a good Catholic mother. I had abusive, often homeless drug addicts for parents and was left in the care of a very evil man who used to do horrible things to me in the name of your god, and who was directly empowered and blessed by the Catholic Church to carry out his sick abuse.
P.S.
> who may be willing to improve their dialectic skills
this is also patronizing and snarky especially after beginning your post with "Lv. 0 attack dismissed." That is not what I would call dialectically skillful or considerate. We should always strive to engage with others on Hacker News in good faith.
>The Catholic Church, and all Judeo-Christian denominations in general, are simply a vehicle for power and control.
Source: you.
For many, it is a place where they find community and make friends and build their lives around.
>it's actually more ignorant
This kind of crosses into a personal attack, but I'll let it slide. Just don't do that a lot or you'll get scolded by @dang or @tomhow, and with reason.
>a very evil man who used to do horrible things to me in the name of your god
With empathy, God didn't do that to you, you don't even believe in him so it wouldn't make sense for you to blame him. Reminds of something from a great writer, "He who has not God in himself cannot feel His absence", perhaps you're in for a treat later in life :).
There's another famous quote "To Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s"; if a crime has been committed against you, there are social structures in place to call in for help, and judge and punish the people involved.
>"Lv. 0 attack dismissed." That is not what I would call dialectically skillful or considerate.
Oh yeah, because I should have taken offense at that and throw a tantrum, instead of writing a thoughtful comment. Sure.
My source is nearly two thousand years of well-documented history.
> For many, it is a place where they find community and make friends and build their lives around.
That is completely beside the point that not every person gets to have this positive relationship with their cult community, and that some find themselves in its crosshairs.
> This kind of crosses into a personal attack, but I'll let it slide
No. Lol. Calling your viewpoint ignorant is not a personal attack. It's objectively ignorant, as you have already demonstrated. "Let it slide?" Did Jesus teach you that one? You need to check yourself and tone down the pompousness and patronizing attitude in your posts.
> With empathy, God didn't do that to you, you don't even believe in him so it wouldn't make sense for you to blame him
I don't blame an imaginary patriarch who was whitewashed in order to establish colonial White supremacy.
> perhaps you're in for a treat later in life :)
I'm going to again request that you tone down the patronizing, I-know-better-than-you attitude. Apparently you did not pick up on Jesus' teachings of humility.
> if a crime has been committed against you, there are social structures in place to call in for help, and judge and punish the people involved
More demonstrable ignorance. I had no one. Everyone I told ignored what was happening, and the police who frequently ended up at my home told me to endure my abuse or find myself in a more abusive foster care system. The Church and my Catholic family empowered this man to do whatever he wanted. You can't just disbelieve this away. I know you're used to just deciding on randomly believing or disbelieving things without veritable proof, but that's not how reality works. My experience is real, and cannot be shallowly dismissed without acknowledgement as to the very real, very documented violent history of the Church, including the Vatican's ongoing direct involvement of covering up child abuse within its ranks, which again, is public record, with plenty of court cases you can google at your leisure.
> Oh yeah, because I should have taken offense at that and throw a tantrum, instead of writing a thoughtful comment. Sure.
Now you're just in denial and being sarcastic, presenting a false dichotomy. No, there were more than two choices you could make when replying, and practicing some humility would reveal those options to you.
Thank you for laying it out so plainly. The “let’s gather every perspective” line only works when the people doing the gathering aren't patting survivors on the head. Walking the sun‑lit nave doesn’t qualify anyone to lecture the folks who were locked in the crypt.
Ironically, your patience here feels a lot closer to the humility we’re all supposed to be learning!
Amen to that. My patron saint is Joan of Arc, who was famously burned at the stake at 17 by the English church for wearing pants. She got plenty of lectures in her day and stuck to her principles, even when it cost her life.
Man, this needs to stop, this is not the place for that.
I can see this is a topic that gets you very emotional but neither me nor this community can bring justice to you.
If you need help I'll be glad to do what I can, email in profile, or <username>.com.
I won't engage in this conversation further, not because of you, you can write to me as much as you want over there; but because it deviates from the purpose of the site.
> I can see this is a topic that gets you very emotional but neither me nor this community can bring justice to you
More patronization and smuggery. At no point have I displayed an overemotional response.
> If you need help I'll be glad to do what I can
You need help, but I don't think you're ready to see that. Go back and read through the Bible again, both Testaments, ironically it should help you see the error of your ways here.
> because it deviates from the purpose of the site
You know when you've lost a debate, and that's fine. I hope you have learned something, and next time someone shares their real, valid, negative experiences with the Church, you are not so quick to attempt to invalidate and correct them. There is still much for you to learn about the Church, I have learned what I needed to and moved on. Hopefully that happens one day for you, too. I sincerely mean that. The Church is a perverse organization and you can do better.
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.
I'm not asking for your apology, or even your response. You could have kept reading on to other comments, ignoring those which were not meant for someone like you. I am allowed to add to a discussion, I am sorry that it did not meet your standards.
Surely you aren't claiming that intonation and general tone cannot be established or suggested in a well-written text. There are centuries of literature and academic courses proving otherwise.
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.
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.
"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.
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?"
"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...
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.
Whenever we get a new pope, I'm reminded of the prolly but proud headline in the German newspaper "Bild", when the German Ratzinger became pope: "WE ARE POPE" Congratulations, USA, now you're pope :-)
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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.
Well, to be fair "thought deeply" might mean "engaged in a scholasticism-tier effort of apologetics to argue a position it held to be true a priori"...
>It even accepts evolution and the big bang theory
There's no need for "even" in the sentence. Georges Lemaître who was the originator of the big bang theory was a literal catholic priest and theoretical physicist, and funnily enough the theory was originally accused of bringing religious bias into physics.
Likewise prominent Catholics who were Darwin's contemporaries like John Henry Newman had no issue with evolution back then either. The Church fathers never read the bible like a positivist text. (this is a very 20th century fundamentalist invention)
True, but in online discussion about religion, Genesis (aka the big bang and evolution) is often the most contended point, even for those who don't have a literal view of the Bible. the discovery of chemical elements or the proof of Fermat's theorem is also scientific, but has another weight than the aforementioned two. Hence "even."
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.
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).
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.
Looks like he’s a compromise candidate between the Church’s liberals and conservatives [1]. (American and African Catholics are on the conservative end.)
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).
Illinois doesn't have party registration and the entrt reflects voting in a Republican primary. That might indicate a Republican preference, or it might indicate perceiving the potential stakes in the Republican primary contest as higher, because, e.g., having a much stronger preference that a particular Republican not win than any preference among Democratic candidates.
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.
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)
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
"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.”"
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
The catholic tradition of changing the canon? They modified the 10 commandments to allow for idols. Moses's own brother got in trouble for making an idol. You think that was some small change? They did it to increase their membership and income streams. Allow the pagans with their mother/son idols to keep them with a Mary/BabyJesus rename, and bada-bing, new members. So excuse me if I don't hold their respect for canon quite so sacrosanct as you apparently do.
> I don't hold their respect for canon quite so sacrosanct as you apparently do.
That's fine, it just makes it pointless to make a argument for what the office of Pope should and shouldn't do. It's like going into a Muslim country and telling everyone how stupid their views are because you don't respect their holy texts. Why bother?
That was my point, you're not interested in having an actual conversation. Which is fine. That's why I said I had a misunderstanding of what was going on here. But it's clear now.
The Bible is a book used by a much wider audience than the Pope's followers. The pope at the time just tweaked the book to increase his followers. A very convenient reasoning from the Pope's perspective. So you seem to not be accepting that on why would a pope should and shouldn't do.
Since the time of the canonizing of the book, lots of history has happened where the pope of the time has softened some of what was traditional practices. Again, not sure why it is okay to accept some pope from historical time could canonize the bible, but a future pope would not have similar authority to make further amendments. He is the Vicar after all, and is infallible. Unless you do not believe that about modern popes??
I said you were trivializing it, not that it was impossible. My original comment is it's "far outside the bounds" of what has been traditionally done by Pope's. To suggest that the answer to the question on marriage is to introduce an entirely new canon to the Bible that appears to contradict previous books of the canon (I supposed he'd have to remove those at the same time) is simply unprecedented and has never once occurred in the history of the church since the Bible was canonized.
> 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 thought process to a genuine Catholic.
Biblical interpretation does not work like that. Later texts cannot abrogate earlier texts. Whatever they say must dovetail with the things said earlier, not contradict them. That actually doesn't leave a lot of manoeuvring room (as in, any room) for changing core beliefs.
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.
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.
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.
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)..
> 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.
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.
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?
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
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.
“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”
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.
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...
The Bible doesn't even have the concept of race as we understand it today, because that concept is a very recent invention (to my understanding). Anyone using it to support anti-interracial marriage positions would be doing so anachronistically, rendering their own claim invalid.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> That talks about reproduction, but it doesn't say anything about marriage.
Later in chapter 2, God is quoted as saying:
> Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
Jesus himself then comes back and quote this exact verse in Genesis in the context of divorce being bad (Matthew 19). It's clearly referencing marriage within the context of creation.
You may not agree it's the central thrust of the text, and perhaps I overstated the position, but marriage between a man and a woman is certainly a major theme in these first two chapters. I'd be impressed if you can find Rabbinical texts that support a different theory.
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.
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
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/exodus/20 verse 4 starts with "You shall not make for yourself an idol". 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.
The 10 commandments are the same. Catholics just order and number things differently than Protestants. Both have the same commandments, unfortunately, some Protestants can only read a sentence and don't
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you know what natural law means. This is from wikipedia.
It wouldn't matter if 99% of animals and humans were gay.
> Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophical and legal theory that posits the existence of a set of inherent laws derived from nature and universal moral principles, which are discoverable through reason. In ethics, natural law theory[2] asserts that certain rights and moral values are inherent in human nature and can be understood universally, independent of enacted laws or societal norms. In jurisprudence, natural law—sometimes referred to as iusnaturalism[3] or jusnaturalism,[4] but not to be confused with what is called simply naturalism in legal philosophy[5][6]—holds that there are objective legal standards based on morality that underlie and inform the creation, interpretation, and application of human-made laws.
I don't see how an appeal to natural law holds any value since humanity has a near infinite ability for motivated reasoning. To the point where if someone advocates natural law that suggests to me either that they have a serious lack of wisdom or they aren't arguing in good faith.
Natural law isn't really related to the reason why people are motivated to do something. It is considered one motivation, but not the only one.
Also, what does your comment have to do with gay penguins that i was responding to? I was just trying to show natural law has nothing to do with gay animals.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The elephant in the room is the AIDs crisis. They already had a chance to demonstrate that they were capable of disagreeing with homosexuality but still treating people with live. Instead they left them to die.
What we have now is just saying "we super duper pinky promise that we've learned our lesson and won't do the exact same thing next time even though we totally are with MAGA."
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.
> 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.
> 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).
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.
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"?
Now explain why a sterile man and woman or a pair of hetero 65 year olds marrying isn’t “against nature” or a thwarting of the primary “reproductive purpose” of marriage.
Biblically, sex should only take place within a marriage. If it takes place within a marriage, the sex is sanctified, and non-sinful. Any sex that takes place outside the context of a marriage, is inherently sinful. That means adultery, abuse, and so on. Same-sex individuals simply cannot marry within the Biblical meaning of the term, which means that their sexual activity will not be sanctified, and will therefore be a sinful action by nature of what it is.
Being a homosexual or feeling attraction to your own sex is not sinful - it's a very difficult temptation that, with God's help, you are supposed not to give into. It's acting on this same-sex attraction that is sinful, in much the same way as acting on attraction to your neigbor's wife would be sinful.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> "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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
This is such petty semantics, most of the world understands that is is a shortening of The United States of America. In fact most everyone uses some version of “Americans” [1]. 96% of the world refers to America as a continent and I’m sure 96% refer to the US as America too. It’s all about context. I don’t think anyone is genuinely confused most of the time.
A person from the US has been elected as the Pope, you have to come up with a title for this news piece.
You have these two options:
A) First American Pope elected ...
B) First US Pope elected ...
A is ambiguous because "American" means a country for 4% of the world and a continent for 96% of the world. Also, the pope that just died happened to be from Argentina, and also happened to be the "First American Pope" for 96% of the world, adding to the ambiguity.
B does not have any issues and is correct from whichever angle you want to approach it.
Well I don’t think much of the OP’s argument. “America”, whether we like it or not, has come to be popularly synonymous with “United States” among English-speaking audience. There’s little risk for ambiguity because Western news agencies almost never use “America” alone when referring to the region or continent — they would say “American continent” or “North/South America”
In 50 years, when the U.S. has decided to call itself something else, then yes, this CNN breaking news headline will be ambiguous. But breaking news writes headlines for its current audience, it’s not meant to be a taxonomically accurate index.
96% of the world does not consider "America" to be a continent. A large chunk of the world considers North America and South America to be separate continents. Similarly, some countries teach that Europe and Asia are distinct continents while others teach that Eurasia is a single continent.
Spanish speaking countries tend to treat America as one continent. English-speaking countries tend to treat North America and South America as separate continents, which is convenient since when speaking English, America means "the United States."
Sure but most of the world, when they say America or American, they mean the USA, otherwise they'll say "the Americas" or "North American" or "South American" or refer to a specific country. It's just a reality that a lot of people don't want to face, but you have to be pragmatic in life for the most part.
> Also we call English Channel 'La Manche' - even if we do not understand French
Do we? I've literally never heard it called anything other than the English Channel. After some quick googling and gpting, I can't find any reference to it being referred to as "La Manche" outside of France. The closest I got was "Canal de la Mancha" in Spain.
> most of the world, when they say America or American, they mean the US
Ehh no. In school in Argentina you are taught that the whole continent is called America, then you have subcontinents in it (North/central/south), and I would guess other south american countries are the same. If you want to say citizen of the USA in Argentina you would call them yankees.
OK, but English speakers are under no obligation to follow conventions and vocabulary used by Spanish speakers. Similarly, the Poles, French and English all have their own words for Germany that look nothing like "Deutschland". (The Polish word for Germany is Niemcy. The French word is Allemagne.)
Do Argentinians regularly refer to themselves as Americans?
I can't think of the last time I needed to describe myself as being from the continent, but if you really want to call yourselves Americans, I say go for it. People can call themselves whatever they like.
Still, I can't help but notice Argentinean newspapers using americano to refer to refer to things from the US.
I see the same thing in lots of Spanish news, but some people will never believe it, so I usually just make my statement that I know is true and let the other commenters have their say as well, and leave it up to dear readers to make up their own minds.
For the pope, La Nacion and Clarin, the 2 largest newspapers in the country, are referring to him as "Norteamericano"(north american), and "Estadounidense" (USAian?/from the USA).
In general, we use north american when referring to the USA. America is used to note the continent, like the south american soccer teams cup, "Copa Libertadores de America" (liberators of America cup).
For the article on the pope, Clarin seems to have used estadounidense, norteamericano and americano to refer to things and people from the US, though americano in reference to "imperialismo americano." Well, I'm assuming that's the US given the mention of the CIA, but perhaps they are referring to some sort of pan-continental imperialism I'm unaware of.
La Nacion uses americano, but has to specify "continente americano" as if simply saying "americano" wouldn't be clear to readers. They otherwise also use estadounidense and norteamericano.
Neither appears to ever use "americano" by itself to refer to people from the continent, but if you're telling me that if you walked up to someone on the street and said you were an American and they would interpret that as you from the continente americano, then I believe you.
I'm still going to use the demonym American for myself (as everyone gets to pick their own demonym in their own language) and use it to refer to people from the US, but if you to call you an American, who am I to say no? You can call yourself an American, I can call myself an American and everyone is happy.
As I understand it, the people from Pakistan and Bangladesh mostly prefer the South Asia denomination and don't consider themselves Indians, while South Americans do consider themselves Americans, so it's a different case.
> South Americans do consider themselves Americans, so it's a different case.
I have a hard time believing people in South America actually call themselves Americans or are remotely confused about where someone identified as American is from.
This all seems pedantic.
Yes, everyone from the Americas could conceivably be called an American, but the lack of any shared continental cultural identity largely removes any need to self-identify as an inhabitant of the continent. But hey, if people desperately want to call themselves Americans, I say go for it.
Always saying "United States of America" would be rather cumbersome.
But it's the reward for being the first country on the content to become independent. Everybody else afterwards had to pick more specific names tot avoid any confusion.
BTW Columbia was also frequently used as a generic name for the American Continent back in the 1700s and 1800s. The modern country of Colombia co-opted it in a very similar way (well originally "Gran Colombia" was supposed to include entire Hispanic America it just didn't work out that well...)
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.
[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.
I saw someone on the Internet describe it as serving McDonald's at a wedding. I'm not sure snark is warranted, but I don't think it's unfair to say that USA's global image has been greatly reduced.
I love America, but America is hardly a very Catholic nation and this seems like a clear cut case of political pandering besides. I'm not a catholic but when I think Catholic I think ancient gilded and extravagant. America is the land of hamburgers, pickup trucks and Protestant megachurches. The two don't fit.
An Italian would make a better pope because the Roman Catholic Church is fundamentally Italian and it has been too long without an Italian pope. An African would be a good pope because they've never had one, despite a huge number of Catholics, present and future, being African.
Interesting Fact: There are about as many—if not more—Catholics in the United States (~45-72 million [0]) than there are people in Italy (~60 million [1]). American Catholic theologians, priests, and bishops have a larger impact than many seem to realize.
I'm generally sympathetic with the idea that it is ideal to have an Italian pope—I recall hearing that Pope Benedict XVI thought having a close connection to the diocese of Rome was important—but I also don't mind having popes from different parts of the world so as to better represent the catholicity (universality) of the Church.
I also think an American pope might have a fuller understanding of the global impact of American media and political power. I felt that Francis often did a poor job of navigating the media landscape—oftentimes being represented as saying things which he did not really say or intend, so perhaps an American pope will be better in that regard.
When I think Italy I think pizza and Mussolini and Ferrari. When I think Africa I think radical Islam and fufu and the slave trade and colonialism and the lion king. I believe an American pope is a good choice and you don’t have an accurate view of America.
"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."
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.
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.
This seems to be a very clear signal that Catholics think that US is having very serious issues which in turn endangers the world. I'm an atheist but assuming Catholic church justifies itself through "greater good" sort of mentality this move is such an obvious one and I don't think there could have a been a better one.
Excited to see the drama as the US-circus is already delivering briliant lines like "why didn't he speak English".
You cannot post inflammatory, escalatory comments like this on Hacker News, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly. I'm not banning now as you've been a community member for a while and have posted some good comments, but please take care to read the guidelines and avoid posting like this in future.
Related: https://catholicreview.org/chicago-native-cardinal-prevost-e...
(via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43928742, but we merged that thread hither)
> "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...
That's an interesting thought but if they're actually that concerned about it then they'd wait longer than four months. It probably has more to do with America's predominant religion being protestantism by a very wife margin for most of the country's existence. We didn't have a Catholic president until Kennedy and even then proving to the common American that Catholics aren't insane Vatican mindslaves was considered a hurdle he had to overcome.
If there's a political motive in not choosing an American pope until now it's that for most of American history it wouldn't have granted them any influence over American politics. If there's a personal motive it's that until recently they felt insulted that America went for almost 200 years before finally electing a Catholic president.
> America's predominant religion being Protestantism
Tangent: Protestantism is not a religion. The religion is called Christianity. I have seen this trend for quite a while of Protestants (or people born in Protestant countries) of referring to Christianity branches as religions. I find it very segregational. The whole point of all the branches is the same guy whose name begins with C.
But yes, given the state of America today, having an American pope will definitely be an interesting development in the context of many lobbying groups wishing for a vaticanised America.
> the same guy whose name begins with C
Nit: "Christ" is actually a title, not a name — it's the English version of the Greek Χριστός (christos), from the Hebrew mashiach (in English, messiah, anointed one).
His name was Yehoshua (or Yeshua or Y'shua, "Yahweh is salvation" — in English, "Joshua") whose Greek version is Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous, anglicized to "Jesus", although the Spanish pronunciation hay-sooss is closer to the Greek).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Name
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_(title)
I don't consider myself part of any organized religion at this point, but I grew up going to this really iconoclastic presbyterian church where we only ever talked about the two testaments of the Bible and the only formal rituals we had were eucharism and the baptism (which, IIRC is because those are the only two rituals with a basis in the gospel) and from that perspective it's always seemed like whatever catholicism is, it's not the same religion as our relgion because they have all sorts of extra stories and tradition that seemed entirely foreign. We didn't even have an antagonistic relationship with them, our pastor never talked about other religions during sermons because he wanted to avoid our church getting involved in any of the negative aspects of christianity and focus only on the sort of positive community-building that jesus does in the gospels. The catholics have a massive canon of saints who they pray to instead of god, a church that claims to derive its authority from jesus himself via claiming one of the disciples to be their first pope, and a tendency to put mary the virgin at the forefront of everything (not that protestants ever had anything against her, but the catholic preoccupation with her really is bewildering from a protestant point-of-view) that seems irreconcilable from the the viewpoint that the religion begins with the old testament and ends with the new testament. I don't even consider myself a christian anymore and yet I still sometimes find myself feeling like Catholicism is no less alien than islam.
That said, looking back there were a couple problems with the protestant viewpoint: one is that there's no attempt at explaining god's apparent 2000-year vacation and another being that the bible was effectively nonexistent until the council at Nicaea and I'm not sure what legitimacy there is in them having any authority to decide what is and is not canon unless you accept the catholic church's authority.
> Tangent: Protestantism is not a religion. The religion is called Christianity. I have seen this trend for quite a while of Protestants (or people born in Protestant countries) of referring to Christianity branches as religions.
Deciding what is a “branch” of a religion versus whats is an independent “religion” is more subjective than objective. This might become clearer if we move away from Christianity for a moment, and look at the same question for some non-Christian religions
Consider the southern Indian religious movement of Ayyavazhi - most people, both in India and outside it, consider it a branch/denomination/sect of Hinduism, including even many followers of Ayyavazhi - but some of its followers and leaders insist it is a separate Dharmic religion [0]. The question is (in part) political - Dravidian nationalists and Tamil nationalists are more likely to call it a separate religion, Indian nationalists (Congress) and Hindu nationalists (BJP) want to view it as part of Hinduism
Meanwhile, most people consider Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism to be separate religions from Hinduism - but the British courts in India decided they were branches of Hinduism, a classification still followed by the Indian legal system to this day. Many Hindu nationalists promote the idea that these traditions are branches of Hinduism, even though most of the Indian followers of those religions reject the idea.
It is standard to classify the Alevis in Turkey as an Islamic sect - yet the Turkish government wants to insist on the idea they aren’t even a sect, just a “cultural movement”, to promote the fiction of a homogeneous Turkish Islam - but while some Alevis are fighting for government recognition as a separate sect of Islam, there is a movement among Alevis (Ishikism) which claims it is a separate pre-Islamic religion, and its Islamic content is just a superficial distraction (dissimulation) to prevent persecution. Meanwhile, many hardline Sunnis around the world agree that Alevis are a non-Islamic religion - and some of the most hardline Sunnis will even say that of mainstream Twelver Shi’a.
So, the boundary between “branch of a religion” and “separate independent religion” is more subjective (theological and political) than objective.
[0] https://m.economictimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/tamil-n...
I hear you about these being a bunch of different branches of Christianity. But the difference between branches of Protestantism and Catholicism is old and significant.
It'd be like saying "Talking about Rust is segregational. It's just all branches of programming languages starting with C". Technically true, but not a useful distinction.
> It'd be like saying "Talking about Rust is segregational. It's just all branches of programming languages starting with C". Technically true, but not a useful distinction.
That analogy is not valid. Protestants argue that catholicism does christianism in a sloppy way, whereas they do it right. If you're going with a programming language analogy, it's like a C++ programmer arguing that onboarding cppcheck and --Wall --pedantic is the only acceptable way to work with C++, and everyone else is doing it wrong.
>That analogy is not valid. Protestants argue that catholicism does christianism in a sloppy way, whereas they do it right. If you're going with a programming language analogy, it's like a C++ programmer arguing that onboarding cppcheck and --Wall --pedantic is the only acceptable way to work with C++, and everyone else is doing it wrong.
Every sect within a religion is going to argue that they are the ones doing it right and the others are either wrong or at least suboptimal depending on the state of inter-sect relations. I would peg the Protestants as C and the Catholics as C++ in this analogy, as the chief defining feature of protestantism is that they do not acknowledge the legitimacy of just about everybody who has ever claimed to speak on God's behalf past a certain point; thus, like C, their view of religion is inherently stagnant. They don't necessarily deny that God continues to interact with his creations, but they've realized that statistically speaking any given prophet or saint has an approximately 0.0 probability of actually conveying messages from God so they'll just stick with the ones that are so old that just about everybody [who calls themselves christian] already agrees on them. This is similar to the way that many C programmers are really C++ programmers who got tired of all the dumb new C++2x bullshit and just want to write computer programs.
Both the protestant religion and the C programming language have viewpoints that make sense given the histories of their respective subjects, but the major drawback of these viewpoints is that they have chosen to limit themselves to only iterating through new interpretations of old ideas; both of them are fundamentally incapable of innovation because being incapable of innovation is the fundamental core of their belief systems. Thus, if God ever really does try to leave the protestants a voicemail or if bjarne stroustrup ever does come up with an idea that isn't terrible and needlessly complicated, both the protestants and the C programmers will miss out on it.
I will not even attempt to speculate as to which programming languages should represent islam and judaism in this analogy because i do not want to die or have my account banned.
That's really not fair because the different sects and denominations of Christianity have different apocrypha and different translations (or lack of translations) of the source texts.
And of course they vary widely in rites, practices, and liturgy.
People think they are closer than they are. The difference between the protestant denominations, catholic denominations, mormans, jehovah's witnesses, etc are quite major and in a very real sense the separation between these different sects of Christianity are essentially only a few steps removed from the separation Islam has from Christianity.
Protestantism is more like C++ than Rust on this analogy.
It's mostly compatible and people keep confusing them.
In the end Christianity is just a branch of Judaism ;)
It's unlikely that Protestants (including all the weird splinter groups/cults/sects in the US), Catholics and Orthodox will ever reunite into the same church again, so calling them separate religions is fair I think.
>In the end Christianity is just a branch of Judaism ;)
hoo boy, be careful who you say that around, some of the jewish denominations have some very strong opinions about Christians calling themselves jews lmao.
anyways, I think beyond there being a major disagreement on whether there's any legitimacy to jesus being worshipped as a messiah or the new testament as a whole, the primary reason why they're considered separate religions is that judaism is ultimately centered around the fathers of the jewish/Israelite ethnic identity making a sacred covenant with God that cements them as his chosen people, whereas christianity's basis lies in Jesus' sacrifice forging a new covenant between God and all peoples (jewish and gentile alike). The reason why there's so much undying support for israel among modern evangelicals is that they believe judaism is still a legitimate religion because in their view there's no reason why the old covenant shouldn't still be valid for Jewish people who never partook in the new covenant.
But the numerous reunions effected by the Catholic Church have been nothing short of miraculous.
For starters, there is a Catholic Church corresponding to every Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Church in existence. Belarussian Orthodox Church/Belarussian Catholic Church. Including some unique outliers: Melkites, Maronites, Chaldean Catholic.
These Catholic Churches "returned" to communion when their head bishops decided to rejoin after centuries of schism. Thereafter, these churches are open to new individual converts, as well as entire parishes or eparchies coming into communion anew.
Furthermore, the Personal Ordinariates were erected quite recently to accommodate conversions from the Anglican church. It began long before that: the Catholic Church has received Anglican priests, with their families, ordained them as Catholic priests, and set them to parish ministry. Yes, even the married ones. Some Anglican priests or bishops became prelates, and entire parishes converted to the Catholic faith. They even retain their own liturgy, "Divine Worship", which is based on the Book of Common Prayer. If you're a fan of the old Tridentine liturgy, just imagine if that were presented in English instead!
Today there are no fewer than 24 Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, including a brand-new Eritrean Catholic Church, corresponding to the split in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
So I disagree with your pessimism because we have plenty of examples, in the distant past as well as quite recent history, where Protestants and Orthodox alike have come back into communion with the Catholic Church. Thanks for bringing it up!
Anything is a religion if enough people agree to it. If Scientology can call itself a religion than "Protestantism" is legit.
It seems that the baptist subsection of Christianity already have a bunch of different interpretations of Christian scripture. Historically it's only a matter of time before the inevitable schism, and then they also get to claim to be a different religion.
> Anything is a religion if enough people agree to it. If Scientology can call itself a religion than "Protestantism" is legit.
Protestantism, by definition, is Christianity. The very nature of protestantism is that the Catholic church needed to fix errors and discrepancies. If anything, protestantism advocate that they do christianism right, whereas the Catholic church is a tad sloppy.
I am an Orthodox Christian and I can tell you that to us, Protestantism definitely looks like a completely different religion.
Despite claiming that they follow Christ, our and their definition of "following" is so different that what they do and believe often looks unrecognizable.
The same can be said about the difference between Catholics and Protestants. Despite our disagreements, the Orthodox and Catholic churches still share a lot theologically. The same cannot be said about Protestants (although, that also depends on what denominations you consider).
It's not to say that we don't share any values. We actually do and there are many individual Protestants that behave in a more Christian way than some members of the Orthodox Church.
However, that is not a highly relevant factor. For one reason or another, there are many atheists and members of other religions that do as well. But those still remain clearly separate and would never be classified as Christians.
I agree on your sentiment and it’s also in the Bible: 1 Cor 3:3-6. It bothers me when people switch denomination and say they have “converted.”
If that is how we wanna logic through this, all of these religions are Judaism; Jesus-branches and Torah-branches and Mohammed branches and on and on…
Eh. While the correct term is denomination, in practice the separate arms of Christianity have fought each other and function separately. Like Sunni vs Shia vs other muslims.
Anti-Catholicism runs deep in America, but the particularly weird issue is the converts. People who convert into Catholicism tend to be much more conservative than those born into it, often much more so than actual Church doctrine. Hence the Vance controversy.
OTOH, 6 of the 9 supreme court justices are catholic so there might be some influence there although I think the influence is probably more from the somewhat uniquely American brand of conservative Catholicism.
More like 6.5 out of 9.
Gorsuch was raised Catholic, and thus the Catholic Church still considers him a member. Gorsuch hasn't publicly stated whether he considers himself Catholic or not. In 2017, one of his friends said:
>Trent, Gorsuch’s close friend, said he believes Gorsuch would consider himself “a Catholic who happens to worship at an Episcopal church.”
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/18/politics/neil-gorsuch-religio...
For whatever reason, and I guess this is mostly based on my experience with my Catholic friends and family, even if they are not lawyers the Catholics just love arguing about rules. Perhaps that's because Catholic Dogma and Tradition is complicated. In any case, I suppose that means it should be unsurprising that a lot of Catholics end up studying Law and as a result provide a wide pool to draw from when it's time to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court.
‘The next Pope is from Chicago’ sounds like the kind of thing 1800s American nativists would panic about
Give Twitter another 24 hours to stew over his past ministry and his Peruvian citizenship, and one will find our modern Know Nothings making similar hullabaloo.
Is it even viable to run for pope as a priest who spent his whole life in a first-world country? I can't imagine somebody who has spent a significant portion of his life doing charity work or spreading the church to some new population losing out to some guy who spends his whole career preaching to a crowd of predominantly-white bourgeois Americans in a boring midwestern suburb where the biggest problem is either too many DEI programs in local schools or not enough DEI programs in local schools.
> That's an interesting thought but if they're actually that concerned about it then they'd wait longer than four months.
I don't think they had much control over when Francis died.
The concern is that America would be too powerful if they had this power over Catholicism as well. There's no concern about waiting until it's time to appoint the next one.
Then they appoint somebody else and wait until he dies and then appoint Pope Americus the First. The hypothesis is that they didn't want an American pope until America is in decline and that America is in decline due to the re-election of Donald Trump. I will admit the part about Donald Trump is something i assumed with no basis and it is possible that the OP did not mean to say that America is in decline solely as a result of this, but whenever i read about America losing its international influence it's always somebody complaining about the tariffs or insulting Canada or whatever.
Anyways, nothing can end America on such a short timescale. Even if Donald Trump's recent decisions will cause the downfall of America's global pseudo-empire we are not anywhere near a point of no return and he could give up on playing "5D chess" and fix this all within a month; some opportunities would be lost which leads to some unrecoverable economic damage but we'd still be largely in the same position as we were six months ago; consequentially, any fears they may have had about appointing an American pope during a period of global American hegemony are still valid.
Sure, but there clearly wasn't much concern if an American got 2/3rds of the vote on day 2. They didn't have to elect a new pope this quickly.
130+ cardinals aren't going to be stuck in Sistine Chapel for months just to assuage some hypothetical concerns about America.
Well, they used to take quite a bit longer in the past.
In the past, it was a long trip from home to Rome, and a long trip back. Might as well spend some time in Rome with old friends you haven't seen in a decade.
These days, the cardinals have probably been messaging one another on Facebook all the time.
They had to. They are locked there, isolated, until they elect. That is how catholic pope elections work. Their job is to elect and then move on their normal duties and interactions.
> they’d wait longer than four months.
Why? Is there any reason for anyone in the world to think this behavior will change suddenly? Is there a reason the church wouldn’t think the US has a crisis of faith if those in power and their followers are so willing to commit sin against their fellow man? Clearly we all know how Jesus proclaimed, “Gather ye the masses of immigrants and send them to another country, lest they not be tortured for their grave sins of migration.”
> That's an interesting thought but if they're actually that concerned about it then they'd wait longer than four months.
Are you suggesting that the decline has only been apparent since Trump's re-election? For some (myself included), America has been in obvious political decline for some time - highlighted and spurred along by some significant events (Trump's first election and the nature of US involvement in Gaza to name a couple).
I personally don't think it makes any sense to claim America's in a decline on a short-term basis; my point is that a decline is inherently something that would only be visible over a longer scale of time.
The reason I said "four months" is because America's media establishment has been pushing this narrative that the tariffs and the argument with zelensky have somehow ended american hegemony overnight; I personally believe it's impossible for these events to cause a noticeable decline on such a short basis because there's far more to america than merely not taxing imports and giving limitless amounts of free stuff to ukraine with no strings attached, but I have developed a pavlovian response to the phrase "America's in decline" because it really is all about Donald Trump with these people.
I would personally put the origin of "America's Decline" at 9/11 because that was the beginning of America's self-doubt about what their place in the world is and what it should be. Everything since then has been the five stages of grief on a nationwide scale. Currently we're somewhere between Depression (stage 4) and Acceptance (stage 5) which is why we gave up on Afghanistan, and also why so many people are opposed to funding Ukraine; there's a legitimate fear that arming the Ukrainians will in some way come back to bite us in the ass 20 years later just like arming the mujahideen did.
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.
> 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.
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.
Agreed. The 2008 crisis and the Snowden revelations were the long turning point
I disagree. 1% issue aside - There are things Trump has done that have no American precedent, such as Jan 6th, openly insisting he'll run for a 3rd term, and too many others to list here. In that sense he is absolutely an aberration.
Trump is basically a golden populist then. All these parties will gladly point as t issues, because it give them the spotlight.
Well said
I don't see why you'd say "deeply deluded" is the only option, instead of simply "not that knowledgeable" being one.
As a European, the election (and then re-election) of Trump was an aberration, but that's because I didn't know about/follow US's internal problems.
It is not primary about economy or powerty. That one is an excuse, a rationalization.
He wasn't a Trump appointee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_George
"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."
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.
Thanks for this. The quote-of-a-quote in the original article was confusing, made worse by the fact that it was said by Robert who is not the new Pope, formerly known as Robert.
I wouldn’t assume that just because Trump appoints someone to a commission, they and Trump see eye-to-eye about whatever.
Bishop Barron is pretty middle-of-the-road as far as US Catholic bishops go - he’s not much of a progressive, but nor is he a traditionalist or hardline conservative. On most issues on which Pope Francis and President Trump disagreed, Barron’s views and instincts are closer to the late Pope (who made him a bishop and then gave him a diocese) than to Trump’s
Great symbol was - every cardinal standing on balconies with/besides him.
No media covered / decoded what that gesture signifies.
It symbolizes the unity of the Church (and the College of Cardinals specifically) with and supporting the new Pope; its not exactly opaque.
Is that unusual?
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.
I've heard people expressing disappointment (or triumph) because there's an American pope now, as if that would somehow strengthen Trump's position, but I don't see how.
Trump doesn't control him and the pope owes no allegiance to Trump, but as an American pope, I think American Catholics are more likely to listen to him, and I think his moderate views could do a lot of good to the extremism of US politics.
I agree. There is no reason to expect the Pope to just back the country he is a citizen of, let alone the current government of his country. Popes have not usually done so in the past.
With their almost religious following of Trump, I find it more likely for them to ignore the Pope.
[flagged]
When I Google for massacres of Christians, all I find are links to Islamic factions in Africa and the Middle East. Where in America are Christian communities being wiped out by terrorists?
israel killing christian palestinians is what i assume they're talking about.
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.
Americans will say they are Italian because their great grandma ate spaghetti once, but God forbid someone is American because he was born there
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.
> he is not "completely" American
As for being completely American: dual citizen of U.S. and another country here. On each April 15, the U.S. still considers me completely American even though I haven’t earned a cent there in over a decade. So in an official sense, that moniker sticks to you like Super Glue.
Granted, the new pope may have a wider scope of cultural influences than many, if not a majority of Americans, it sounds like his formative years were spent in the U.S. so I’d call him American.
There’s a really interesting question here. Will the USA claim the right to tax the new pontiff? Likely answer is no, but legally the statute suggests yes. But who knows? There’s never before been a US citizen who is also a foreign sovereign.
> There’s never before been a US citizen who is also a foreign sovereign.
Éamon de Valera was born in New York City in 1882, and served as President of Ireland from 1959 to 1973
Bhumibol Adulyadej was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1927, and served as King of Thailand from 1946 until his death in 2016
That’s just two US-born individuals who became head of state of another country, there may be more.
I assume both were US citizens at birth (de Valera was born into poverty, abandoned by his Spanish father, reputedly an artist; Bhumibol‘s father was a student at Harvard)-whether or not they ever formally renounced their US citizenship, I don’t know
I was wondering whether Wikipedia would comment. They don't, but somebody already edited Bhumibol's article to say that "His father was enrolled in the public health program at Harvard University, which is why Bhumibol was the only monarch to be born in the US until the 2025 papal conclave elected Pope Leo XIV."
There are some sources indicating that children of foreign sovereigns would be exempt from automatic citizenship, but Bhumibol's father wasn't the king, just the king's brother.
Éamon de Valera's case is unambiguous.
There are surely other world leaders who spent significant time in the US - Benjamin Netanyahu spent some time in the Philadelphia area as a child, for example. And a little bit of research turns up Naftali Bennett, prime minister of Israel in 2021-22 - he was a US citizen (born in Israel to US citizen parents) until he had to renounce his US citizenship when elected to the Knesset.
Famously Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel (which is a largely ceremonial post), which presumably would have come with Israeli citizenship, but he turned it down.
I believe King Rama IX was not technically a U.S. citizen because his parents were considered foreign diplomats. In any case he never tried to claim citizenship and was only ever considered Thai.
So, a foreign prince (not the King, his brother) enrols as a student at Harvard - would he be considered a “foreign diplomat”? He wasn’t formally acting as a diplomat, and unless he happened to be officially accredited to the State Department as one, I doubt he would have technically counted as one either. Was he present in the US on a diplomatic/consular visa, or a student visa?
Also, in most countries (the US included), one’s status as a citizen/national is legally independent of whether one tries to “claim” it.
> there may be more.
> Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was born on 19 June 1964 on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York City
Not a foreign sovereign - Boris Johnson was never head of state, only head of government - a distinction often forgotten in countries like the US which merge those two offices into one. (Which is not about the UK being a monarchy-parliamentary republics such as Ireland, Malta, Germany, Austria, Israel, keep the two distinct)
Éamon de Valera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89amon_de_Valera), US citizen and President of Ireland.
Two things:
1. Does the Pope have significant personal income? 2. Does, which what I think you are getting at, the law apply to a head of state?
> Does the Pope have significant personal income?
Monthly income for pope US$32,000 equivalent.
> Does, which what I think you are getting at, the law apply to a head of state?
I don’t know if he will exempt as head of state, but as ordinary US citizen he will be paying taxes to US as his income exceeds FEIE exemption threshold.
I am not sure that is correct. Different sources show very different amounts.
The $32k seems suspiciously close to the monthly €2,500 reported by other sources multiplied by 12.
There also seems to be some confusion between the assets and income of the pope and the papacy.
he is completely US American because he was born and raised there and studied there, maths and philosophy amongst other things.
and in addition he is also Peruvian.
so he's more than American. hyper American if you will. and now he's the head of state of the Vatican, too.
a triple whopper of sorts ;-)
Definitely a "yes, and" thing. I'm working on dual citizenship and I would not consider myself "less American" once I got it.
You can't study maths in America. There is only one math in America.
There are many sports though.
loool TIL
my cheap excuse is that Europeans learn en-uk ;-)
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.
[flagged]
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.
When the war comes, dual citizenship might become complicated. Certainly a pope cannot be a citizen, but for others.
Seems like he's spent 2 years in the US since he was 27.
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.
> the context from which the rest is understood.
What? Speaking from experience, the country you go to after 20s is the one you choose, not the one you were forced to live in. This has a huge factor in your thinking more than the number of years on paper.
On the nature/nature aspect people are already predominantly nature. For the nurture component of the residual the early years are very formative. As an expat who has spent much more of my life outside my country of birth than in it, and knows many other expats who have done the same, from my observation our upbringing still dominates our behavior. It is also a selection criteria bias where expats are more likely to identify with other expats even when not from the same country or residing in the same country which is one of the reasons expats tend to form communities with other expats. The problem with self assessing behavior is that the same biases which determine behavior is used for assessing the behavior where much of what is considered merely normal is ignored leading to over-weighting the size of the unusual component.
But the Church hierarchy probably decided the young priest would be stationed in Peru, not the priest himself.
Sure, but the fact that he stayed there for many many years means that it suited him. If you want the change countries the Church has processes for that.
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
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.
> Cardinal Pizzaballa
Not going to lie, I had to check that this was a real name (it is)
Is this the guy they where hoping would take the name Papa John?
That would have been amazing. (And not impossible, there have been plenty of Popes named John.)
Yeah, his full name is even better: Pierbattista Pizzaballa
Personal motto: Sufficit tibi gratia mea ('My grace is sufficient for you')
This guy is a baller.
I have a coworker right now whose name is Carmelo Martini. Seriously, I had to ask him: "did your parents name you after their favorite drink?".
I get the joke but it goes the other way around. Martini is a common family name from the north of Italy (Carmelo is common given name in the south). The drink was named after the name of company producing it (actually half of it.) The company was named Martini because that was the family name of the founder.
The drink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martini_(vermouth)
The company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martini_%26_Rossi
Much like how a first name Mercedes or a last name Ford isn't necessarily a person named after a car. The cars are named after people
If we're doing funny name corner, I still remember Cardinal Sin (of Manila).
And I had to look it up to make sure you weren’t both leading me on. Now that’s a spicy surname!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierbattista_Pizzaballa
His name makes me super hungry
I think it was Aristotle who said "Give me a child until his mid-twenties, and I will give you a complete American."
No the quote is "Show me a child in his mid twenties, and I will show you an american"
even as a joke of Aristotle living 2,000 years before the United States existed, I don't get the comedic affect
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
Attributed to Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, although this is disputed.
If Peru gets to claim this pope, then the US gets to claim Tesla, Einstein, etc. lol
Nobody claims the pope. This is a weird take. We are not talking about some sport celebrity.
It’s true that the man was born in the USA and was a bishop in Peru. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Peruvian catholics were happy to have a pope who lived their country.
The Peruvians definitely seem to be happy about it:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/08/pope-leo-xiv-p...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cewdl4e57v7o
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/for-us-pope-is-peruvi...
and, unsurprisingly, the Peruvian-Americans:
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/paterson-nj-new-pope-le...
> The Peruvians definitely seem to be happy about it
I don’t really see that from the articles you linked.
It’s all quotes about how the Pope is Peruvian (definitely true as he indeed has the Peruvian nationality) and how Peruvian people feel blessed in that.
Even your last article reinforces that he is a dual citizen with knowledge of both culture which obviously makes people joyful.
I have yet to see people argue if he is more American or more Peruvian apart from here.
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.
I suspect that’s going to be a political talking point sooner, not later.
For what it's worth, Peru is in South America. Still American, Technically.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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!
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.
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.
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 América"
"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.
If you say "Mexico" in Mexico, most people will think you're referring to Mexico City.
Really? Do people call the city just "México", by itself, not "Ciudad de México" or similar?
There is a similar situation in Quebec (the province and its capital city are both just called "Québec" 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 Québec"[1] = I'm going to Quebec (the province) vs. "Je vais à Québec" = 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 à + le
It could just be people in the area I'm usually in (Yucatan/Q Roo) referring to it that way, but I have heard it from several people.
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.
You mean someoen that lives in the E.U.?
> 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.)
"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.
Then Pope Francis was American as well.
[flagged]
America is a continent you know
Not in English. I know in the Spanish speaking world there's a single American continent, but as far as I know across the English speaking world it's taught as two continents, North and South America. We have the term "the Americas" to refer to both.
I really think this is a failure of education, teaching kids that there are N continents as if that were some kind of objective truth, as opposed to the reality that the definition of “continent” is at least partially conventional, so there are several different values of N which are arguably correct - anything from 4 to 7 is mainstream (at a global level)
Wikipedia is helping, though.
It says (I didn’t know this) that the “single American continent” model was mainstream in the US prior to WW2, so even if there is now a single definition in the Anglosphere, that’s a relatively recent development.
I remember as a kid believing that the Americas contained three continents-North, Central and South. I’m sure I’m not the only person to have ever thought that, and given how conventional these definitions are, can it really be said to be wrong?
Well, in Ecuador and Peru, where I used to travel for 2 months, a lot of people were making a point of saying "América del Sur" to differentiate their place from the USA.
Geographically speaking, America was a single continent till the Panama channel was built
Accurately speaking, that wasn't true before the Panama canal was built, and remains not true subsequently.
How would you argue such claims, geographically and/or accurately speaking? — Other than: that’s how I was taught it is; or that’s how my favourite teacher/book/source-with-some-authority says it is.
There is no generally-agreed-upondefinition for “continent”, in the same way that there was no generally-agreed-upon definition of “planet” prior to the IAU 2006 General Assembly.
Continents are identified by convention (and there are a few competing conventions) rather than any strict criteria.
I was taught (in Europe) that there are 6 continents, 1 of which close-to-uninhabited: Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, America, Antarctica. This convention is the same as the one for the UNSD “continental regions”. The five interlocking rings of the Olympic flag represent these five inhabited continents.
There’s another convention that considers Eurasia to be a single continent. And another that even considers Afro-Eurasia to be a single continent.
> And another that even considers Afro-Eurasia to be a single continent.
Well, as per parent's logic, that claim is out the door ever since the Suez was dug out.
Yes. A continent is a big contiguous mass of land. There were 3: Eurasia-africa, America, Oceania and Antarctica.
Suez and Panama channels created other continents.
Technically 2.
You could educate yourself, you know, instead of trying to regurgitate something that someone else said that you thought looked clever.
What would you call Americans? United Statesians?
There are two countries called the United States in North America, there's the United States of Mexico, and the United States of America. People from the United States of Mexico are called Mexicans, and people from the United States of America are called Americans.
And what about people from the continent of North America? There's called North Americans, just like people from South America are called South Americans.
> There are two countries called the United States in North America
No, actually, there aren't.
> there's the United States of Mexico, and the United States of America.
No, México’s formal English name (which is an exact literal translation of its Spanish name) is United Mexican States (it is Estados Unidos Mexicanos not Estados Unidos de México)
> Estados Unidos Mexicanos
I think this would translate to Mexican United States ; you're mixing up the word order.
> I think this would translate to Mexican United States
If Estados Unidos existed in Spanish as a compound, non-proper, noun phrase—that is, if "a united states" was a generic name for a thing—rather than Unidos and Mexicanos both being adjectives that modify Estados, then that would be a plausible translation. But that's (1) not the case, and (2) even if it was the case, that's not how it is used in the actual official name of the country of México.
> you're mixing up the word order.
To be clear, you are asserting that the government of México messed up the word order in its own official English name.
Sorry, I did not realize this was the official translation.
I was just commenting on the fact that adjective order in Spanish is usually reversed vs. the English one, and the adjective closest to the noun remains closest to the noun.
Wikipedia mentions that an alternate official name is Estados-Unidos Mexicanos:
> All three federal constitutions (1824, 1857, and 1917, the current constitution) used the name Estados Unidos Mexicanos[29]—or the variant Estados-Unidos Mexicanos,[30] all of which have been translated as "United Mexican States"
Interesting that it's still translated this way. I'm wondering if there are some political considerations there (eg to avoid being called the "Mexican US"). Thanks for your response. I learned something today.
Well, yes. In spanish we use "estadounidense" a lot.
In Spanish, which is not English
> What would you call Americans? United Statesians?
Aussie here, mostly we call them Seppos. Or Yanks if we're being polite.
No, we don't.
The terms “yank” and “seppo” were more common in older generations of Australians. If you could go back to the 1940s, I think you’d hear both terms a lot (in certain informal contexts)
One still occasionally hears “yanks”, but it is quite rare. “Seppos”, one more often hears joking about calling Americans that than anyone actually doing so-and the rare occasions the term is used (as opposed to merely mentioned), are (in my personal experience) self-conscious exercises in derogatory jocularity-related jocular coinages are “Sepponians” and “Seppostanis”
Of course, it is a big country, and terms which have fallen out of general use may be retained or revived in some pockets-I can only describe my own personal experiences
>What would you call Americans? United Statesians? Personally I call them Burgers.
[dead]
> What would you call Americans? United Statesians?
US-Americans
[flagged]
Since this is a thread about the new pope, note that Catholic doctrine interprets that passage to mean you can only divorce if the original marriage was invalid. The Greek word, porneia, has more literal or abstract interpretations depending on context. Protestants and Orthodox[1] interpret it to mean illicit sex, particularly adultery, but Catholics interpret it to mean something closer to incest, which would imply a marriage was never valid in the first place. Catholic doctrine argues this interpretation is easier to square with the preceding statements by Jesus in Matthew that "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." That is, that marriage is indissoluble by man--i.e. a spouse can't dissolve a marriage just be screwing around. And also squares with Mark, who mentions no exception. OTOH, that's arguably asking too much of the text.
[1] That said, depending on which Orthodox theologian you ask, Orthodoxy doesn't permit remarriage, either. Some Orthodox will tell you that a second marriage isn't a sacramental marriage; that the original marriage is never dissolved. Rather, "remarriage" is a form of "Ekonomia", wherein the community sort of ignores some misbehavior, or withholds judgment, so as to avoid cutting a person off entirely. Pope Francis explicitly mentioned this concept of "ekonomia" when discussing his preference that (civilly) remarried Catholics be permitted the Eucharist. And he arguably had this concept in mind when advocating for the blessing of people in same-sex relationships.
American Christianity != American Catholicism
Christianity > Catholicism
[flagged]
I know many American evangelicals who believe Catholics are not true Christians, and as such, when they're talking about Christians they are not including Catholics in that discussion.
I was in an interview once and the prospective employer asked me what church I attend. I replied, "Catholic." He said, "Is that even Christian?" So, yeah, plenty of Americans have a skewed view of Catholicism.
Being asked your religion in a job interview is wild (outside of a few select jobs, like Pope)
As discrimination based on religion is illegal in most of the world, it’s also probably exposing the person asking and the company to a lot of potential legal risk. It’s a big no where I live and part of the things you are explicitly trained to never ask about.
What makes someone an evangelical? Protestant faith?
Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are distinct and relatively recent (18th and 19th century in origin) strands within Protestantism (both being particularly prominent in the US.) They aren't equivalent to Protestantism.
More or less, though it's such an umbrella term at this point that a self-described "evangelical" may disclaim Protestant identity, not having an awareness of the historical link and intending to convey that they don't feel aligned with a Protestant denomination such as Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc. I've met many Evangelicals who said something along those lines when the subject came up in conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
Here's the big secret, just about every serious Christian doesn't believe other Christians are true Christians. It's a highly interpretive religion, and just about everyone goes off the deep end interpreting it. It's a sin to think this way, but it's a tautology because the foundational belief is that everyone is a sinner to begin with. TLDR, what you are describing is correct and expected. Original sin is not a bug, but a feature in Christianity.
My sin is that I believe others are sinners, but the reason for my sin is because I am sinner - trippy stuff :)
What you wrote is complete nonsense, fwiw.
What part? I see you have a lot of faith-based links in your profile. Perhaps you think you are some kind of authority. Maybe you are! I have the wonky belief that God talks through us all, so anything you say, I'd actually take quite seriously.
Not sure if your vote is a religious thing or a political one. Basically you can vote for a satanist to take over a government. But you are damned if you are a satanist or in govt run by one.
It’s funny seeing people talk about the decline of America. I can remember the same conversations in the 1970’s, late 2000’s as well.
> I can remember the same conversations…
Do you remember a president from those eras who when asked whether he believed that he was duty bound to uphold the Constitution answered “I don’t know.”?
> It’s funny seeing people talk about the decline of America.
Funny? I’d rather say it’s pretty sad.
Nixon said many things that were nearly as offensive to the rule of law and separation of powers as outlined in the constitution, even if they weren't as ignorant as anything Trump has said
He said the quiet part out loud but that doesn't change the fact that presidents have been ignoring the constitution for decades.
It's a trivial example but Biden trying to unilaterally declare the ERA law was absurd and his student loan forgiveness was obviously going to be found unconditional and he did it anyway.
Those aren't the actions of someone who takes the constitution seriously.
Nevermind the patriot act...
> Nevermind the patriot act...
Whether you agree with it or not, at least the Patriot Act was passed by Congress and not simply Executive Orders because it's too inconvenient to work with Congress on legislation.
I don’t know that the majority of congress choosing to violate the constitution really makes your point.
It passed the house with 357–66 and senate with 98–1. That's well passed the required two thirds for passing an amendment if they wanted to.
I'm as critical as anyone, but GP's point stands.
Amendments need more than Congressional approval
It was passed in 2001, surely there has been adequate time for parties to get a case to the Supreme Court and get it ruled as such.
Especially with how quickly some of the Trump EOs have been turned down.
It's very difficult to challenge because the secret nature of it.
In order to sue, you have to prove standing and in order to have standing, you have to know you were harmed. It's hard to prove you were harmed if everything is top secret.
If we ever hit a point where nobody is talking about America being in decline, that will mean we are entering decline.
I do think we’ve been in a down period when it comes to politics for a while but I am mid to long term optimistic about things getting better. This is not the first time we’ve had crazy massively divisive politics or populist crackpottery. Overall I do not think we are in any kind of terminal decline.
What is happening is that other countries are rising. I think that’s good for us. When America was the only superpower it made us lazy and foolish.
Look at how it works out in the corporate world. Take Intel for instance. They had a near monopoly for about a decade on top performing CPUs and it destroyed the company. Google carved out a monopoly on search and they are complete trash now. Pride cometh before a fall because pride causes the fall.
What other countries are rising? I mean China is an obvious one but seems to be struggling. Europe is in decline. India continues to struggle.
If anything, the US has pulled even further ahead since 1990. Back then the USSR was a near-power to the US, but has fallen significantly since then.
Since all power is relative, you’d need to see the US falling relative to another country. And right now, I don’t really see a country on that trajectory.
China is gaining power as we speak. And USA is abdicating that power. Also, Russia seems to be a big winner currently, America will help them keep parts Ukraine and prepare for another invasion.
It’s certainly an amusing thread to read, the US has more power, no it has less, China is pulling ahead, actually it’s struggling, so is India, or not.
If only there were numbers we could compare.
China is not without problems and had some problems in economy. This situation allows them to get ahead, internally plausiy blame Trump even for issues that existed even before, get new aliances and power.
America is not gaining power, that part is pure wishful thinking.
My optimism for the US is quite limited, because they have kinda knowingly dismantled their own democracy, and are in the process of dismantling it even more, while the president tries as hard as possible to become a Putin-like dictator, and important decisions are made by tech giant owning oligarchs. A while longer and the US might enter a civil war or will simply lose all good will it had directed towards it in the world and will then stand alone, while other countries enable the US' competitors. If Americans do not change something about their trajectory soon, it will not end well for them, and probably not end well for many other countries either.
The US has a history of hitting rock bottom every so often. First constitutional crisis leading to the replacement of the articles of confederation, civil war, Great Depression and the new deal, the Vietnam era, and now the collapse of the post Cold War order.
I am not sure fascism will take here. Americans might think they want it until the fascists start telling them what to do. We are kinda starting to see that.
We will see more. Wait until some stand your ground red blooded American homeowner guns down a bunch of ICE goons doing a warrantless raid on the wrong house. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet. I’ve been checking the news for it daily. Then Trump tries to confiscate guns. I’ve been predicting for years that it’s MAGA who will try to “come for the guns.” That will be a hoot as they say a few hours South of where I am.
Of course they still have the culture war card. For some reason trans derangement syndrome (TDS) still has a hold on people. I don’t understand why that particular thing works so well, even on some people you would not expect.
> I don’t understand why that particular thing works so well, even on some people you would not expect.
When you engage these sorts of people and ask the right follow-up questions, there's some common underlying concerns that underpin the polite fictions.
I've found that for men, they are scared that the next woman they look at covetously might have been AMAB. Even if they understand that there is a difference between sex and gender, they are scared that their acquaintances aren't, and are terrified of the prospect of being "tricked" into being attracted to someone who they see as a man. For women, I've found that they see men as biologically and intrinsically dangerous, and that a tiger doesn't change its stripes just because they are alienated from masculinity.
Not that I agree with either viewpoint. Being worried about being "accidentally gay" speaks more to underlying insecurities surrounding masculinity, and "men are inherently dangerous" is just misandry. But I'm no longer surprised by TDS.
I don't think this is happening organically. Trans people are such a small percentage of the population but we've been getting a ton of media coverage. There's a concerted effort on the right to demonize us and that filters down into the culture.
I can't speak to men but women are so much more comfortable around me since I came out. Most of my partners and friends have been cis women. One of the best parts of transitioning is random women will come up and talk to me when I'm running errands. This started happening early in my transition when I was very much visibly trans. People can be weird around me if they haven't met a trans person before but the people who are hostile tend to be terminally online.
I'm not trying to downplay the inordinate amount of media coverage transfolk are getting.
However, effective propaganda needs an audience willing to listen and accept the things they're being told. I don't think that propaganda turns good people hateful. Instead, I believe it gives people predisposed to certain hateful beliefs a socially acceptable excuse they can repeat for feeling the way they do.
> For women, I've found that they see men as biologically and intrinsically dangerous, and that a tiger doesn't change its stripes just because they are alienated from masculinity.
This is demonstrably true in many scenarios. Such as, males being transferred to women's prisons because they say they are women. As a consequence, female prisoners have been sexually assaulted and raped by these men. Drawing attention to this isn't misandry, it's reality.
So...there's a funny little consequence of putting in the work to have those real-life conversations, and that's that one starts to be able to see "past" post-hoc justifications like yours.
Trying to argue the "facts" with anonymous internet denizens is pretty much useless, because especially in today's post-truth landscape, you can find justification for any horrendous opinion if you dig deep enough. That is even assuming the person you're talking to is even real and not an AI, a bored sociopath on an alt account, a paid shill or otherwise.
Thankfully, spaces like these are very much not representative of real life, where most individuals are nice, decent people minding their own business, and "saving face" isn't seen as such an imperative away from the public scrutiny of the internet.
> For some reason trans derangement syndrome (TDS) still has a hold on people. I don’t understand why that particular thing works so well, even on some people you would not expect.
I think it work as good as it does since there are no trans people around most people at all. It is a TV thing.
Outside of big cities I have never seen anyone. Prevalence measures varies but in my 30k pop county there should be like from 3 to <1.
I live in Fargo, ND. Conservative, small city. I work with 3 people who are trans and know another 3 outside of work and regularly see others around town. It does seem like a trend and I doubt most of them have dysphoria, but they're around and visible even in conservative areas.
Fargo is the main population centre in North Dakota though, right?
But ye the line between bisexual and transsexual have been blurried lately. Or maybe better put, I am not keeping track of the trends since I am no longer a student.
>Outside of big cities I have never seen anyone.
It's not their responsibility to present themselves to you for enumeration and measurement, festoon themselves and their cars with trans pride tattoos and flags and bumper stickers, or allow you to sexually assault them by inspecting their genitals before playing sports or taking a shit.
Maybe they're just ordinary every day people, going about their ordinary every day lives, all around you, without you even knowing about it, because it's none of your business.
In fact, maybe that's what transphobic bigots with Trans Derangement Syndrome most fear, that they are surrounded by everyday normal trans people going about their everyday normal lives, but they don't even know it, and that is why they are so obsessed with inspecting other people's genitals and denying them human rights.
Any transphobic bigots with Trans Derangement Syndrome want to chime in and explain exactly why you're so obsessed with other people's genitals, which are none of your business? Or Trump voters who support him and his normative gender role enforcers grabbing women and children by the pussy to judge whether or not they're allowed to play sports or use public restrooms, all in the name of "protecting women", at the same time as they celebrate taking away women's right to abortion? Care to share your browser history, so we know if you're jerking off to the same secret obsession that gets you so hot and bothered in public?
NORTH CAROLINA: Anti-trans Trump-endorsed Republican candidate for North Carolina governor Mark Robinson called himself a 'Black Nazi,' admitted to liking trans porn:
https://www.advocate.com/election/mark-robinson-black-nazi-t...
>“I like watching [transgender slur] on girl porn! That’s fucking hot! It takes the man out while leaving the man in!” Robinson wrote in one comment verified by the outlet. “And yeah I’m a ‘perv’ too!” -Mark Robinson aka "minisoldr"
Unjustly confronting women, accusing them of being men, and expelling them from the bathroom just because they don't look stereotypically feminine enough for you is not "protecting women". It's as sexist and bigoted as it gets.
WASHINGTON, DC: Lauren Boebert & Nancy Mace confront woman they thought was trans in ‘predictable’ Capitol bathroom incident:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lauren-boebert-nancy-mace-confron...
>A misguided attempt to enforce Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s discriminatory anti-trans bathroom policy at the Capitol led to an embarrassing misstep by GOP Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina who were involved in an incident on Thursday that transgender Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride's office called “predictable.”
>The pair confronted a cisgender woman in the restroom, mistakenly believing her to be the Delaware Democratic lawmaker, who is the first out transgender member of Congress. McBride had previously said she would follow House rules after Johnson banned transgender people from using the bathroom in line with their gender identity. The incident has reignited criticism of Johnson’s anti-trans bathroom regulations, which critics say endanger and harass all women.
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS: Woman says Boston hotel guard told her to leave bathroom because she ‘was a man’:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/06/boston-hotel...
>Same-sex couple says they were appalled after being confronted and wrongfully accused in women’s restroom.
>A couple visiting Boston says they were left confused and appalled after being forced out of the Liberty Hotel during a Kentucky Derby party on Saturday, following what they describe as being confronted and wrongfully accused in the women’s restroom.
>Ansley Baker and her girlfriend, Liz Victor, both cisgender women, said a hotel security guard entered the women’s bathroom and demanded Baker leave the stall she was using, claiming she didn’t belong there.
>“All of a sudden there was banging on the door,” Baker recalled to CBS News.
>“I pulled my shorts up. I hadn’t even tied them. One of the security guards was there telling me to get out of the bathroom, that I was a man in the women’s bathroom. I said: ‘I’m a woman.’”
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA: Cis Woman Mistaken as Transgender Records Being Berated in Bathroom:
https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/11/01/cis-woman-mistaken-...
>A woman in Las Vegas says she remains shaken from her experience last week when another woman berated her in a public restroom for being transgender. The problem is that she's not trans, and, as she puts it, regardless of whether she had been, the entire situation was plainly wrong.
>In Las Vegas, Jay, a 24-year-old cis woman, was driving with her boyfriend on Thursday when she said she had to use the restroom.
>Jay says the couple stopped at Rampart Casino after being out all day to fix a seat belt on their car.
>Because she knew she would take longer, she gave her boyfriend some money to gamble while he waited and she went to the bathroom.
>"As soon as I got in, I went straight to a stall," Jay tells The Advocate. "About a minute or so in, I start to hear a woman being extremely aggressive. At first, I wasn't hearing exactly what she was saying until I started hearing her say, 'Trans, figure out your identity at home ... they better not come out of there. .. that's not allowed ... that's a boy, [and] they think this is [OK] because it's being taught in schools.'"
> It's not their responsibility to present themselves to you for enumeration and measurement, [...]
Come on. That is not what I meant. I recognise almost everyone my age that went to school here. People talk.
>People talk.
Yeah, they do, don't they? And because of that, it's really tough to be trans or gay or whatever in a small town. And that drives people into the closet, and drives them to leave.
How much do you really know about those people you never saw again after high school?
>Google carved out a monopoly on search and they are complete trash now.
Google search is only trash to the tech savvy user base, but the normies have no issues with it.
Aren't the normies using ChatGPT to generate something closely resembling plausible answers now, exactly because Google's quality has dipped? Jeez, the normies I know sure are, to a man...
Back then we didn't have a fascist for president or a court full of people who will make up anything to get the results that they want.
“ 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.
Neat thanks.
Btw how do you know this?! Have you memorized stuff of all the passed popes?
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...
Thanks a lot!
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 :)
I don't think Opus Dei spends a lot of time discussing Rerum Novarum, honestly.
I dunno, they spent a ton of time talking about how to get rid of the last pope, so who knows which other "Actually believe the teachings of Christ" popes they bad-mouth when they get together?
What do they discuss? There is an Opus Dei church near me and I always wondered what was up
Opus Dei is an extreme reactionary group within the church. Leo XIII was a liberal pope responsible for the social doctrine of the church (this text).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_Opus_Dei
Personal experience: when I was in high school in my country there was a teacher who was in Opus Dei. He tried to recruit students by leaving them a letter and inviting them to a "scholarship". I got such a letter, I was so excited. The school found out about that and investigated. We're a mixed-race country. The Opus Dei teacher has invited exclusively white students. He had invited top students #2 to #4 in my class by grade, but not #1, who was black.
Meanwhile I mostly interacted with Opus Dei members near Harvard that were Nigerian, Spanish, and Mexican.
Each country has their own racial hierarchy that may not, and usually does not, match yours.
This was the US.
> We're a mixed-race country
There are single-race countries?
Depending on how you count, Egypt, Morocco, Bangladesh, North Korea...
i know what you mean, although they're not single-race (i hate using this expression, omg) in a binary way. or at least only if you exclude the minorities in these countries who still make it diverse, be it in a small way.
When I visited an Opus Dei house once for a philosophy lecture they were discussing Plato, the Timaeus in particular.
while it wouldn’t surprise me to learn they might be discussing this, but if they were it would almost certainly be in disgust—opus dei is very very extreme in their dislike of ideas such as those from pope leo.
one of my grandparents dabbled, and every single one of them i’ve met were very… trying to be kind here… veerrry very into the church. not a normal into the church, much more extreme. i’m desperately trying not to use the c word, but it really does fit. if one finds themselves being taken in, truly, please, take just a lil bit and learn how orgs like scientology and heavens gate etc… recruit people. the recruitment similarities are uncanny. the after effects are uncanny.
All are welcome
Including atheists?
Especially atheists
As long as you aren't a smug asshole about it, most religious people don't mind talking about religion with atheists. You have to be honestly interested in what they have to say and not just looking for a way to 'prove them wrong'
Yup
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.
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".
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.
Growing up to Scottish and Irish Catholics in England, I remember talking to a bunch of Ulster protestants as a teenager when the topic turned to religion - I said "Well, I was raised Catholic but I'm not really a believer of any kind" and the response was "Ah, so you're one of THOSE Catholics!".
Turns out there are a lot of 'those' Catholics.
Don't go to church, but know which church they are not going to.
For most of history 99% of Catholics could not read, much less own a Bible. The fetishization of theology is not necessary to be a good Catholic
Literacy is a great gift which shouldn't be squandered: much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more. To try to make knowledge of ones spiritual heritage out to be "fetishization" is inappropriate in my estimation. This reminds me of a story told by Dr. Scott Hahn, a Catholic biblical scholar, about an experience he once had (closely paraphrased):
Questioner: "Why do we need to know all of this [bible study, theology, etc]? I can just think of the medieval peasant who is illiterate and thus disqualified from any and everything that you're talking about."
Dr. Hahn: "I think the best response to your question would actually come from the medieval peasant himself, because if you could imagine him standing here next to me he would look at you and say, 'You're using me as an excuse? You have books, you have literacy, you have access to these resources, and you're using me as an excuse to not take advantage of them?'"
Bibles were the first book to sell in large numbers when the printing press was invented.
Before that the church did expect at least priests and monks and nuns to be able to read the Bible, and there were a lot of them.
Most is strictly true, but you are talking about a millennium between the clear primacy of Rome and the invention of the printing press, and half a millennium since so its not hugely more.
Finally, historically most people could not own books and had no to limited literacy. Literacy is not necessary to be a good anything, but its definitely better to be literate and have access to things to read.
For most of history even a single book of the Bible would cost a princely sum.
Even today a single manuscript vellum scroll is a significant expense.
There's a standing joke among cradle Catholics that while they are taking food to impoverished LGBT prostitutes in the skid row, traditionalist Catholics are trawling the books looking for an excuse in the Canon to stay comfy at home at night.
> 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.
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.
Or Catholic primary/secondary education.
But still, both are highly variable in quality/coverage and likely much less consistent than you might assume if unfamiliar with the space.
Who the pope is, is not really relevant. It's not like the pope will suddenly go against the key scriptures or something.
Also, most Catholics are born in catholic families so it's not like they chose catholicism over something else.
> Also, most Catholics are born in catholic families so it's not like they chose catholicism over something else.
I do not know whether that is true any more, at least in all countries. At one Catholic parish I knew in Britain about half the congregation were adult converts.
Then there are a lot of people who leave and return. I might count as that - Catholic family, was agnostic (and married in registry office, which turned out to be useful), and now am definitely a Christian but feel denomination does not matter and do not really accept much of the Catholic theology (and some of its practical consequences, such as no women priests really bother me). OTOH I have not, and would not, formally leave the church either.
Who the president is, is not really relevant. It's not like the president will suddenly go against the constitution or something.
Bring serious, it's kind of important due to the Pope's infallibility.
Irrelevant analogy. You can't change country super easily but you can stop being a Catholic in 5 seconds if you decide it.
> you can stop being a Catholic in 5 seconds if you decide it.
How does one officially leave the Catholic Church?
Sure, you can stop attending church and taking communion, but you're still on a list somewhere in your parish(es).
Being on a list means what? How does that impact your life?
Apostasy is not that quick or easy. Depending on a country the church can fight you on that.
Any example?
No idea how old OP is, but I think there's a pattern amongst Millennial cradle Catholics in particular. You grow up with it, maybe you went to Catholic grade school and high school, perhaps even a Catholic college (Notre Dame if you're lucky, Creighton or Marquette if you didn't get that 1500 on the SAT or a 34 on the ACT that you wanted). And then there's sort of a fork when you hit adulthood. You either drop it and never come back, or you passively drift away and then one day you get married and have kids and start taking it seriously again. I knew the reference because of the latter. I suspect there's a lot of Millennial Catholics who are like that.
This is to say, or rather explain, that I respect those who convert and have a predilection to Traditionalism. Part of the reason cradle Catholics drifted away is that the boomer generation basically ruined the mystique and the tradition, so when you're a kid it just felt like another chore.
The OP AKA Dominicans date back to 1216.
Haha obviously I’m kidding you but that’s truly tangentially relevant
I was raised atheist and the education I received on religion was also firmly from an atheist (I guess anthropological?) viewpoint. What we were taught was that religion in theory (e.g. what is written in the holy books) and religion as it's actually practiced can often be quite different and none of them is realer than the other. Or something like that, it was a while ago.
>It never ceases to amaze me how poorly catechized the majority of cradle Catholics are.
The classic example being asking one "What is the immaculate conception?"
That said, I have no reason to think that the average Catholic is more or less knowledgeable about his religion than any other Christian.
What most people get wrong is that the immaculate conception is the conception of Mary, not Jesus, and is completely different from virgin birth.
Isn't that the point though? To provide a disjunction?
"I was raised Catholic" is like "I'm not racist but".
[flagged]
I would generally agree, except that there is a very well know Pope Leo that anyone who has taken any European history should know about. Pope Leo X that was Pope when Martin Luther kicked off the reformation.
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.
Someone asked me the same question! I just know that popes pick their names to indicate what their priorities are. Francis picked a totally new name. I think that in itself signals a time of change in the church, we can also look to st Francis And the traditional association with kindness, mercy, not to mention his "Rule" (basically that Christ had no possessions).
Typically the previous pope with that name is where you look. Maybe the first too. Leo I stood up to Atilla the Hun. Leo XIII championed trade unions and workers rights (though also rejected socialism). Make of it what you will.
"From the last Pope Leo over 100 years ago."
everything old is new again.
history repeats.
we never learn.
The Terminator: "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves"
That definitely rhymes, more than rhymes actually.
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.
Symbolism is a huge part of what name you select which is why its been a minute since a Pope Innocent or Pope Pious.
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
Yeah I was mainly referring to II and III :)
As a YIMBY, I could go for a Pope Urban.
Request understood. Here's an Urban and his massive ironcast cannon.
[dead]
[flagged]
> There were 12 Piuses
http://www.popepiusclock.com is a thing
cannot tell if this is meant as Pius worship or Pius diss
Why did you just copy poorly formatted LLM output into the discussion?
Popes usually go for symbolic names, so the Leo XIII connection seems unavoidable.
I think unavoidable is the wrong word, he surely picked the name because of this connection.
Francis would joke he hoped his successor would be John XXIV. We still get a nice long Roman numeral but could've been even better.
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.
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.
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.)
> Yes, it of course happens,
It happens far more often than otherwise; you've reversed rule and exception.
Yes, but the past half century has been a rather unusual time for the Church since it's coming out of one of the more consequential ecumenical councils. It typically takes the Church a few generations to come to an agreement about the meaning of an important council. But in the immediate wake of it there's usually a wider diversity of visions.
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.
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
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...
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.”
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.
Wouldn't that make him more aligned with the current US administration?
sadly only partly /s. That being said, people in position of power are a high target of such accusations, so I'd wait for something more proofed.
[flagged]
‘I was only following orders.’
A lot of the church abuse scandal happened during a couple of decades when the church's handling of the cases were the result of following the then scientific consensus on the matter. The church was not alone in this. The scientists told us they could be reformed.
Just look up the history of what was going on in Germany following the same advice.
It's a relatively new thing where we just declare pedophiles unfixable and jail them. In the past, the social scientists told us that it was the result of the environment.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-exp...
> A lot of the church abuse scandal happened during a couple of decades when the church's handling of the cases were the result of following the then scientific consensus on the matter. The church was not alone in this. The scientists told us they could be reformed.
That is not what happened though. Is there any evidence that the church decided that it would hide and cover up accusations of abuse and move clergy around to avoid them being charged and convicted because that was the "scientific consensus"?
Certainly many within the church believed they could reform the abusers in their midst, but that's a wholly different statement than claiming the coverups, which are what's being discussed here, were due to this belief and not that they were merely protecting their own and putting their own judgement above the legal system in which they lived.
I'd wager that the rates of abuse in public schools are not as high as in Catholic schools. I'd go so far as to say that there isn't necessarily anything about Catholicism that produces more pedophiles than normal, and that there aren't necessarily more pedophiles employed by Catholic schools than by others.
However, it seems likely that there's something about the institution that produces more molesters than normal, and clearly there is something about the institution that causes it to lean towards quieting and covering up accusations rather than rectifying them. It doesn't really have anything to do with the reformability of pedophilia; the church faces the necessity of changing either how it handles molesters, or how the nature of its organization seems to create more molesters. The problem is that the church is an institution that seems loathe to change in general.
The church following scientific consensus? That would be amazing.
It was not about them being reformed or not. It was about protecting the institution from bad PR without care for victims.
Yes, but find a catholic priest who doesn’t share that responsibility.
There are several important American bishops who have made serious strides to protect children. This is an ignorant statement.
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.
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.
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.
That's probably a sufficient enough pool though.
every human organization will do that
[flagged]
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]"
> 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.
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.
> 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.
If by "the high middle ages" you mean "2025", then you are right. Priests in de-facto marriages are still super common.
Those are not real marriages according to the Church. Any sexual relation in that situation would be fornication and as such a single.
I am talking about men who are already priests cannot marry. I think you are talking about men who are married becoming priests which is allowed in the Catholic Church and well as the East.
None of the Eastern churches allow priests to marry.
The Eastern Churches do allow their priests to have sexual relations with their wives after ordination.
So do Catholics including Latin rite priests?
> 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.
Which is why I said
> The rules are more strict for Catholics than the others.
You can be a married Catholic man and become a Catholic priest.
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.
Are you perhaps Eastern or Greek Catholic? Because that's certainly not the case for "normal"(Roman Rite) Catholics
> 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.
I believe you're still expected to be celibate once taking your vows.
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.
What is the standard path for a married man to become a Roman Rite Catholic priest (besides being a married Anglican priest who decided to convert)?
Being a married Anglican priest is basically the only conventional way to do that. The discipline of celibacy is otherwise strictly observed.
Of course, if a married Eastern Catholic priest decided to join the Latin Church with the rest of his family, this could happen too.
But generally, a married man will want to discern the diaconate, as the priesthood will simply be out of the question, except in these exceptional circumstances.
> 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.
What also made the abuse scandal so bad was that it is predominantly a problem of homosexuality. And the Catholic Church has been quite accustomed to ordain gay men to the priesthood and accept them into monasteries. And this is not generally a problem if the men have good self-control and they can uphold their vows.
But if homosexual men begin to dabble in pederasty and begin to abuse their positions of power against vulnerable and defenseless boys, this is a real scandal, and the Church has been quite embarrassed for people to find out just how prevalent homosexuality is among the ranks of clergy and religious. And the general public and the mainstream media know this, and they have leveraged that embarrassment against the Church in order to discredit her.
And the homosexual aspect of all of this tends to get swept under the rug and sort of ignored, because the general public, in a hypocritical sort of way, doesn't really mind if men are having sex with boys, at least they're not supposed to, but the absence of little girls from the records has been difficult to deny.
The Church can try and correct this by denying entry to homosexual men. But then she will have a profound vocations crisis if she is selecting heterosexual men and hanging the gays out to dry with nothing at all to do. More than a vocations crisis, she will be accused of being "unwelcoming" and "unjust" towards gay men entirely. So she is truly upon the horns of a dilemma.
> but the absence of little girls from the records has been difficult to deny
… Consider Wikipedia's explanation of the situation described upthread. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Leo_XIV&oldi...
> In 2022, alleged victims of abuse in 2007 by priests Ricardo Yesquén and Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzáles said Prevost failed to investigate their case.[58] The Diocese of Chiclayo stated that Prevost followed proper procedures, met with Ana María Quispe and her sisters in April 2022 to personally attend the victims, encouraging civil action while initiating a canonical investigation (which he sent to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith).[59][60] The sisters stated in 2024 that no full penal canonical investigation occurred, and an article from América Televisión agreed the church's investigation was not thorough.[61][62]
Please consider whether you might be prejudiced, and whether the things you believe might be false. Your assertions certainly are.
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.
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.
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.
Not most of the New Testament. The Old Testament is a different story.
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
"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.
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.
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.
You argued that I was mistranslating. I showed that the etymology and transliteration made a mistranslation effectively impossible. You then completely ignore the evidence to make up an assertion about changing semantics with ZERO proof (even though the burden of proof is on you).
The only reason the word bishop exists in English is because we needed a loan word for episkopos. It has served that purpose and in the religious context has had no significant change in semantics.
As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1
> But since Dionysius declares that there are three orders, namely, bishops who rule, priests who enlighten, and deacons who cleanse, why does the Apostle make no mention of priests?
> The answer is that priests are included under the term, bishop, not as though the two orders are not really distinct, but only nominally. For priest is the same as elder, and bishop the same as overseer. Hence priests and bishops are indiscriminately called both bishops and priests.
> As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1
Aquinas is writing a narrative more than 1,000 years after the fact rationalizing how it is possible for the biblical narrative to be consistent with the order observed later. He does a very good job of that. It is not, in the slightest, evidence that the three-orders system and the particular roles assigned to each—which has evolved considerably over time since it is first clearly attested within the Catholic Church, without even considering what Protestants and newer movements claiming the title "Christian" have done with it —actually existed at the time of the NT and was being referenced therein.
This makes no fundamental argument aside from "we decided to change things to be different from what is in the Bible".
The clear reference was to the overseer of a church or what would be considered a pastor or priest. All bishops are priests.
Mark 10:8-9 KJV
[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
This shows that even if you considered bishops to be a new creation, they shouldn't abandon their family for the position. And of course, the order of deacons isn't necessary of commentary as it is specifically addressed in the next part of 1 Tim 3.
I am the one who argued you might be mistranslating (not the person you just replied to), and I am now somewhat convinced that you are, and that the intent of 1 Tim was to discuss church leaders in a more general sense than the modern term of "bishop." The etymology bears very little weight on the actual meaning of the translation. Lots of words change meaning over time.
Your quote of Aquinas also appears to disagree with you, and takes "episkopos" more generally than the modern usage of "bishop." It actually seems that the catholic bishops may have adopted a word that was in common use for an overseer of a parish.
More recent translations and scholarly commentaries all turn away from the "episkopos" = "bishop" idea. Again, the literal translation of "episkopos" is "overseer."
Aquinas takes it in the only sense that would make sense if you could. These verses discuss the overseer of a church and the rest of the chapter discusses the requirements to be a deacon of a church. The two are completely linked by the context.
Because it is discussing churches, it would be saying that priests must be married. As all bishops are priests, it would apply to them as well.
Even if you took the broader position that it must apply elsewhere, the Catholic Church has only three orders -- deacon, priest, and bishop. These verses MUST be discussing either priest or bishop meaning at least one of those two is not following what Paul wrote.
> the Catholic Church has only three orders
Kind of, but that's only true in the Latin Rite and not the Eastern Rites, and only since 1972, when the other orders were renamed “ministries”.
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.
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).
You are just wrong. You cannot find any reliable scholar who says "bishops are to be be married with kids."
Like I said, it would mean that Paul was not legitimate which is just nonsense. Nobody believes that.
You should read this: https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-st-paul-say-bishops-must-be-...
That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree?
"You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance.
If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.
> That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree?
You are not making a good argument. If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that.
> "You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance.
Fine, ignore the scholars. Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position. If it was that clear you should be able to find somebody who agrees with you.
You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation. This is why there are thousands of different churches. Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture. You are trying to prove Christians, or maybe just Catholics, are idiots or whatever you are trying to do. If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility.
> If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.
Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture.
The Catholic Church believes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15
> So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter
There is clearly things outside of scripture they believe.
Anybody who can follow basic logic can come to the Catholic position from the Bible as I have already mentioned.
Premise 1: The apostles are bishops.
Premise 2: Paul was an apostle.
Premise 3: Paul was not married and had no children.
Therefore bishops are not required to be married and have children.
> If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that.
Can you point to a bishop appointed by Jesus' 12 disciples who was not married with children? If not, then you are making a baseless assertion.
> Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position.
Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children. Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible.
> You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation.
You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems. The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation. It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms.
> Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture.
If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole?
> If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility.
Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts. You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable.
> Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture.
Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here.
If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said.
> Premise 1: The apostles are bishops.
What evidence do you have for this? Apostle means "messenger" or "sent forth". This is far different than Bishop which means "overseer". Paul was certainly familiar with both terms (calling himself a "servant of God, called to be a apostle (messenger)").
Ephesians 4:11 (KJV) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Paul sees a clear distinction between the messengers and those who would oversee the churches. This is why he doesn't see his writings as hypocritical and why the other two premises simply do not matter to the conclusion.
> Can you point to a bishop appointed by Jesus' 12 disciples who was not married with children? If not, then you are making a baseless assertion.
First let me say more than just Paul was unmarried. John was also unmarried. There is also debate if Peter's wife was alive. We only hear about his mother in law, not a wife.
In terms of bishops consrecated by the apostles, we do not have a huge amount of evidence for most, but almost everybody believes St Ignatius of Antioch was unmarried.
> Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children.
You can't use the verse we are debating to prove your point.
> Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible.
OK? You did see that I said "Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position". I know Protestants rejected this understanding. My point is that if everybody in the Church disagrees with your understanding for the first 3/4 of the existence of the church then you are in the wrong.
I don't care what they think on the Bible because they reject what all the early Christians believed.
> You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems.
You are literally saying you know what the Bible means better then almost every Christan who has ever lived. Only a minority of modern Christians agree with you. That is a steller example of pride.
> The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation.
Nobody is saying there is a mistake. I am saying you are misunderstanding and your only evidence is your interpretation and some people 1500+ years after it was written.
> It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms.
This is a bad example. They do not deny that Smith taught polygamy. They belive that Woodruff received a revelation telling them it is no longer permissble.
Nobody is claiming there is a new revelation when it comes to the bishop topic.
> If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole
That makes absolutely no sense. If I write the statement "the sunrise was beautiful." Somebody could say I believe the sunrise was ugly. Does that mean that my statement is a farce? No, it just means they don't know what I was saying.
> Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts.
This is not an adhominen. I am literally trying to help you out and give you constructive criticism.
> You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable.
I take issues with your interpretation. You clearly don't understand and context and are saying if the Bible isn't worded in the exact way I want it to be, then it doesn't mean what it says.
> Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here.
You sure love the phrase ad-homenem despite not knowing what it is. Telling somebody they don't understand something isn't an ad homenem. I am not attacking your character or anything like that.
> If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said.
It has a massive bearing because you can see that nobody took it to mean what you are claiming it means. Surely the Apostles and early bishops would not have had unmarried bishops if that is what they thought it meant.
> What evidence do you have for this? Apostle means "messenger" or "sent forth". This is far different than Bishop which means "overseer". Paul was certainly familiar with both terms (calling himself a "servant of God, called to be a apostle (messenger)").
Apostles are bishops with a special role due to personally meeting Jesus. Of course since it is only implied in the Bible you are going to reject it.
> Ephesians 4:11 (KJV) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
> Paul sees a clear distinction between the messengers and those who would oversee the churches. This is why he doesn't see his writings as hypocritical and why the other two premises simply do not matter to the conclusion.
Apostles are bishops, but not all bidhops are apostles so it would be accurate that not everybody had an apostle.
That quote also doesn't deny that somebody could have multiple roles. Surely an evangelist would also be a teacher? Surely prophets are also teachers (teaching the prophecy they received)?
This is such a weird argument.
> John was also unmarried.
Can you provide any evidence of this?
> almost everybody believes St Ignatius of Antioch was unmarried.
Speaking of him, read Philadelphians. He makes the assertion that the apostles were married men (including Paul). What he makes of himself, it either implies that he is married or would like to be (to be like those others).
https://www.logoslibrary.org/ignatius/philadelphians1/04.htm...
> You can't use the verse we are debating to prove your point.
I'm asserting that it says what it says. YOU are the one who must prove that Paul didn't mean what he said.
> You are literally saying you know what the Bible means better then almost every Christan who has ever lived.
To the contrary, YOU are making an assertion that everyone believes this, but are then failing to show any proof except clear cases of "nobody knows, but I'll assert that they were unmarried anyway".
> only evidence is your interpretation and some people 1500+ years after it was written.
Even the Catholic Church didn't mandate celibacy until nearly 1200AD. You are making a very fallacious argument both on this count and that an appeal to authority or extra-Bibical tradition isn't an argument to overturn what the book clearly says.
> the Church disagrees with your understanding for the first 3/4 of the existence of the church then you are in the wrong.
This is a very misleading representation of history. Locking the Bible behind a Latin barrier meant that most people couldn't read and question and most who could read Latin had no access to a Bible and it seems that most of those who did had very little inclination to read it. Of those priests or educated laity who did read and question, most were captured and tortured until they died or recanted.
Under such ignorance and extreme pressure to comply, an appeal to tradition is especially weak.
> This is a bad example. They do not deny that Smith taught polygamy. They belive that Woodruff received a revelation telling them it is no longer permissble.
The very core of their beliefs around the requirements for becoming a God are rooted in this claim and having multiple wives is a necessity for this in the afterlife (not to mention that God is believed to have multiple wives). While I disagree that polygamy is good (it seems to always result in misery), I do respect the LDS who stick to their book no matter what.
> Nobody is claiming there is a new revelation when it comes to the bishop topic.
If there's no new revelation, then the old revelation still applies, but is being ignored.
> it just means they don't know what I was saying.
Explain what you mean without then.
> Telling somebody they don't understand something isn't an ad homenem. I am not attacking your character or anything like that.
Telling me that I am prideful or uncharitable or not humble has NOTHING to do with the topic aside from trying to attach a bad label on me so the logic can be ignored. These are textbook examples of ad-hominem attacks.
> Apostles are bishops with a special role due to personally meeting Jesus. Of course since it is only implied in the Bible you are going to reject it.
Of course. It is inductive reasoning. You start with the conclusion that it must be so then try to find reasons it should be true. That's been this entire conversation. Deductive reasoning would lead to the conclusion that I am correct in my assertion, but the Catholic Church says otherwise, so you must fabricate reasons however feeble to justify them.
You haven't even hit on the actual reasoning from that 1139 decision either. Their argument was nothing like what you are trying to push. It was the argument that they otherwise couldn't keep the priesthood from becoming nepotistic with the priest father passing the role to his son.
But this doesn't hold any weight either.
First, passing on the priesthood was a strict requirement in the Old Testament, so it certainly isn't necessarily bad.
Second, if it IS being passed along for purely nepotistic reasons, they would be duty-bound to remove the offending priest and their children from their office. There's an entire hierarchy that should in theory be aimed at exactly this. The ruling speaks in at least some degree to their inability to govern their own priests.
Third, an inability to stop your priests from doing something bad is not a reason to do something else against the Bible in response. The correct response is a reformation of your clergy.
> Apostles are bishops, but not all bidhops are apostles so it would be accurate that not everybody had an apostle.
This does not hold. Paul was an Apostle, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of him overseeing a church. Instead, he would travel to a place to preach for a time then move on to the next place right up until his final voyage to Rome where he was killed.
As I recall, the Catholic view is that Paul was a Bishop because he layed hands on others, but of course, this is an argument that proves too much as the priest/bishop arrangement by their own admission did not exist at that time and as such he could not be a bishop in that manner, but also not an overseer of a church.
> That quote also doesn't deny that somebody could have multiple roles. Surely an evangelist would also be a teacher? Surely prophets are also teachers (teaching the prophecy they received)?
Certainly, but likewise, it does NOT indicate that Apostles and Pastors/bishops are always linked.
> 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).
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.
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 för 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?
The operative word was amidst.
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.
There's "imperfect" and there's "shields child molesters".
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.
> 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
I'm not defending cover up. I'm defending not investigating themselves.
> 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.
> excommunication is removeable via confession, which is freely given.
Lifting an excommunication has a higher bar than just absolution of sins in confession. It requires permission of the local ordinary (usually the diocesan bishop), and for excommunications for especially bad things like desecrating the Eucharist or violating the seal of confession, it requires permission of the Apostolic See.
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.
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.
[flagged]
> they just want the church to kill themselves trying.
We as a species could only be so fortunate. Is there a single entity to have ever existed in the history of humanity that has more blood on its hands?
That's the thing...you would not be fortunate. The institution exists because it is a net benefit to humanity.
> Is there a single entity to have ever existed in the history of humanity that has more blood on its hands?
Depending on how you count, probably many. In wars, more than 98% of casualties are attributable to political wars that had no religious motivation, and fewer so of Roman Catholic motivation. So, whatever those political entities are.
A confounding factor in answering the question is that the Catholics have been around for 2000 years, and many violently bloody entities fell after comparably short periods of time. For example, the Khmer Rouge existed for 4 years and killed 3 million people, no religious entity could attain the same level of bloodshed over their long existence even if they tried, which they don't.
I wonder how little history one would have to know to ask.
[flagged]
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
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.
World Cup results
I think that gets close since you can hear them from the reaction around you, but I don't think it's a equally distributed. You may have regions where the fans are very vocal but you also have a lot of regions where people don't care all that much especially if you are in a region that got eliminated in an early round
I'm in the UK and you simply didn't have that kind of reaction because Anglican church does not care about the pope. I asked my friend group if they've heard there was a new pope elected and their reaction was "what happened to the last one?".
It was on the news but there were no bells ringing etc. Same as in your football example I suppose.
You clearly overestimate the amount of people worldwide interested in golf.
Here in Frankfurt, too, the bells began to ring at the announcement.
The release of a new iPhone.
Probably not as spiritually fulfilling, but the stock market would be an example of that happening at sub-second latencies, every day, all day.
I don't think that counts as communicating to people at all, let alone to as many people.
What about the tickers you see on TV or at Times Square? That’s not communicating?
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".
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.)
And that's a million people doing that versus a billion people hearing about the pope.
(very very rough numbers of course)
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.
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.
That's great. Not sure what it has to do with the conversation though?
Nobody is claiming nobody follows stocks.
Prices are about communicating almost more than they are about prices...
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.
What I was thinking is that a billion people all around the globe got an involuntary information upload all at roughly the same time.
Being on the street hearing the bells and recognizing what it meant while a huge number of people all around the globe have the same realization at the same time feels somehow incredibly connecting, and not even necessarily at a religious level.
That message is sent quickly. But if you're talking about raw eyeballs, not many are reading it.
With some exceptions like crisis, not everyone is listening to that.
And it happens every day, all day. It's not discrete information.
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.
Yeah, that exact timing is the whole deal.
The US presidential election is a mess compared to this.
I think you are overestimating that.
Yes the whole world is somewhat curious who the president is but especially in timezones where it's inconvenient to follow that it's more a "we'll read it in the news later" thing.
The fact that a new pope has been elected is an information is information you don't need to look for because it's announced through one of the oldest public announencement systems ( the church bells )
I think you are overestimating the reach of church bells as compared to, say, social media.
Eurovision is quicker.
> 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.
Blue starts at Saskatchewan not MB. Please stop spreading this idea that everyone on the Prairies is analagous to a bible-thumping Albertan. Rural Ontario also goes mostly conservative ; just like every other province, the split is urban and rural. Alberta and Sask buck this trend by having much higher consistent Con representation in the big cties. Manitoba does not. Only 2 Winnipeg ridings went Con and one was due to heavy vote splitting. Northern Mb is a consistent safe riding for the ndp or libs which is unheard of for a rural riding in AB or Sk.
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.
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...
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.)
It definitely can’t be “ancient times” because the Sistine Chapel chimney was only added in the 18th century to protect Michelangelo’s frescos from the soot of burning ballots (1417 is just the oldest known reference to the practice, it’s likely older than that).
The whole black smoke/no smoke didn’t start out as a signal but everyone kept trying to interpret them as such in the 19th century. Black smoke meant no election and no smoke was ambiguous so they eventually switched to white smoke to keep the public from going crazy speculating. L
The first reference to non-black smoke I can find is in "Conclave di Leone XIII" by Raffaele De Cesare about the 1878 conclave (Leo XIII’s election):
> "Cardinal Borromeo, tasked with burning the ballots, burned them without straw, and the smoke was barely visible. There were few people in the square. The external steps of St. Peter's were full of onlookers until midday, but after the smoke, it slowly emptied. No one supposed that the Pope had been elected." (translated from Italian)
The 1914 conclave is the commonly accepted date because Pius X decreed in 1904 that all papers relating to the election (not just the ballots themselves) were to be burned after the voting. Since they’d burn all the others papers (without wet straw) only after a successful election, it would produce a lot more white smoke so the Catholic church made an administrative decision to make that into an explicit signal (though I think they use something to “enrich” the color now).
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
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?
It's one of the classic falsehoods that programmers (or perhaps more accurately, product managers) believe about localization: that location equals language.
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.
> I hate "intelligent" websites as much as I like touchpad microwaves, and that means not at all
So you don't hate "intelligent" websites, at all? :D Then you must love this lang-redirect!
Mine goes to Youtube after some quick redirects :(
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
They might be, but the necktie that made them do it sure isn't.
Yeah I usually don't pay attention but as an American, rock on Pope Leo! I think this is a nice plus in a sea of minuses that has hit the USA lately as far as it's status in the world looking more and more like the bad guy.
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
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.
Yes, but how much liquidity was available?
Well, seems that conclaves really are notoriously unpredictable
At least for recently, it's almost always someone on the short list, but often not near the top of that list.
"people" "Polymarket"
How many non-technical people are on polymarket? That seems like a poor sample size.
One of two things must be true: Either Polymarket's more accurate than you are, or you can make free money.
It’s not free money, it’s high risk with a net positive expected return. Any significant profit would carry an irresponsible level of risk. Significant profit without significant risk would take many bets, which means sustaining the accuracy advantage over broader subject matter, which means lots of time spent, which means it’s time for money, which is just a job.
Suppose I gave Provost 5% chance of winning the papal election. Then I would have been more accurate than Polymarket. But I wouldn't call betting on what I perceive as 5% chance of winning "making free money"; from my perspective it would still be a wild risk to bet any significant money on that outcome.
[dead]
Sounds like an amazing opportunity for insider trading
I wouldn't be shocked if that's one of the reasons why they sequester
The sequestering goes back centuries, but it's certainly a reason to keep doing it beyond just removing outside influence once the process begins.
I'm sure insider gambling also goes back centuries, probably even since before Christ
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.
There was also an interesting article here a month ago about the history of betting on conclaves. https://nodumbideas.com/p/betting-on-the-pope-was-the-origin... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43290892
Isn't the max profit limited by counterparty liquidity? Polymarket won't pay out anything extra.
Among the most unlikely papabile I would have preferred someone like Tolentino.
This is a good time to check the 'Views' section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_XIV#Views
Some important bits:
> he expressed sympathy for George Floyd and criticized U.S. immigration policies
> Prevost advocated for stronger Church action against climate change
> Prevost opposes the ordination of women
> Prevost opposes euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. [...] In 2012, he criticized popular culture's sympathy for the "homosexual lifestyle" and same-sex families.
Are any of those views any different from any previous Pope?
The difference the media likes to talk about between "liberal" and "conservative" popes (and candidates) is not in the beliefs but which parts of those beliefs they communicate effectively. Perceptions are also heavily influenced by what the media choose to report (they are far more interested in some topics than others).
He’s perfect.
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.
Can you explain this like I'm 5?
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.
That is incredible. Anywhere we can read more about the voting system, or the infra you used to implement it?
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.
and additionally each order has a "charisma", a specific focus and style, think pythonista vs crustacean vs C vs C++ vs Haskell longer vs lisper.
each order attracts it's own flock.
so now I need to check on Augustines... fun fact: Martin Luther was an Augustine monk.
You probably got auto-spellchecked, but it’s “charism,” without the a.
good catch, thanks
and it also escaped me because in my mother's tongue de-* it's spelled Charisma.
"tja"
They're bookish, which I like. I think the Jesuits are cooler though.
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.
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.
> Now we've had two religious popes in a row
Aren't they all religious? That seems like a mandatory part of being a pope.
This was sorta answered here already https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43930231
Religious in this context means "of a religious order" instead of "diocesan". Not the general sense of the word "believes in religion" or similar.
Religious has a specific technical meaning in the Catholic world. It means to be part of a religious order like Jesuits, Benedictines, etc.
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!
Now the real question: Is he a Cubs or Sox fan?
Cubs
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...
My father-in-law grew up a few blocks from Prevost and they’re a Cubs household. The family switched a century ago, after the Sox gambling scandal. Serious business!
Too late to edit but apparently his brother has stated he's a Sox fan, and the Block Club article has been updated accordingly.
I stand corrected. His brother is on the news saying this is fake news and he's a Sox fan.
Oh man, what a trip that must be: "my brother is the Pope"
You just know that about 5000 old white Chicago guys are gonna try this line when they get to the Vatican this summer. God bless 'em.
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.
This is a straightforward consequence of how continents are defined by various cultures.
In Anglo cultures, there are seven continents, with a distinct North and South America, and Europe and Asia.
In Romance cultures, there are six continents, with a single America, and a distinct Europe and Asia.
In some eastern European cultures, there are six continents, with a distinct North and South America, and a single Eurasia.
Who’s right? Who’s wrong? It’s kind of meaningless; it’s not like these definitions are based on some semi‐objective characteristic like counting tectonic plates. In the Anglosphere, nobody is actually confused about whether “America” refers to the country or the continents. Canadians don’t appreciate being called Americans, and (in my experience) Mexicans don’t desire it either. If one wants to refer to North and South America together, there’s a perfectly normal way to do so: “the Americas.”
USian, aside from its lack of euphony and its general connotation of being used by know‐it‐all scolds, is particularly silly since the existence of two countries named “United States”—two North American countries named “United States”—means it’s just as ambiguous a country name as “America” is claimed to be.
Even though I consider estadounidense silly (why aren’t people of Estados Unidos Mexicanos considered estadounidense, exactly?), I use it when speaking Spanish, because that’s the way people say “American” in Spanish. I don’t explain to Spanish‐speaking people how ignorant they are for using such a silly, ambiguous word. One wishes the same courtesy were offered in the other direction!
>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'.
While Americans can mean "from the US", the term "statunitensi" is how people from the US are commonly called in Italy. And in other countries. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and calling Americans for people from the US is just a figure of speech called synecdoche.
that is not completely correct, see:
The United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (Spanish: Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata), earlier known as the United Provinces of South America (Spanish: Provincias Unidas de Sudamérica), was a name adopted in 1816 by the Congress of Tucumán for the region of South America that declared independence in 1816, with the Sovereign Congress taking place in 1813, during the Argentine War of Independence (1810–1818) that began with the May Revolution in 1810. It originally comprised rebellious territories of the former Spanish Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata dependencies and had Buenos Aires as its capital.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_the_R%C3%A...
But then it clashes with the naming of other people that live in America. We south americans also call ourselves Americans because we live in América – taught as a single continent with two subcontinents. We call people from the US Estadounidenses because “Americans” wouldn’t make any sense for us.
There are languages in which the equivalent of "US American" isn't uncommon.
Well, in that case could we call them Statians or Unitians?
Or perhaps Usonians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usonia
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
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.
It's not as straightforward. Francis was voted by cardinals who were appointed by the much more conservative JPII and Benedict XVI, so it's not that easy to control or direct the outcome of a conclave.
Not just a majority, but I read 80% of Cardinals that voted in the conclave.
Francis was a smart man, and he knew that in order for his policies to continue he would need to ensure a like-minded successor would be elected.
Isn't that true of most moderately long-serving popes? How does it ever result in major differences between popes?
1. If the pope were of median age for a Cardinal when selected, then about half the popes would still be around when he died. I don't have numbers, but my instinct would be that more senior Cardinals are more likely to be selected pope, which would mean a minority would be appointed by the previous pope at the time of the Conclave.
2. It was only in 1970 that an age-cap was put on Cardinals in the conclave, which significantly increases the power of the previous pope has on his successor; this disqualifies 117 out of 251 Cardinals today.
3. There are certain positions that customarily come along with a cardinality; following this custom diluted the pope's power a bit. Francis did not follow this custom[1]
If you want a discussion of the papal selection, you could do worse than this substack post[2] from a week ago.
1: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/no-more-princes-c...
2: https://decivitate.substack.com/p/de-civitates-very-traditio...
> 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".
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."
I've seen people state that America isn't powerful anymore and this is proof of that.
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.
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...
I mean Trump's own VP has strongly criticized him in the past, it's the herpes of political positions.
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.
I agree that your statement about religion not informing political views is true of many people. I would argue that the "standard" positions of both major parties in America have components which seriously contradict standard Christian teachings. If one wanted to find a party that more accurately reflected Christian positions they'd have to do something like vote for the American Solidary Party, which is arguably completely ineffective (I still did it).
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.
As a practicing Southern Baptist, I don’t find Vance’s political ideology contradicts Christ’s teachings.
Could you provide some good exemplar backed by scripture please? Preferably not cherry picked lines that tacitly support your earthly ideology, please.
This would be a good place for you to start: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205-7&v...
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/jd-vance-wron...
https://christiansforsocialaction.org/resource/false-god-con...
You can find many more online easily, but I won't waste more of my time providing them to you, as I doubt your enquiry was completely honest.
I absolutely don't mean this against you personally - but I don't find Southern Baptists to be following Christ's teachings either.
[flagged]
Okay, yes, we get it. But the United States as a name even is not unique to western hemisphere countries - the name of Mexico is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" - or United Mexican States.
We were the first country from the to be recognized by the Western Europeans, and the people at the time didn't anticipate the current situation, so forgive us for having a name in English that is a bit ambiguous, but how many people complain that there's no common name for Europe and Africa combined? Why is everyone so interested in lumping two continents together whose commonality stops with being the result of European colonialism and the consensus of a few mapmakers?
I'd argue that, Vikings aside, it is a bit weird to use the term "America" to describe lands that neither Christopher Columbus nor Americo Vespucci visited in their lifetime.
The USA may have been the first recognized country, but the term "America" was coined much earlier. But I'm a reasonable person - if we really want to keep it as two separate continents, "America" and "North America" works for me.
Europe and Africa don't even connect, but there is a name for Europe and Asia, Eurasia.
> the name of Mexico is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" - or United Mexican States
TIL. That’s funny because afaik Mexicans refer to the USA as “estados unidos”.
Also interestingly "The USA" and "The US" (en_US) both translate to "Los EE. UU." (es_MX, es_ES).
Not to be confused with "The EU" (en_US) which is "La UE" (es_ES).
>TIL. That’s funny because afaik Mexicans refer to the USA as “estados unidos”.
Just as bad is that norteamericanos is the popular term for Americans (in the American sense), despite the existence of Canada and Mexico itself on the continent.
I still want to see someone tell a Canadian that the entirety of the Western Hemisphere's land is America, making the Canadian an American.
My money's on the Canadian taking him down in the first round with a right hook.
I will do one better and call any Québécois reading this a Latin American.
South American yes. Not American which coqouially means born and raised in the United States. Strictly speaking pope Francis was South American.
South American
Pick your username: Leo
That username had already been taken. How about Leo14?
Fine.
Social media accounts should really go for Roman numerals.
Twitter used to. My first username was "myusernameXII" cuz i thought it looked cool in one of the suggestions
I just like that he was a math major.
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?
I dunno, I had plenty of teachers who were monks. Admittedly they didn’t have the LinkedIn grind set to get to pope. Heck our CS teacher in high school was a monk too.
> 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.
Breaking Bread
Meaning he is not only an educated expert when it comes to sin!
He also knows cos!
...
I strongly believe the American choice was a strategic decision made by a group of highly intelligent individuals.
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.
The deliberations of the conclave are secret in perpetuity. It is not possible for your news agency to report on why this candidate was selected. Whatever they said is an outsider's guess.
I mean, if the person above is Italian, and live in Rome, they can probably get a much better quality of gossip than you or I.
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.
They picked an American, who actually lived and worked in Peru, and not archbishop of New York that Trump suggested.
Yep he's more of a citizen of the world than an American, otherwise I don't think he would have ever been considered. It also helps he was held in high regard by Pope Francis.
To be fair, most people around the world could be considered citizens of the world compared to the average American.
If you're talking about crossing country borders, then maybe. If you're talking about distance traveled, I would venture to guess that Americans on average travel further distances. The United States of America has states larger than many countries in Europe.
Citizens of the world usually refers to cultural exposure and appreciation for differences around the world. I have never seen it refer to distance travelled, however I can see how some Americans can use that definition to try and change the topic
If they want someone who can effectively oppose Trump, why would they pick someone he suggested?
What did any pope actually do to oppose anybody?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy
I believe the question implied "in living memory". Popes notoriously don't directly speak up even against atrocities such as genocides, let alone act on it (with levers that are most certainly in their control, such as excommunications).
Pope John Paul II was a crucial figure in the fall of communism in Poland, even though he never opposed the state directly - just the fact that he was Polish and that the state couldn't censor his speeches and visits and demonstrated to the deeply religious nation that there is a path outside of the the one dictated by the state that is credited with a significant contribution to the forces that eventually led to the events of 1989.
Didn't Trump suggest someone from NYC?
I mean, the choice of John Paul II was also a "strategic" choice - he(or simply the fact that he was Polish) was credited with contributing to the toppling of communism and Poland, and in a broader sense with the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
To placate or appeal to the current American leadership?
What's the desired outcome? European, NATO, or Ukrainian security guarantees?
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 Wojtyła and Solidarność?
Current USA leadership is already taking actions well aligned with the church (such as stripping rights from women, homosexuals).
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.
Maybe the Roman Catholic Church* is that way. Evangelicals are not. They are for whatever their crazy leaders want, including blowing up brown people whenever they get in the way or cross borders. Also counting fascism as family values.
Yeah, peace on their own terms and ideology.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
Thanks, I am not that informed, I don’t know why I even commented.
[flagged]
Here's an oddity: apparently Noam Chomsky doesn't fully agree with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmSJnuF7_zg
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?
Is it possible that this move is to reinstate Catholicism in the United States, given that Evangelicals appear to be gaining influence?
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.
Who are you talking about?
Vance? Thiel? The Opus Dei folks?
What do you mean reinstate? The country was founded by the descendants of people who for the most part hated Catholicism.
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.
> 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.
Yes, but... the Spanish reached present-day New Mexico before the English reached present-day New England.
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.
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.)
>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.
How much Latin American representation would you say there was in the US colonies and United States before 1950?
How different would US western expansion have been had the Spanish not colonized Central America and Mexico? What would European colonization of the Americas have looked like if Spain hadn’t extracted such great wealth? How much did the Spanish American war and the resulting transfer of Cuba, Philippines, and Puerto Rico to US control change the character of US power? How do you untangle the history of New Orleans without considering Spain? And what would be the cultural character of the southwest without Spain’s influence?
You and entropicdrifter are wrong and defen is correct. Defen said "Spanish colonization had virtually no impact on the ethnic, political, or religious development of the United States", as opposed to the Western Hemisphere. He is correct.
Whether Texas or California, the land that is now the American southwest was almost completely empty before the Mexican War; about 80,000 hispanos, or about 1% of Mexico's prewar population, mostly in New Mexico and southern Colorado. They were very, very isolated, living in "islands", and were already dependent on the US, not Mexico, for trade <http://web.archive.org/web/20070517113110/http://www.pbs.org...>. The American takeover and attendant influx of settlers completely changed the region; by 1860 California alone had 380,000 people] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Pop...> and was a US state.
*85% of Mexican Americans today are from post-World War II immigration.* As late as 1970 <http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/01/a-demographic-portrait...> there were five million people of Mexican ethnicity in the US, including one million born in Mexico. Now there are 33.7 million and 11.4 million, respectively. The number of people of Mexican ethnicity has grown by ~16X in 75 years (from ~2 million in 1940), while the US population has grown by ~2.5X. Had the Mexican-ethnic population grown by the same rate as the broader US there would be 5 million today, not 33.7.
History, even recent history, has been rewritten in peoples' minds by popular culture. Los Angeles's stupendous growth in the first half of the 20th century was driven almost entirely off of internal US migration. So many Iowans moved to LA that it was joked that southern California should be renamed "Caliowa". Almost everything we think of about the city, demographically speaking, is a post-1970 phenomenon.
According to Census estimates <http://web.archive.org/web/20080912052919/https://www.census...>, the city of Los Angeles was 7.1% Hispanic (almost all Mexican, of course) in 1940, and 15-17% in 1970. In 1990—let me repeat, two decades later—it was 39.9%. The non-Hispanic white population went from 86.3% in 1940, to 61-63% in 1970, to 37.3% in 1990. As of 2020 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles#Race_and_ethnicity> the city is 46.9% Hispanic and 28.9% non-Hispanic white.
"We didn't cross the border; the border crossed us" is only true for the aforementioned hispanos. If alien space bats had rotated the contiguous US 180 degrees in 1945, all other Mexican Americans would be living in Buffalo and Portland and Boston and Rochester and Detroit. Those cities would be known as the home of Cal-Mex and Tex-Mex cuisine, not LA and El Paso and Phoenix.
I appreciate this response! Thank you.
Probably meant 'reinvigorate'.
Same thought could have factored in Francis' conclave for LA, but % of Catholics continued to fall.
I am sure a certain somebody is going to claim credit for bringing the papacy home to America to make it great.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Infallible (i.e. with the authority of a church council) only when speaking ex-cathedra on matters of church doctrine. Its never clear what it applies to and its very rarely generally accepted (maybe once every 200 years or so) that it applies to a particular teaching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Frequency_...
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.
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...)
> 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.
I think the problem is a matter of definition, and a conflict in common uses of the word:
1. Formally a Catholic in the eyes of the church. 2. Calls themselves a Catholic 3. Is Catholic in their beliefs.
The last has a lot of grey areas as its not clear what you need to believe. There is no formal definition. its clear you do not have to agree with the Church on every single thing. On the other hand at some point (e.g. not accepting the trinity) you are seriously at odds with Catholic beliefs.
The first two definitions might sometimes include atheists.
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.
> 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?
You are making my point.
Er, no, I am showing that your two claims conflict. That doesn't support either of them.
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.
I think Sedevacantists and similar do consider themselves Catholic, although I don't think they usually believe the main Pope is the anti-Christ
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".
I bet they'd say the same thing if Trump memed himself being crucified or something.
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.
Is there like a hotline to report comments like theirs? Seems like the Catholic church would want to crack down on the bullshit.
The tariffs will stay!
https://religionnews.com/2025/04/07/president-trump-imposes-...
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.
From the link:
> this column is satire
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 Malört."
Dislike Chicagoans ketchup?
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.
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...)
they certainly don't appreciate it on their hot dogs.
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!
Beyond the age of 8, apparently.
Daaaa Pope.
Coulda been Pope Ditka.
Also... Bears fan from [deepest darkest] Peru could've gone with Pope Paddington? (I kid because I love)
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.
He's a South Sider (Dolton) and South Side Chicago pizza is cracker-thin.
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...
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).
I ate Edwardo’s several times a month on the south side in the 80’s and 90’s, as did a sizable number of my friends. This is back before it became a chain (I guess technically the south side location was the second location, so it was already a chain) and they decided to take the best pizza on earth and make it mediocre-to-poor for a mass audience, which I guess happened in the early aughts?
So there is at least an existence proof for deep dish very much a thing for south side kids when he was in the vicinity.
He's apparently an Aurelio's guy (that's cracker-crust, for those not from the neighborhood).
Ha! Good to know. Friday is our pizza day, and we usually go with one local to us (Capri's), but on occasion do Aurelio's. I think today we'll have to do Aurelio's.
Do people actually think deep dish is the only kind of pizza people eat in Chicago? I thought that was a meme.
I hope they bring Fred Armisen in for the SNL impression.
I liked calling him the "Ope Pope"
I'm born and raised in Chicago and I only started hearing "ope" last year.
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.
The movie “two popes” is pretty good, which some strong acting performance. (Not really historical since that was about a decade ago)
> 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)
AIUI, Vatican City is still its own political entity. (I do not claim to understand how that interacts with the Catholic Church in general.)
Also a very old bank
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
I'm rooting for Sarah, but Tagle seems pretty decent.
The brevity of the conclave election seems to signal a continuation of Francis' policies
"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.
>Prevost earned his bachelor’s in mathematics from Villanova University
go birds
I think he was chosen because people elsewhere don't likee American isolationism. They wanted to support the America that believes in the good, and we need support in these times. Maybe this Pope will be a strong advocate of peaceful co-existence, which is what we need.
Is Pope Leo eligible to be voted President of the United States?
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.
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.
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
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.
Golda Meir was the Prime Minister (head of government) of Israel after having naturalized in the US when she was 19.
Looks like she gave up her US citizenship when she moved, as did Boris Johnson who was also mentioned. So I haven't seen anyone who retained citizenship and was a recognized head of state.
This is some excellent trivia. Thanks!
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.
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.
Does that mean a president could be knighted, as long as it's a queen or princess doing the knighting?
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.
"foreign State" still would seem to prohibit that.
This doesn't seem to comment on preexisting titles if I'm reading it correctly?
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.
FWIW this has been read out of the Constitution. I doubt it would be applied in practice.
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.
That doesn't seem to mesh with the fact that religion has historically been deeply tied to politics and governance. Meddling in political affairs is a routine thing for organized religions. The very existence of the Pope is a power play designed to make the Church's power seem more legitimate and justified than politicians.
Examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn
sure, why not?
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.
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.
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.
His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin
> 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.
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
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.
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_emperor_of_... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_Austria#Titles,_s...
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_territories...
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.
> and will hold that office till death
Ratzinger resigned.
Macron. France and Andorra.
Tell that to King Charles.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_XIV
Will he be taxed on his foreign Papal salary? Or will he forego the salary , like Francis did?
Apparently heads of foreign states are exempt.
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 §349(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.
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.
Yes, there does need to be an intention to relinquish US nationality in order for US nationality to be lost. It doesn't have to be explicitly stated, but it does have to be there. If it ever needs to be disputed in court, whoever is arguing loss of citizenship (either the government or the would-be former citizen) has to prove that intent by the same standard of proof that's generally required to win a civil lawsuit, preponderance of the evidence aka more likely than not.
I agree it's not clear that accepting the papacy involves intent to relinquish, but it's not clear either way. The Department of State (at first instance) or any court who considers the matter (if a dispute arises) would normally consider the individual situation in order to conclude what they think is the intent.
In practice, if Trump and Rubio don't want an international incident, they will probably just ask the Vatican what the Pope intended and go along with that.
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.
If the Pope and the Department of State disagree on this, whichever party wants to prove the loss of citizenship will have to prove it in court. Rubio and his department don't get the final say, though they do get to make the initial administrative decision.
There is no way in hell they'd revoke his American citizenship. American Catholics would be up in arms.
Depends on what the Pope himself wants, I imagine. Not every head of state or head of government wants to hold foreign citizenship.
Two examples from Canada: former Governor General Michaëlle Jean, who represented the Canadian monarch in Canada for day-to-day head of state duties, renounced her French citizenship when before becoming Governor General; and current Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney renounced his British and Irish citizenships before becoming Prime Minister. Neither renunciation was required according to law or constitutional convention, but they both wanted to remove any question as to their allegiance.
He might want to himself for tax purposes alone. I don't know how much the standard salary for a pope is, but I'm pretty sure it's above the threshold for the US "give us your foreign earned money" tax law.
Honestly, the salary is almost certainly tiny, if it's anything like ecclesiastical salaries (popes, bishops etc).
Salary, sure. But such fringe benefits!
there is no papal salary. As someone who's taken religious vows he's not supposed to be earning any income or holding on to it.
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 ;)
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.
That vow of poverty goes away once a religious priest is consecrated a bishop.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docume....
If he is taxed, he should renounce US citizenship as he's very unlike to move back to the US.
Very unlikely is an understatement. Francis never even visited his home country of Argentina after being elected as Pope.
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.
Really? I always heard that Francis was the first enemy of Kirtcherners
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.
> Francis was the most important supporter of liberation theology in Argentina
Really? I am Italian, so I known Bergoglio only by name before he became Pope, but I always heard that he was not really a supporter of liberation theology. Anyway, during his papacy he showed that he was influenced in many aspectes by liberation theology and peronism approach.
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)
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.
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/documents/organization/87327.pdf
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 §349(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 §349(a)(4) regardless of reason since it uses the verb renounce rather than relinquish.
Why might the verb matter? The only parts of INA §349 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.
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.
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.
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.
Is he a Cubs or White Sox fan though?
He's a Cubs fan, according to ABC News.
(Interesting given he's a south sider).
I used to keep two ball caps in my car and switched when I crossed Madison.
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”
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.
Do the White Sox still have any fans?
...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
Well, he's Catholic, so I think White Sox is more likely.
Many MANY many north siders are catholic as well.
Of course, but if you show me a Catholic white guy from Chicago I’m still putting my money on South Side.
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.
Well, no heuristic is perfect.
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.
I thought an American pope would be the last thing Vatican wanted (to avoid being seen too close to US)
This pope has consistently criticized Trump, though in fairly mild terms. This brings the Catholic church closer to the US since American Catholics love it, but it's still a choice that opposes Trump.
Please, correct the stupidly wrong title: the last Pope was an American!
No he wasn't.
Argentinia is in America, you know. Maybe not in North America or the US, but certainly in America.
> In common English usage, America is a short-form name for the United States of America.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_(disambiguation)
The whole Catholic aesthetic is amazing. Really is the tops.
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
Ah, schemamonks. If you are even a little interested in obscure mystical traditions, you really should look into this.
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.
The average European peasant was exposed to more beauty than a rich American.
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.
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.
They've had 2000 years to perfect the show, of course they know how to make one.
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.
You’re always welcome to come back.
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.
Creepy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_c...
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.
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.
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.
The reason I bring it up is because of the deep relationship between aesthetics and institutional control. At one time these aesthetics were meant to enforce a classist, autocratic governance rooted in deception, oppression and information asymmetry.
The designs look nice, gold looks nice, the pope has some nice swag, but it's all a symbol of power. It's easy to forget that when you're lost in the sauce. SS uniforms looked slick as hell as far as uniforms go, but I wouldn't debate with a Holocaust survivor about why they should see the good in Nazis. The other people in this thread seem to have forgotten about the Crusades.
Very good point, and I agree completely.
My source: Warhammer 40,000
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.
I was also raised by a loving catholic mother, who let me go my way, out of the church. I eventually found my way back in, and feel similar to you as you do now.
IMHO, the GP has a right to share his experience here as we do ours. A thread on the election of a pope, with a subthread on the beauty of church, is a fair venue for sharing. There's no need for prejudice, disguised as policing, on either side.
Absolutely, there is nothing wrong with letting others know the other side of the coin. Moreover, I have done that respectfully, I never diminished the other guys' experience or called him fake or anything. He's mocking me in another comment already ... the tolerant ones.
This is a thread about the Pope, why wouldn't people be allowed to say good things about the religion it leads?
But guess what, some invisible hand hid my comments, even though the one where I expressed my opinion has more upvotes than downvotes and is not even flagged (cc @dang, perhaps you know what happened?). Is it breaking a policy? How is it different from the comment from @soulofmischief? Very tricky situation to be in, I can understand why someone would prefer to just hide it all.
I'm honestly tired of all this "I'm catholic and I am involved in the church" being enough to warrant attacks from random strangers.
Good news is the pendulum is swinging back, and it's swinging back hard! Deus vult! :D
Ah, I didn't meant to imply you did something wrong. I thought you were right to share.
Rather, I saw the start of a flamewar below (not caused by you) and I figured I'd say my piece. But it came out wrong and you got flagged undeservingly.
Sorry about that :\
> He's mocking me in another comment already ... the tolerant ones
No one is mocking you. You appear to have some sort of persecution complex, and are using it to shield you from having to earnestly engage with my replies. You're literally suggesting there is some kind of conspiracy to be unfair against you. I have not downvoted or flagged any of your comments. Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of the crowd and open yourself to criticism.
> I'm honestly tired of all this "I'm catholic and I am involved in the church" being enough to warrant attacks from random strangers.
You didn't have to reply to my comment with an ignorant, invalidating, dismissive and patronizing take. That was your choice, and the consequence is that people might reply to you in order to point out faults in your attitude and message.
Just because you thought you were well-meaning doesn't mean you were. Your sour approach to discourse has made itself apparent in this thread. Many perpetrators of the Crusades also thought they were doing a good deed.
[flagged]
My enjoyment of things is somewhat diminished by knowing that the thing engages in a vast conspiracy to commit and conceal abuse worldwide.
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!
On what do you base your faith? Did he send you an email?
Try harder next time. You just blew up all the case you made around "I'm just here arguing in good faith".
But to cater to your question, no, he did not send me an email.
He did not have to do anything, I was the one who approached God.
I hope one day you are able to understand this and live in peace with others who do not wish you any bad. You're not a teenager anymore.
There is no hypocrisy here. I am in good faith asking what proof you have to justify this unshakeable faith you're proudly declaring.
> You're not a teenager anymore.
Nor are you, I'm assuming, so please answer my question.
> I hope one day you are able to understand this and live in peace with others who do not wish you any bad.
You should not become so defensive when pressed for proof of claims you make about invisible patriarchs living in the sky and turning cities into salt because people had too much anal sex.
[flagged]
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No fan of the RC church here but I didn't hear any mocking. Just pointing out a counterfactual experience.
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.
There was no mention of sexual abuse.
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.
[flagged]
> Productive dialogue can only arise when all points of view are fairly considered
You have good intent, but I disagree and believe that "fair for all" does not mean "every viewpoint deserves the same consideration". Specifically, I have spent my entire life encountering Christians who try to tell me I've just had a bad experience and that things are great on their side of the pond, if I'd take a look. But I've read the Bible front to back, I was at the top of every class in my religious studies, I engaged critically with theology during my exposure to it. And my holistic experience revealed the deep hypocrisies, conspiracies and power structures inescapably tied to the Church's past and present.
The Catholic Church, and all Judeo-Christian denominations in general, are simply a vehicle for power and control. It treats its followers well, but those who don't fall in line are often subject to very dark corners upheld by violence.
The truth is that while you think your perspective is more considerate than mine, it's actually more ignorant. I have seen the things you've seen in the faith, but you haven't seen what I have seen. You have an incomplete picture about the realities of the Church.
And yes, it does get tiring and eventually a part of the overall trauma to have well-meaning people completely disregard the truths I share with them and tell me I don't know the Church for what it really is, retreating to their own limited experiences without considering the implications of mine. And while it wasn't your intent, as a group behavior it becomes patronizing. I'm glad you had a good Catholic mother. I had abusive, often homeless drug addicts for parents and was left in the care of a very evil man who used to do horrible things to me in the name of your god, and who was directly empowered and blessed by the Catholic Church to carry out his sick abuse.
P.S.
> who may be willing to improve their dialectic skills
this is also patronizing and snarky especially after beginning your post with "Lv. 0 attack dismissed." That is not what I would call dialectically skillful or considerate. We should always strive to engage with others on Hacker News in good faith.
>The Catholic Church, and all Judeo-Christian denominations in general, are simply a vehicle for power and control.
Source: you.
For many, it is a place where they find community and make friends and build their lives around.
>it's actually more ignorant
This kind of crosses into a personal attack, but I'll let it slide. Just don't do that a lot or you'll get scolded by @dang or @tomhow, and with reason.
>a very evil man who used to do horrible things to me in the name of your god
With empathy, God didn't do that to you, you don't even believe in him so it wouldn't make sense for you to blame him. Reminds of something from a great writer, "He who has not God in himself cannot feel His absence", perhaps you're in for a treat later in life :).
There's another famous quote "To Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s"; if a crime has been committed against you, there are social structures in place to call in for help, and judge and punish the people involved.
>"Lv. 0 attack dismissed." That is not what I would call dialectically skillful or considerate.
Oh yeah, because I should have taken offense at that and throw a tantrum, instead of writing a thoughtful comment. Sure.
> Source: you.
My source is nearly two thousand years of well-documented history.
> For many, it is a place where they find community and make friends and build their lives around.
That is completely beside the point that not every person gets to have this positive relationship with their cult community, and that some find themselves in its crosshairs.
> This kind of crosses into a personal attack, but I'll let it slide
No. Lol. Calling your viewpoint ignorant is not a personal attack. It's objectively ignorant, as you have already demonstrated. "Let it slide?" Did Jesus teach you that one? You need to check yourself and tone down the pompousness and patronizing attitude in your posts.
> With empathy, God didn't do that to you, you don't even believe in him so it wouldn't make sense for you to blame him
I don't blame an imaginary patriarch who was whitewashed in order to establish colonial White supremacy.
> perhaps you're in for a treat later in life :)
I'm going to again request that you tone down the patronizing, I-know-better-than-you attitude. Apparently you did not pick up on Jesus' teachings of humility.
> if a crime has been committed against you, there are social structures in place to call in for help, and judge and punish the people involved
More demonstrable ignorance. I had no one. Everyone I told ignored what was happening, and the police who frequently ended up at my home told me to endure my abuse or find myself in a more abusive foster care system. The Church and my Catholic family empowered this man to do whatever he wanted. You can't just disbelieve this away. I know you're used to just deciding on randomly believing or disbelieving things without veritable proof, but that's not how reality works. My experience is real, and cannot be shallowly dismissed without acknowledgement as to the very real, very documented violent history of the Church, including the Vatican's ongoing direct involvement of covering up child abuse within its ranks, which again, is public record, with plenty of court cases you can google at your leisure.
> Oh yeah, because I should have taken offense at that and throw a tantrum, instead of writing a thoughtful comment. Sure.
Now you're just in denial and being sarcastic, presenting a false dichotomy. No, there were more than two choices you could make when replying, and practicing some humility would reveal those options to you.
Thank you for laying it out so plainly. The “let’s gather every perspective” line only works when the people doing the gathering aren't patting survivors on the head. Walking the sun‑lit nave doesn’t qualify anyone to lecture the folks who were locked in the crypt.
Ironically, your patience here feels a lot closer to the humility we’re all supposed to be learning!
Amen to that. My patron saint is Joan of Arc, who was famously burned at the stake at 17 by the English church for wearing pants. She got plenty of lectures in her day and stuck to her principles, even when it cost her life.
Man, this needs to stop, this is not the place for that.
I can see this is a topic that gets you very emotional but neither me nor this community can bring justice to you.
If you need help I'll be glad to do what I can, email in profile, or <username>.com.
I won't engage in this conversation further, not because of you, you can write to me as much as you want over there; but because it deviates from the purpose of the site.
Peace be with you.
> this is not the place for that.
For what? Levying warranted criticism?
> I can see this is a topic that gets you very emotional but neither me nor this community can bring justice to you
More patronization and smuggery. At no point have I displayed an overemotional response.
> If you need help I'll be glad to do what I can
You need help, but I don't think you're ready to see that. Go back and read through the Bible again, both Testaments, ironically it should help you see the error of your ways here.
> because it deviates from the purpose of the site
You know when you've lost a debate, and that's fine. I hope you have learned something, and next time someone shares their real, valid, negative experiences with the Church, you are not so quick to attempt to invalidate and correct them. There is still much for you to learn about the Church, I have learned what I needed to and moved on. Hopefully that happens one day for you, too. I sincerely mean that. The Church is a perverse organization and you can do better.
[flagged]
[flagged]
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.
I'm not asking for your apology, or even your response. You could have kept reading on to other comments, ignoring those which were not meant for someone like you. I am allowed to add to a discussion, I am sorry that it did not meet your standards.
Tone over the Internet is read by the reader overlaying their psychological convolution function on the text being consumed.
Surely you aren't claiming that intonation and general tone cannot be established or suggested in a well-written text. There are centuries of literature and academic courses proving otherwise.
Well written? Sure; that’s less likely in comment boxes though.
[flagged]
religions aren't an aesthetic. they're more than that.
funny how one downvotes a comment whenever it sounds contrary to the presumed aesthetic.
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.
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.
"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.
An American pope!
I love his accent. It really feels like an American visiting Europe.
I wonder if this is just merely coincidence with the shared picture of Trump a couple of days ago
The conclave had the opportunity to do the funniest thing
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?"
They should have picked Trump. He wanted to be pope anyway and he can do far less damage there :)
"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...
According Wikipedia, this one was covering pedophile too.
Not sure I like this.
What happens if Charlie Stross meets the Pope?
Another conclave obviously
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.
Yes, it's all over the mainstream news. Why post it on a tech-news site?
We could have had a Pope Bob, missed opportunity.
Pope Bobby Frank I
Whenever we get a new pope, I'm reminded of the prolly but proud headline in the German newspaper "Bild", when the German Ratzinger became pope: "WE ARE POPE" Congratulations, USA, now you're pope :-)
(from BlueSky)
"You know who else was from Chicago and on a mission from God ...."
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
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.
He was listed among 10 leading candidates in the Guardian, yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/07/who-next-pope-...
> He most recently led a powerful Vatican office for bishop appointments.
Maybe I'm jaded but when I read that line I kind of assumed maybe that had a little to do with getting elected Pope.
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/...
But but, does he defecate in the woods?
Congrats to the Americans on winning the World Christian Championship!
Finally, a Pope who'll stand up for the 2nd amendment!
I know you probably were being sarcastic but this would amuse me greatly if true.
Only in the Latin Orthodox division.
Of course, but the Protestant division had trouble organizing a World Championship and instead they have hundreds of Regionals.
Most Christians are Catholics.
Most Catholics are Christian.
All Catholics are Christian, not all Christians are Catholics.
no
Catholics are a minority in the us
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.
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.).
I think the relationship stays with the orthodox churches is “It’s complicated.”
not in the US
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.
Please call it by its proper name, the "Top Christ Following Nation of the Year Award".
New pope: https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-franci...
> His educational background includes a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from Villanova University
Huh. Career counselors take note, new path opened up.
Francis had a degree in chemistry if I'm not mistaken.
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.
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)
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.
Well, to be fair "thought deeply" might mean "engaged in a scholasticism-tier effort of apologetics to argue a position it held to be true a priori"...
>It even accepts evolution and the big bang theory
There's no need for "even" in the sentence. Georges Lemaître who was the originator of the big bang theory was a literal catholic priest and theoretical physicist, and funnily enough the theory was originally accused of bringing religious bias into physics.
Likewise prominent Catholics who were Darwin's contemporaries like John Henry Newman had no issue with evolution back then either. The Church fathers never read the bible like a positivist text. (this is a very 20th century fundamentalist invention)
True, but in online discussion about religion, Genesis (aka the big bang and evolution) is often the most contended point, even for those who don't have a literal view of the Bible. the discovery of chemical elements or the proof of Fermat's theorem is also scientific, but has another weight than the aforementioned two. Hence "even."
The joke was of all the jobs a person might get after attaining a mathematics degree, "pope" usually isn't on the list.
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.
Damn, you're right. He'll be going by Leo XIV.
So, it this the Church setting up a confrontation with Trump?
Maybe the selection didn't consider Trump in any way. Disappointingly for Trump, the entire world doesn't revolve around him.
Is it Pizzaballa?
Chicago style Deepdishballa
Unfortunately, no.
Thank goodness. We wouldn't want the Catholic Church to lack leadership
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!)
The first american was Pope Francis
Chicago: known for wind, one of the world's largest furry conventions, and the first American pope.
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.
This seems to be a matter of some debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windy_City_(nickname)#Etymolog...
Pope Leo made it easy for the furries to pick his fursona.
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...
The New Pope Robert Prevost is a registered Republican https://x.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/1920534168301130101
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).
I'm also a registered Republican despite bleeding blue so I can steer the primaries toward more Moderate Republican candidates.
Illinois doesn't have party registration and the entrt reflects voting in a Republican primary. That might indicate a Republican preference, or it might indicate perceiving the potential stakes in the Republican primary contest as higher, because, e.g., having a much stronger preference that a particular Republican not win than any preference among Democratic candidates.
Illinois does not have party registration.
How appropriately disconnected from the church to elect an American.
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.
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.
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)
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
How much real estate does the Catholic Church own in the US, and how much appreciation has that seen since 2020?
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.
Great time to watch the movie "Conclave"
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
The catholic tradition of changing the canon? They modified the 10 commandments to allow for idols. Moses's own brother got in trouble for making an idol. You think that was some small change? They did it to increase their membership and income streams. Allow the pagans with their mother/son idols to keep them with a Mary/BabyJesus rename, and bada-bing, new members. So excuse me if I don't hold their respect for canon quite so sacrosanct as you apparently do.
> I don't hold their respect for canon quite so sacrosanct as you apparently do.
That's fine, it just makes it pointless to make a argument for what the office of Pope should and shouldn't do. It's like going into a Muslim country and telling everyone how stupid their views are because you don't respect their holy texts. Why bother?
That was my point, you're not interested in having an actual conversation. Which is fine. That's why I said I had a misunderstanding of what was going on here. But it's clear now.
The Bible is a book used by a much wider audience than the Pope's followers. The pope at the time just tweaked the book to increase his followers. A very convenient reasoning from the Pope's perspective. So you seem to not be accepting that on why would a pope should and shouldn't do.
Since the time of the canonizing of the book, lots of history has happened where the pope of the time has softened some of what was traditional practices. Again, not sure why it is okay to accept some pope from historical time could canonize the bible, but a future pope would not have similar authority to make further amendments. He is the Vicar after all, and is infallible. Unless you do not believe that about modern popes??
I said you were trivializing it, not that it was impossible. My original comment is it's "far outside the bounds" of what has been traditionally done by Pope's. To suggest that the answer to the question on marriage is to introduce an entirely new canon to the Bible that appears to contradict previous books of the canon (I supposed he'd have to remove those at the same time) is simply unprecedented and has never once occurred in the history of the church since the Bible was canonized.
> 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 thought process to a genuine Catholic.
Biblical interpretation does not work like that. Later texts cannot abrogate earlier texts. Whatever they say must dovetail with the things said earlier, not contradict them. That actually doesn't leave a lot of manoeuvring room (as in, any room) for changing core beliefs.
> “Sola Scriptura” is a thing for some Protestant denominations.
And, infamously and comically, isn't exactly well supported by the text itself.
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.
Memories of using Strong's reference to do this very thing.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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)..
> 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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
“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”
> The teachings of Jesus supersede the stuff from the Old testament
And teachings of Paul supersede the stuff from Jesus.
Germans love Paul
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.
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...
The Bible doesn't even have the concept of race as we understand it today, because that concept is a very recent invention (to my understanding). Anyone using it to support anti-interracial marriage positions would be doing so anachronistically, rendering their own claim invalid.
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.
> 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.
For some added context, Prevost is an Augustinian. Augustine of Hippo himself was not a biblical literalist.
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.
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.
[flagged]
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> That talks about reproduction, but it doesn't say anything about marriage.
Later in chapter 2, God is quoted as saying:
> Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
Jesus himself then comes back and quote this exact verse in Genesis in the context of divorce being bad (Matthew 19). It's clearly referencing marriage within the context of creation.
You may not agree it's the central thrust of the text, and perhaps I overstated the position, but marriage between a man and a woman is certainly a major theme in these first two chapters. I'd be impressed if you can find Rabbinical texts that support a different theory.
> 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.
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.
> Even the beloved 10 commandments are different for Catholics than from the Old Testament.
What differences are you referring to specifically?
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
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/exodus/20 verse 4 starts with "You shall not make for yourself an idol". 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.
The 10 commandments are the same. Catholics just order and number things differently than Protestants. Both have the same commandments, unfortunately, some Protestants can only read a sentence and don't
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.
> 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/
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!
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.
When did Jesus say ANYTHING about homosexuality?
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.
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.
Oddly enough practically the only philosophers who buy "natural law" arguments against homosexuality are Christian.
Makes my motivated reasoning detector go off.
Gay penguins are massively inconvenient for “natural law” arguments.
I don't think you know what natural law means. This is from wikipedia.
It wouldn't matter if 99% of animals and humans were gay.
> Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophical and legal theory that posits the existence of a set of inherent laws derived from nature and universal moral principles, which are discoverable through reason. In ethics, natural law theory[2] asserts that certain rights and moral values are inherent in human nature and can be understood universally, independent of enacted laws or societal norms. In jurisprudence, natural law—sometimes referred to as iusnaturalism[3] or jusnaturalism,[4] but not to be confused with what is called simply naturalism in legal philosophy[5][6]—holds that there are objective legal standards based on morality that underlie and inform the creation, interpretation, and application of human-made laws.
I don't see how an appeal to natural law holds any value since humanity has a near infinite ability for motivated reasoning. To the point where if someone advocates natural law that suggests to me either that they have a serious lack of wisdom or they aren't arguing in good faith.
Natural law isn't really related to the reason why people are motivated to do something. It is considered one motivation, but not the only one.
Also, what does your comment have to do with gay penguins that i was responding to? I was just trying to show natural law has nothing to do with gay animals.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The elephant in the room is the AIDs crisis. They already had a chance to demonstrate that they were capable of disagreeing with homosexuality but still treating people with live. Instead they left them to die.
What we have now is just saying "we super duper pinky promise that we've learned our lesson and won't do the exact same thing next time even though we totally are with MAGA."
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.
> 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.
> 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).
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.
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"?
Now explain why a sterile man and woman or a pair of hetero 65 year olds marrying isn’t “against nature” or a thwarting of the primary “reproductive purpose” of marriage.
That one’s always fun to watch.
Biblically, sex should only take place within a marriage. If it takes place within a marriage, the sex is sanctified, and non-sinful. Any sex that takes place outside the context of a marriage, is inherently sinful. That means adultery, abuse, and so on. Same-sex individuals simply cannot marry within the Biblical meaning of the term, which means that their sexual activity will not be sanctified, and will therefore be a sinful action by nature of what it is.
Being a homosexual or feeling attraction to your own sex is not sinful - it's a very difficult temptation that, with God's help, you are supposed not to give into. It's acting on this same-sex attraction that is sinful, in much the same way as acting on attraction to your neigbor's wife would be sinful.
Neither is a Josephite marriage [1], surprisingly. Isn't that wonderful?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephite_marriage
Is it possible to have forgiveness without contrition?
"Moral guides" are perhaps the most worthy subjects of moral scrutiny.
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.
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.
> 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.
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...
> "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.
Idk killing 73 million people actually doesn't make you a hero in my book. 73 million souls, approximately a year.
Who killed 73 million people a year?
“The WHO estimates that around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year”
the commenter is trying to be funny :)
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.
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?
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.
[flagged]
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.
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.
> In a 2012 address to bishops
Even Obama opposed gay marriage in 2010.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-still-opposes-same-sex-ma...
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...
There will probably be a time for this debate. But in general, this is the church line, not really surprising.
Is there an accessible link?
https://archive.ph/KRJYg
> 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.
Missed opportunity for Pope Ditka. :/
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...
The correct title should be "Habemus Papam".
"Habemus Papam, iter faciet"
I really wonder if he's converted to neapolitan pizza at this point.
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....
Theo Vonn walks onto balcony.... lol
His full name is Theodor Capitani von Kurnatowski III, I think it fits.
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.
Posted on the other thread as I thought it was pretty interesting:
>Roughly 0.5% odds on him on polymarket before he was announced
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...
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.
I don't understand what people were basing that on; the conclave is a completely secret process?
The winning lottery numbers are a secret too before they're drawn; people just like to gamble.
Smart play for the Vatican to go with an American Pope to avoid tariffs!
(Credit: https://x.com/ArmandDoma/status/1920530249567056056)
Yes, everybody knows that Vatican is the industrial heart of the world
[flagged]
lol, the most typical terminal online American response you could ask for
Didn’t most tradcaths ask for Cardinal Sarah from Guinea?
I thought it would have made sense too because Africa is basically the only place Catholicism is growing in the world.
[flagged]
[flagged]
This is such petty semantics, most of the world understands that is is a shortening of The United States of America. In fact most everyone uses some version of “Americans” [1]. 96% of the world refers to America as a continent and I’m sure 96% refer to the US as America too. It’s all about context. I don’t think anyone is genuinely confused most of the time.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonyms_for_the_United_Stat...
You are an editor on CNN.
A person from the US has been elected as the Pope, you have to come up with a title for this news piece.
You have these two options:
A) First American Pope elected ...
B) First US Pope elected ...
A is ambiguous because "American" means a country for 4% of the world and a continent for 96% of the world. Also, the pope that just died happened to be from Argentina, and also happened to be the "First American Pope" for 96% of the world, adding to the ambiguity.
B does not have any issues and is correct from whichever angle you want to approach it.
Which one do you choose?
"American" means from the country USA for most of the world.
Ask foreign speakers if you don't believe it.
But “US” is not an adjective? It’d be like saying “First Brazil Pope elected”
"US Citizens"
"US Economy"
"US Job Market"
"US Military"
"US Policy"
And many other examples ...
But now that I read about it, when you use it as adjective you have to write as "U.S.".
If you want to throw the whole argument to the trash because it's missing two dots, well ... up to you.
Well I don’t think much of the OP’s argument. “America”, whether we like it or not, has come to be popularly synonymous with “United States” among English-speaking audience. There’s little risk for ambiguity because Western news agencies almost never use “America” alone when referring to the region or continent — they would say “American continent” or “North/South America”
In 50 years, when the U.S. has decided to call itself something else, then yes, this CNN breaking news headline will be ambiguous. But breaking news writes headlines for its current audience, it’s not meant to be a taxonomically accurate index.
96% of the world does not consider "America" to be a continent. A large chunk of the world considers North America and South America to be separate continents. Similarly, some countries teach that Europe and Asia are distinct continents while others teach that Eurasia is a single continent.
Spanish speaking countries tend to treat America as one continent. English-speaking countries tend to treat North America and South America as separate continents, which is convenient since when speaking English, America means "the United States."
Sure but most of the world, when they say America or American, they mean the USA, otherwise they'll say "the Americas" or "North American" or "South American" or refer to a specific country. It's just a reality that a lot of people don't want to face, but you have to be pragmatic in life for the most part.
> Sure but most of the world
Not really. (Also we call English Channel 'La Manche' - even if we do not understand French).
> Also we call English Channel 'La Manche' - even if we do not understand French
Do we? I've literally never heard it called anything other than the English Channel. After some quick googling and gpting, I can't find any reference to it being referred to as "La Manche" outside of France. The closest I got was "Canal de la Mancha" in Spain.
> most of the world, when they say America or American, they mean the US
Ehh no. In school in Argentina you are taught that the whole continent is called America, then you have subcontinents in it (North/central/south), and I would guess other south american countries are the same. If you want to say citizen of the USA in Argentina you would call them yankees.
OK, but English speakers are under no obligation to follow conventions and vocabulary used by Spanish speakers. Similarly, the Poles, French and English all have their own words for Germany that look nothing like "Deutschland". (The Polish word for Germany is Niemcy. The French word is Allemagne.)
Sure, but the op said "most of the world", which is not true, I gave a counter example.
giving a single counter example does not mean "most of the world" is not true here
Do Argentinians regularly refer to themselves as Americans?
I can't think of the last time I needed to describe myself as being from the continent, but if you really want to call yourselves Americans, I say go for it. People can call themselves whatever they like.
Still, I can't help but notice Argentinean newspapers using americano to refer to refer to things from the US.
I see the same thing in lots of Spanish news, but some people will never believe it, so I usually just make my statement that I know is true and let the other commenters have their say as well, and leave it up to dear readers to make up their own minds.
For the pope, La Nacion and Clarin, the 2 largest newspapers in the country, are referring to him as "Norteamericano"(north american), and "Estadounidense" (USAian?/from the USA).
In general, we use north american when referring to the USA. America is used to note the continent, like the south american soccer teams cup, "Copa Libertadores de America" (liberators of America cup).
For the article on the pope, Clarin seems to have used estadounidense, norteamericano and americano to refer to things and people from the US, though americano in reference to "imperialismo americano." Well, I'm assuming that's the US given the mention of the CIA, but perhaps they are referring to some sort of pan-continental imperialism I'm unaware of.
La Nacion uses americano, but has to specify "continente americano" as if simply saying "americano" wouldn't be clear to readers. They otherwise also use estadounidense and norteamericano.
Neither appears to ever use "americano" by itself to refer to people from the continent, but if you're telling me that if you walked up to someone on the street and said you were an American and they would interpret that as you from the continente americano, then I believe you.
I'm still going to use the demonym American for myself (as everyone gets to pick their own demonym in their own language) and use it to refer to people from the US, but if you to call you an American, who am I to say no? You can call yourself an American, I can call myself an American and everyone is happy.
>Sure but most of the world, when they say America or American, they mean the USA.
Nope. People from the US really need to get out of that bubble.
> People from the US really need to get out of that bubble.
Maybe you live in a smaller bubble.
India: "Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, a 69-year-old American, has been elected as Pope Leo XIV, making history as the first American to head the Roman Catholic Church." https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/10-facts-ab...
Denmark: "For første gang i verdenshistorien er paven amerikansk." https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/fra-missionaer-i-peru-til-n...
Brazil: "Papa Leão XIV é americano e tem cidadania peruana" https://www.estadao.com.br/brasil/papa-leao-xiv-e-americano-...
Nigeria: "America’s Robert Francis Prevost announced as new pope" https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/05/breaking-americas-robert...
Slovakia: "Lev XIV. je prvý Američan na pápežskom stolci." https://svet.sme.sk/c/23488126/novy-papez-lev-xiv-profil.htm...
When using the English language, "American" means, "of or from the US", and always has.
Pakistan and Bangladesh are on the Indian subcontinent, do you correct people from the country of India every time they say they are Indian?
As I understand it, the people from Pakistan and Bangladesh mostly prefer the South Asia denomination and don't consider themselves Indians, while South Americans do consider themselves Americans, so it's a different case.
> South Americans do consider themselves Americans, so it's a different case.
I have a hard time believing people in South America actually call themselves Americans or are remotely confused about where someone identified as American is from.
This all seems pedantic.
Yes, everyone from the Americas could conceivably be called an American, but the lack of any shared continental cultural identity largely removes any need to self-identify as an inhabitant of the continent. But hey, if people desperately want to call themselves Americans, I say go for it.
> which has real name that is different
Always saying "United States of America" would be rather cumbersome.
But it's the reward for being the first country on the content to become independent. Everybody else afterwards had to pick more specific names tot avoid any confusion.
BTW Columbia was also frequently used as a generic name for the American Continent back in the 1700s and 1800s. The modern country of Colombia co-opted it in a very similar way (well originally "Gran Colombia" was supposed to include entire Hispanic America it just didn't work out that well...)
> Well always saying "United States of America" would be rather cumbersome.
Then they should have chosen another name
I guess Columbia was an option? But that had similar issues...
[flagged]
That's rather purposefully obtuse? Obviously the none of the pre-Columbian states ever used the name "America" to refer to the continent.
do you really think that if I said "he is american" that 96% of the world isn't going to think I mean the USA?
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I've further narrowed down the breakage point to between these two items, at least when initially checked (both now fail).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42937148 (works)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42937147 (fails)
(Also via email.)
This suggests an item-count or time-based sliding window to me.
As I write this, earliest accessible content is <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42937674> ... and that's just become inaccessible as I'm updating this comment.
And I've identified that it's the 1,000,000 most recent comments/posts which are accessible:
I just checked against oldest accessible article (at this writing), and subtracted that from the newest comment (from the "comments" titlebar link):
43938990 - 42938990 = 1000000
Others can confirm this by going to the newest comment, and subtracting 1000001 from the contentID to find the first inaccessible comment.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments>
Mods heard from, it's a known (and deliberately inflicted) issue.
[flagged]
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
You had me up until Jesus dash Christ.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I had to look up your comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
Maybe they are a conclavist, and have elected their own pope?
Congratulations on becoming a Protestant
So, he's Bob Pope?
...I'll see myself out.
My first thought ...
Well Donald Trump will be pleased.......
[As an American] an American pope seems very tacky. They should have picked an African or Italian
[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.
find an African candidate who isn't waaay to the right of Benedict on social issues
Work on your self hatred and open your mind please. There’s nothing tacky about an American pope. What are you talking about?
I saw someone on the Internet describe it as serving McDonald's at a wedding. I'm not sure snark is warranted, but I don't think it's unfair to say that USA's global image has been greatly reduced.
I love America, but America is hardly a very Catholic nation and this seems like a clear cut case of political pandering besides. I'm not a catholic but when I think Catholic I think ancient gilded and extravagant. America is the land of hamburgers, pickup trucks and Protestant megachurches. The two don't fit.
An Italian would make a better pope because the Roman Catholic Church is fundamentally Italian and it has been too long without an Italian pope. An African would be a good pope because they've never had one, despite a huge number of Catholics, present and future, being African.
> America is hardly a very Catholic nation
Interesting Fact: There are about as many—if not more—Catholics in the United States (~45-72 million [0]) than there are people in Italy (~60 million [1]). American Catholic theologians, priests, and bishops have a larger impact than many seem to realize.
I'm generally sympathetic with the idea that it is ideal to have an Italian pope—I recall hearing that Pope Benedict XVI thought having a close connection to the diocese of Rome was important—but I also don't mind having popes from different parts of the world so as to better represent the catholicity (universality) of the Church.
I also think an American pope might have a fuller understanding of the global impact of American media and political power. I felt that Francis often did a poor job of navigating the media landscape—oftentimes being represented as saying things which he did not really say or intend, so perhaps an American pope will be better in that regard.
---
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_... 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy#Populati...
When I think Italy I think pizza and Mussolini and Ferrari. When I think Africa I think radical Islam and fufu and the slave trade and colonialism and the lion king. I believe an American pope is a good choice and you don’t have an accurate view of America.
Why is this on HN?
A historical event of potential cultural significance.
So we can have a dozen threads arguing about what the term "American" means.
This post was resting on 666 comments, so I’m doing my duty.
"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?
St Peter was the first Pope; all Popes after are successors to him
If they're constructed as ordinals, then, why do they call them cardinals?
Cardinals are cardinal and Popes are ordinal. It's math.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
No, St. Peter passed away several years ago.
Where?
Successor of St Peter?
They are referring to Peter the Apostle, who was the first bishop of Rome [0]
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
Yes, the “on this rock I will build my church” guy.
No.
François was born in Buenos Aires, how is that the first american pope ?
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)
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
He is not a US citizen. He might have been born in the States but he is a fully naturalised citizen of Peru.
Being born in the US means you are a citizen. He holds dual citizenships
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.
im comfused how that extends from that you didnt think he was a citizen?
disagreeing with trump is a suggestion of non-citizenship?
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
This seems to be a very clear signal that Catholics think that US is having very serious issues which in turn endangers the world. I'm an atheist but assuming Catholic church justifies itself through "greater good" sort of mentality this move is such an obvious one and I don't think there could have a been a better one.
Excited to see the drama as the US-circus is already delivering briliant lines like "why didn't he speak English".
[flagged]
You cannot post inflammatory, escalatory comments like this on Hacker News, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly. I'm not banning now as you've been a community member for a while and have posted some good comments, but please take care to read the guidelines and avoid posting like this in future.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43929357 and marked it off topic.
I appreciate the clemency, and will change my ways.
Why are topics like this not considered Off-Topic by the guidelines?
Why are topics like this not considered Off-Topic by the guidelines?
A recent tomhow (and why) explanation:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43750046
Thank you for sharing that link.
I figured only the deaths of people relevant to topics discussed on this forum, but I suppose it is extended to any death of great importance.
It’s roughly “sufficiently big or interesting real world events” for some value of sufficiently big or interesting.