> "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 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.
"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."
bbor · 1h ago
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.
mvieira38 · 51s ago
Americans will say they are Italian because their great grandma ate spaghetti once, but God forbid someone is American because he was born there
tptacek · 53m ago
1955 born (chicago)
1977 seminary grad (chicago)
1982 ordination (->rome)
1985 canon law doctor (->peru)
1999 midwest augustinians (->chicago)
2001 global augustinians (->rome)
2015 bishop (->peru)
2021 dicasterate (->rome)
fblp · 32m ago
Seems like he's spent 2 years in the US since he was 27.
cjbgkagh · 22m ago
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.
CobrastanJorji · 42m ago
I think it was Aristotle who said "Give me a child until his mid-twenties, and I will give you a complete American."
yieldcrv · 28m ago
even as a joke of Aristotle living 2,000 years before the United States existed, I don't get the comedic affect
calebkaiser · 24m ago
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
rootsudo · 1h ago
For what it's worth, Peru is in South America. Still American, Technically.
umanwizard · 3m ago
"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.
bitshiftfaced · 1h ago
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.
whatshisface · 20m ago
An American is anyone who has been in the New World for more than 12 calendar minutes and started a business, supported the troops, or who has reported taxable income during one (1) or more years. Famous Americans include Albert Einstein, George Washington and Gordon Ramsey.
bee_rider · 1h ago
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.
umanwizard · 2m ago
[delayed]
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> some of more conscientious people in the US are feeling a little awkward about the name these days. So it isn’t surprising that we’d be the ones objecting
If the folks who got us into this mess with label obsession move on to something less charged like USian, that’s probably for the net good.
dingnuts · 1h ago
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!
bee_rider · 36m ago
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.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
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.
fernandopj · 1h ago
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.
catlikesshrimp · 1h ago
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"
amalcon · 53m ago
"Estadounidense" is also a bit odd, since there are Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (the formal name for Mexico). I don't think it is likely to confuse very many people, but still odd.
temp0826 · 18m ago
If you say "Mexico" in Mexico, most people will think you're referring to Mexico City.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> 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.)
kklisura · 1h ago
Then Pope Francis was American as well.
pavlov · 1h ago
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.
pc86 · 1h ago
Symbolism is a huge part of what name you select which is why its been a minute since a Pope Innocent or Pope Pious.
davidw · 2m ago
As a YIMBY, I could go for a Pope Urban.
pclmulqdq · 1h ago
Popes usually go for symbolic names, so the Leo XIII connection seems unavoidable.
My guess is new Pope Leo 14 will try to thread the needle on rising global interest in experimenting with socialism and the possible ramifications of AI automation.
lo_zamoyski · 21m ago
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.”
matthewmacleod · 2h ago
Yes, but find a catholic priest who doesn’t share that responsibility.
Boogie_Man · 2h ago
There are several important American bishops who have made serious strides to protect children. This is an ignorant statement.
bitshiftfaced · 1h ago
I'm just looking at this out of statistical curiosity: of these bishops you mention, were they in a position in the hierarchy that would be subject to this responsibility during the 80s or 90s? They always select popes that have been high up in the hierarchy for a while. Not that they have to select cardinals, but it takes that much to be a cardinal no less.
matthewmacleod · 1h ago
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.
dfxm12 · 49m ago
That's probably a sufficient enough pool though.
Boogie_Man · 58m ago
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.
luckydata · 48m ago
every human organization will do that
Henchman21 · 35m ago
One or two remaining good apples doesn’t mean the barrel isn’t rotting.
A religion that sets up clergy to provide guidance on family matters while simultaneously barring said clergy from having or knowing about family first hand is monumentally silly. I’ll try not to denigrate, but c’mon…
The current zeitgeist is that Catholic priests are pedophiles. This is a widely held belief because it is so frequently true.
hajile · 17m ago
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.
arp242 · 18m ago
> 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.
BirAdam · 4m ago
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.
cycomanic · 14m ago
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?
Boogie_Man · 20m ago
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]"
CalChris · 2h ago
The operative word was amidst.
BJones12 · 2h ago
Seeing as he's now head of a religion that believes none of us is perfect (Romans 3:23) it's unsurprising to think someone may allege that he is not perfect.
eldaisfish · 2h ago
bad faith response.
No one, from any religion, should directly or indirectly support crimes against minors. If people really cared about kids, we would protect them from sexual abuse from priests and prosecute priests via the legal system.
BJones12 · 1h ago
> If people really cared about kids, we would... prosecute priests via the legal system.
Prevost has literally said to alleged victims that they should go to the police.
Capricorn2481 · 1h ago
So he "literally" said he won't do anything about it until children can muster the courage and resources to prove in court they were abused.
This is "why didn't she go to the police" for children. The police are not to be trusted, certainly not to against the Catholic Church.
anon291 · 1h ago
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).
lucianbr · 1h ago
I believe the church can also do these two things: if a person is a priest, remove their priesthood, and if civilian, excomunicate them.
Not to mention saying things like "we disapprove of this behavior".
Overall, I think your claim that the church cannot do anything except the one thing you named is obviously false. There are in fact many things the church can do. Otherwise nobody would give a damn who is Pope. Just a guy who can not do anything.
bluGill · 10m ago
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.
dttze · 1h ago
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.
BJones12 · 1h ago
They don't want to admit that nothing the Catholics can do will ever be good enough, they just want the church to kill themselves trying.
hirvi74 · 39m ago
> 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?
BJones12 · 25m ago
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.
RandomBacon · 31m ago
Planned Parenthood
Capricorn2481 · 1h ago
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.
freetime2 · 2h ago
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.
mlmonge · 1h ago
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.
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?
Sharlin · 14m ago
It's one of the classic falsehoods that programmers (or perhaps more accurately, product managers) believe about localization: that location equals language.
seszett · 27m ago
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.
wvbdmp · 1h ago
Any chance the guy who programmed history.com to redirect deep links to your local tld version’s frontpage is on HN? What a helpful feature
majewsky · 50m ago
They might be, but the necktie that made them do it sure isn't.
lbhdc · 2h ago
There was an interesting video by the Religion for Breakfast channel that talked about the process and where some of the rules came from.
Prior to Francis, the last pope we had from a religious order (as opposed to a career diocesan) was Gregory XVI in 1831. Now we've had two religious popes in a row --- Francis, a Jesuit, and then Leo, an Augustinian.
dzdt · 43m ago
Can you explain this like I'm 5?
Spooky23 · 24m ago
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.
tptacek · 37m ago
You can (sort of) divide Catholic clergy into diocesan priests, who spend their careers managing the clerical hierarchy of a specific region, and religious-order priests, who belong to religious orders within the church --- the Jesuits, Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, etc. The "religious" Clergy are thought to be in some sense less tied up in church politics.
wheels · 36m ago
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.
blensor · 2h ago
I wonder if there is any other event in recent history that is communicated as quickly to as many people as the fact that a new pope has been elected.
I was out on the streets when the church bells started ringing here in Vienna as must have all around the globe where there are catholic churches
qsort · 2h ago
Probably not as spiritually fulfilling, but the stock market would be an example of that happening at sub-second latencies, every day, all day.
Clamchop · 2h ago
I don't think that counts as communicating to people at all, let alone to as many people.
PaulHoule · 2h ago
What about the tickers you see on TV or at Times Square? That’s not communicating?
crazygringo · 2h ago
How many people look at those?
Versus how many people across the world are finding out about the new pope?
The point is how many people are actually receiving this information. Not "could look up on their phone if they wanted".
PaulHoule · 1h ago
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.)
Dylan16807 · 26m ago
And that's a million people doing that versus a billion people hearing about the pope.
(very very rough numbers of course)
crazygringo · 27m ago
That's great. Not sure what it has to do with the conversation though?
Nobody is claiming nobody follows stocks.
epolanski · 23m ago
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.
TZubiri · 2h ago
With some exceptions like crisis, not everyone is listening to that.
And it happens every day, all day. It's not discrete information.
hnfong · 2h ago
Pretty sure the US presidential election is on par.
Maybe the exact timing is ambiguous since candidates usually declare victory/admit defeat before all the votes have been counted officially, but still.
zanellato19 · 2h ago
Yeah, that exact timing is the whole deal.
The US presidential election is a mess compared to this.
timeon · 1h ago
Eurovision is quicker.
vkou · 1h ago
> 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.
comeonbro · 2h ago
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.
TechDebtDevin · 58m ago
Yes, but how much liquidity was available?
oytis · 1h ago
Sounds like an amazing opportunity for insider trading
bowsamic · 1h ago
I wouldn't be shocked if that's one of the reasons why they sequester
connicpu · 42m ago
The sequestering goes back centuries, but it's certainly a reason to keep doing it beyond just removing outside influence once the process begins.
Onavo · 1h ago
Isn't the max profit limited by counterparty liquidity? Polymarket won't pay out anything extra.
andrepd · 1h ago
Among the most unlikely papabile I would have preferred someone like Tolentino.
samgranieri · 56m ago
As a Catholic from the Chicago area I'm shocked and surprised he was elected. My group chats and social media is just blowing up with regional pride. God bless Pope Leo XIV!
Balgair · 2m ago
Now the real question: Is he a Cubs or Sox fan?
kevinventullo · 1h ago
I just like that he was a math major.
tptacek · 49m ago
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_am_tiberius · 1h ago
I strongly believe the American choice was a strategic decision made by a group of highly intelligent individuals.
srameshc · 52m ago
Is it possible that this move is to reinstate Catholicism in the United States, given that Evangelicals appear to be gaining influence?
dathinab · 15m ago
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.
defen · 31m ago
What do you mean reinstate? The country was founded by the descendants of people who for the most part hated Catholicism.
carefulfungi · 10m ago
Yes, but... the Spanish reached present-day New Mexico before the English reached present-day New England.
axus · 1h ago
They picked an American, who actually lived and worked in Peru, and not archbishop of New York that Trump suggested.
jsnider3 · 4m ago
If they want someone who can effectively oppose Trump, why would they pick someone he suggested?
echelon · 1h ago
To placate or appeal to the current American leadership?
What's the desired outcome? European, NATO, or Ukrainian security guarantees?
register · 1h ago
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?
progbits · 35m ago
Current USA leadership is already taking actions well aligned with the church (such as stripping rights from women, homosexuals).
lenerdenator · 30m ago
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.
dathinab · 9m ago
> 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
ok_dad · 1h ago
From what I read, the new pope is much like Francis on human rights and political topics, but a bit more conservative about church doctrine. Perhaps it's to have a counterpoint to Trump in America, to show that not all American-born leaders are trash? Time will tell, I suppose.
wahern · 1h ago
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.
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
throw310822 · 1h ago
If he's on the same positions as Pope Francis but he's American, then this is a great move by the Catholic Church. Many Americans will naturally root for "their" Pope, and this will lead them away from the positions of Trump and the Evangelicals.
MegaDeKay · 1h ago
Seems that the new pope has strongly criticized Trump and Vance in the past. This is going to get interesting...
I'm so sick of prevailing wisdom with people just making shit up just to fill time on 24/7 news coverage and people can have their talking head shows with diverse "views".
bombcar · 1h ago
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."
jampekka · 1h ago
Strictly speaking Francis was an American too.
ebiester · 1h ago
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?
probably_wrong · 28m ago
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.
wvbdmp · 57m ago
> 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”.
quesera · 29m ago
Also interestingly "The USA" (en_US) is "Los EE. UU." (es_MX, es_ES).
Not to be confused with "The EU" (en_US) which is "La UE" (es_ES).
lenerdenator · 28m ago
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 am sure a certain somebody is going to claim credit for bringing the papacy home to America to make it great.
jm4 · 1h ago
It's only a matter of time before that same person gets called out by the new pope and responds by calling him a loser. If we're lucky, that will be the catalyst that finally erodes any remaining support he has.
doomroot13 · 59m ago
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.
quesera · 24m ago
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 vapid CINOs.. Gosh Darn them to Heck.
sirbutters · 45m ago
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 can't comprehend this. Surely it must be some Onion style article:
“Why should we import indulgences from the Vatican when we have domestic producers like Paula White who offer products that are much better,” said a White House spokesperson.
RandomBacon · 1h ago
From the link:
> this column is satire
VikingCoder · 1h ago
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."
sailfast · 1h ago
Daaaa Pope.
Coulda been Pope Ditka.
Also... Bears fan from [deepest darkest] Peru could've gone with Pope Paddington? (I kid because I love)
ralfd · 1h ago
Dislike Chicagoans ketchup?
sailfast · 1h ago
Yes. I think at this point it's more of a meme than a trend, but tbh I will not take Ketchup on my Hot Dogs / Red Hots just as a shibboleth signal.
That said, there are exceptions (my sister is dead to me though...)
codemac · 1h ago
they certainly don't appreciate it on their hot dogs.
southp4w · 7m ago
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!
Kon-Peki · 1h ago
Beyond the age of 8, apparently.
walrus01 · 1h ago
Deep dish pizza, I'm not so sure is going to find many fans in Rome.
Just put a cover on top of it and call it a calzone, I guess.
tptacek · 1h ago
He's a South Sider (Dolton) and South Side Chicago pizza is cracker-thin.
skyyler · 55m ago
Do people actually think deep dish is the only kind of pizza people eat in Chicago? I thought that was a meme.
sauwan · 1h ago
I liked calling him the "Ope Pope"
tptacek · 56m ago
I'm born and raised in Chicago and I only started hearing "ope" last year.
idontwantthis · 1h ago
I hope they bring Fred Armisen in for the SNL impression.
aziaziazi · 30m ago
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.
"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.
ralfd · 1h ago
Is Pope Leo eligible to be voted President of the United States?
tantalor · 1h ago
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.
andyjohnson0 · 1h ago
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.
peeters · 1h ago
This doesn't seem to comment on preexisting titles if I'm reading it correctly?
henryfjordan · 1h ago
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.
runako · 1h ago
FWIW this has been read out of the Constitution. I doubt it would be applied in practice.
neaden · 21m ago
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.
90s_dev · 22m ago
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.
mjirv · 1h ago
sure, why not?
tedivm · 57m ago
To be president you have to be a resident for the previous 14 years, so he wouldn't be eligible unless he moved here today and waited 14 years. He'd be 83 at that point.
ralfd · 41m ago
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.
9dev · 1h ago
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.
jermaustin1 · 1h ago
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.
jltsiren · 19m ago
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.
andyjohnson0 · 1h ago
> You cannot be head of multiple nations at once.
Says who? Is it actually prohibited in the us constitution?
The british monarch is head of state of multiple nations, and has been for over a century.
1-more · 52m ago
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.
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.
moogly · 1h ago
> and will hold that office till death
Ratzinger resigned.
Tomte · 49m ago
Macron. France and Andorra.
normie3000 · 1h ago
Tell that to King Charles.
antognini · 3h ago
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!
zdragnar · 2h ago
Given the number of cardinals Pope Francis appointed, I would imagine there's a fairly strong consensus at least on the direction of the church, which in theory would eliminate a strongly divided conclave, at least.
antognini · 2h ago
It's not quite so obvious that all of Francis's appointees were lockstop in line with his vision. Up until the last consistory he tended to appoint cardinals from the "peripheries," places that did not historically have a strong presence in the Church. (For instance he appointed a cardinal from Mongolia and one from the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia.) These cardinals are a bit of wildcard.
But given that the conclave was so short that does suggest that there was not much division over direction.
Vox_Leone · 2h ago
The brevity of the conclave election seems to signal a continuation of Francis' policies
rpmisms · 2h ago
I'm rooting for Sarah, but Tagle seems pretty decent.
seydor · 1h ago
Will he be taxed on his foreign Papal salary? Or will he forego the salary , like Francis did?
tptacek · 1h ago
Apparently heads of foreign states are exempt.
devrandoom · 1h ago
If he is taxed, he should renounce US citizenship as he's very unlike to move back to the US.
_dark_matter_ · 1h ago
Very unlikely is an understatement. Francis never even visited his home country of Argentina after being elected as Pope.
mFixman · 1h ago
Francis was seen as being too close to the Kirchnerists in ideology and too conflicted with the Kirchnerists in actions when he was Archbishop. Visiting Argentina would have forced him to take a side and trigger a political crisis he probably wanted to avoid.
As far as I know there's no similar conflict with the new Pope, and he wasn't even in America for the most important part of his church career.
lormayna · 1h ago
Really? I always heard that Francis was the first enemy of Kirtcherners
mFixman · 42m ago
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.
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.
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.
haunter · 2h ago
Is he a Cubs or White Sox fan though?
tptacek · 1h ago
He's a Cubs fan, according to ABC News.
(Interesting given he's a south sider).
senderista · 1h ago
I used to keep two ball caps in my car and switched when I crossed Madison.
turtletontine · 1h ago
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”
jm4 · 2h ago
Do the White Sox still have any fans?
dannyphantom · 1h ago
...yes :(
I was ~8(ish) when my parents took me to their last World Series. Now, I'm a fan fueled by nostalgia and a deeply ingrained belief that 'THIS is the year they will go ALL the way!'
One day it'll pay off
nkrisc · 2h ago
Well, he's Catholic, so I think White Sox is more likely.
sailfast · 1h ago
Many MANY many north siders are catholic as well.
Kon-Peki · 1h ago
He’s a far south sider. 99% chance of being a Sox fan.
EDIT - apparently a Cubs guy
Incidentally, the steel mill very close to where he grew up was idled due to the effects of Trump tariffs this week.
nkrisc · 1h ago
Well, no heuristic is perfect.
Kon-Peki · 51m ago
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.
dougbrochill · 1h ago
>Prevost earned his bachelor’s in mathematics from Villanova University
go birds
xeromal · 3h ago
I'm not a catholic but I decided to watch the new Conclave movie as well as a Tasting History by Max Miller to learn a little bit about it. Very interesting but I'd love a historical movie on some of the past conclaves when the pope managed a standing army.
Edit: The Max Miller video was about the baby back ribs cooked in proto-bbq sauce made from grapes that was eaten by a conclave.
prox · 3h ago
The movie “two popes” is pretty good, which some strong acting performance. (Not really historical since that was about a decade ago)
netsharc · 2h 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)
yjftsjthsd-h · 1h ago
AIUI, Vatican City is still its own political entity. (I do not claim to understand how that interacts with the Catholic Church in general.)
tough · 2h ago
Also a very old bank
alabastervlog · 1h ago
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?
martinclayton · 2h ago
What happens if Charlie Stross meets the Pope?
Muromec · 2h ago
Another conclave obviously
vFunct · 2h ago
The whole Catholic aesthetic is amazing. Really is the tops.
soulofmischief · 1h ago
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.
bigstrat2003 · 1h ago
That's true of literally everything though. No matter the environment you were raised in, having abusive parents will cause instinctive emotional repulsion to the things they filled their life with.
laughingcurve · 1h ago
Very good point, and I agree completely.
My source: Warhammer 40,000
moralestapia · 1h ago
When you're embraced by its grace, all of the aesthetic takes on a very bright and uplifting inspirational tone and becomes symbolic of a lifetime of guidance and empowerment. Source: raised by an extremely loving Catholic mother.
StefanBatory · 1h ago
I'm not sure if it's your intention, but telling that to someone who was abused, and repeating it in a mocking tone, might not be the sell you want to.
nessbot · 1h ago
No fan of the RC church here but I didn't hear any mocking. Just pointing out a counterfactual experience.
HaZeust · 1h ago
No one would have this loaded tone when counteracting someone's trauma in ANY subject - besides that of religion. It is a subject with a uniquely deep entrenchment of someone's fundamental life experiences and beliefs, and is the only subject where someone would have the gall to do such a thing; out of defense of, what they believe, is their very essence as a person.
There is absolutely no shot that someone would respond to someone sexually abused by their parents with, "On the other hand, I have a loving spouse that makes that same action a very loving and peaceful experience!" It's brazenly distasteful.
khazhoux · 54m ago
There was no mention of sexual abuse.
HaZeust · 51m ago
We call those "analogies", my friend.
When someone shares that their time in the Church was marked by coercion and abuse, responding with “well, my experience was uplifting” can feel dismissive of their trauma. It’s similar to hearing a survivor of sexual assault and replying, “my sexual experiences have all been wonderful.” Both experiences can coexist as true, but leading with your positive story in that moment risks minimizing the other person’s pain. It's distasteful, and is not conducive to a productive dialogue.
pc86 · 53m ago
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 tens or hundreds of thousands of other people? It just doesn't make any sense.
bravoetch · 1h ago
Religious people are quick to put aside the parts that don't suit them. This is a fully dialed-in example of it in the wild!
bitzun · 1h ago
My enjoyment of things is somewhat diminished by knowing that the thing engages in a vast conspiracy to commit and conceal abuse worldwide.
aipatselarom · 59m ago
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!
dfxm12 · 7m ago
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.
griffzhowl · 1h ago
It has a close rival in the Bulgarian Orthodox church, from which seemingly the entire metal aesthetic derives
Ah, schemamonks. If you are even a little interested in obscure mystical traditions, you really should look into this.
xhevahir · 1h ago
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.
DocTomoe · 1h ago
They've had 2000 years to perfect the show, of course they know how to make one.
echelon · 1h ago
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.
cdelsolar · 1h ago
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.
nyokodo · 1h ago
You’re always welcome to come back.
StefanBatory · 1h ago
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.
initramfs · 1h ago
religions aren't an aesthetic. they're more than that.
initramfs · 1h ago
funny how one downvotes a comment whenever it sounds contrary to the presumed aesthetic.
pc86 · 49m ago
Commenting on votes is boring (and violates guidelines) but you probably got downvoted because they're talking about "the Catholic aesthetic" which is 100% a thing, and you started responding to "Catholicism is an aesthetic" which is a statement nobody said.
initramfs · 35m ago
I did not state Catholicism is an aesthetic. I replied to vFunct's comment "vFunct
The whole Catholic aesthetic is amazing. Really is the tops." "with religion is more than an aesthetic." An aesthetic is using symbols and atmosphere, architecture, to create a beauty. A religion may use these objects, but also has values that do not depend on them.
Also, another person posted: "
echelon
"It truly is. As is the Ancient Roman aesthetic.
There's a reason why Final Fantasy, Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, and many more fantasy series lean heavily into the look and feel."
So people suggesting video games and tv shows, even with lots of violence (particularly GoT) is an "aesthetic", is a lot more shallow than my basic point that religions aren't primarily aesthetic. Maybe you replied to the wrong comment.
pc86 · 9m ago
"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.
I love his accent. It really feels like an American visiting Europe.
No comments yet
hnthrow90348765 · 2h ago
The conclave had the opportunity to do the funniest thing
vkou · 2h ago
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?"
wkat4242 · 2h ago
They should have picked Trump. He wanted to be pope anyway and he can do far less damage there :)
netsharc · 2h ago
"I can be President and Pope at the same time! Buy some Tesler, it's the very best cars, and I look forward to welcoming you to the First Annual Papal Golf Tournament, at Mar-A-Lago, next month!".
Heh, if Epstein was still alive he'd be jumping joyfully that his buddy Trump became pope...
timeon · 1h ago
According Wikipedia, this one was covering pedophile too.
deadbabe · 2h ago
Not sure I like this.
madduci · 2h ago
I wonder if this is just merely coincidence with the shared picture of Trump a couple of days ago
_bin_ · 2h ago
American pope! So happy to hear this. Congratulations to Leo XIV!
lupusreal · 10m ago
[As an American] an American pope seems very tacky. They should have picked an African or Italian
throwaway7783 · 32m ago
Great time to watch the movie "Conclave"
mac3n · 1h ago
not about this conclave, but those who find papal elections interesting should look up the election of the Doge (duke) of Venice.
I thought an American pope would be the last thing Vatican wanted (to avoid being seen too close to US)
90s_dev · 28m ago
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!)
bgwalter · 1h ago
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.
elorm · 2h ago
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.
Chicago: known for wind, one of the world's largest furry conventions, and the first American pope.
nickthegreek · 2h ago
"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.
So it’s ambiguous.
sepositus · 2h ago
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.
whynotminot · 2h ago
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.
bigstrat2003 · 1h ago
That is true, but doctrine does need to not violate scripture. So if the Bible prohibits something (which IMO it pretty clearly does prohibit gay relationships), the church can't say "well actually it's ok now". If that did happen it would cause quite a crisis for the church, since it is a Catholic article of faith that God guides the official dogma of the church as he guided the humans who wrote the books in the Bible. So if the two are in disagreement, the whole faith kinda collapses.
dylan604 · 1h ago
The Old Testament said to not eat pork. The church today says it's okay. It also says not to keep the festivals of the pagans specifically one where you cut down a tree and adorn it with ornaments, yet it is now top two "holy" holidays
bigstrat2003 · 1h ago
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.
alabastervlog · 2h ago
> “Sola Scriptura” is a thing for some Protestant denominations.
And, infamously and comically, isn't exactly well supported by the text itself.
whynotminot · 2h ago
Indeed. You can find yourself in some very frustrating loops, down to the parsing of words back to the original languages they were translated from, when trying to argue the Bible as a sole foundation for literally everything.
Source: grew up in churches that tried to do just that.
dylan604 · 1h ago
Memories of using Strong's reference to do this very thing.
alabastervlog · 36m ago
OMG I haven't thought about Strong's Concordance in so long. Memory unlocked, haha.
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.
breadwinner · 2h ago
> 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.
pqtyw · 2h ago
Not the New Testament. Christianity has the luxury (compared to some other religions..) of having very few "divinely ordained" rules. The teachings of Jesus supersede the stuff from the Old testament (the one with all not very nice things) however they are rather vague and undefined.
So various churches can freely pick/discard almost whatever they want besides the 10 commandments while Muslims can't exactly just throw away the Quran or Hadith (which are much more specific)..
mynameisash · 1h ago
> The teachings of Jesus supersede the stuff from the Old testament (the one with all not very nice things) however they are rather vague and undefined.
Except Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and not one stroke of a letter of the law will pass away. So he didn't change anything about slavery, mistreatment of women, etc.
pqtyw · 1h ago
He also said 'Love your neighbor as yourself' and a bunch of similar things. Which kind of makes it complicated. I guess selling other people to slavery is fine as long as you also sell yourself (just like mistreating others).
> didn't change anything about slavery, mistreatment of women, etc.
The "fulfill" bit is rather ambiguous. AFAIK the most popular interpretation (certainly when it comes to ceremonial rules like not eating pork/shellfish/etc.) is that his intention was to "bring the law to its intended goal/purpose" rather than to maintain it in perpetuity.
achierius · 1h ago
But none of that ever applied to gentiles. Not before Christ, not after. Jews today do not claim that non-Jews are obliged to, or even ought to, perform any Mitzvot whatsoever -- and that's despite generally acknowledging that there are universal moral laws which bind all "children of Noah".
So if the remaining Jews continue following the Old Covenant, but others choose to rather follow Jesus' 'New and Eternal Covenant', then where would this obligation towards Old Testament law come from?
pqtyw · 1h ago
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
timeon · 1h ago
> The teachings of Jesus supersede the stuff from the Old testament
And teachings of Paul supersede the stuff from Jesus.
MisterBastahrd · 54m ago
Jesus never said he was superseding a single thing. His entire ministry was about railing against the legalistic structure of the Pharisees, who were more interested in following "the Law" than having common sense or taking care of people. His ministry was about Jews, for Jews, and had nothing to do with gentiles at all. The grifter Paul is the one who opened up their cult to gentiles.
sepositus · 50m ago
“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”
sepositus · 2h ago
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.
deeg · 50m ago
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...
jasonjayr · 1h ago
I think the crux of the problem is that with all the statements the Bible makes, at a plain reading of the text, who are we, as mere humans to decide which parts should be strictly adhered to, or which parts should not, or which parts mean something completely different from the plain reading? As far as I can tell there is no consistent application of logic and understanding what parts matter and which parts do not. And depending on who you talk to, those parts change.
I understand that as part of the faith, it is not our place to know the reason God has chosen. However, I believe that there are very serious concerns about the intentions of the people 'qualified' to interpret the texts. Relying on "just trust us" gets us into big trouble, fast.
As the saying goes, the devil may quote scripture too.
sepositus · 52m ago
> 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.
lo_zamoyski · 1h ago
Prooftexting is not a good idea. If you think you have a gotcha, then you should get in line with the multitude of teenagers who think they've bested the Church with a verse, and from a bad translation at that.
Think about it. It's been thousands of years. A little humility is called for. You're not the first or the last to make flippant remarks like this without understanding.
spauldo · 1h ago
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.
ComposedPattern · 1h ago
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.
gopher_space · 1h ago
> 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.
dylan604 · 1h ago
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.
GeekyBear · 1h ago
> I have yet to see a convincing argument (based in the teachings of the Bible) that promotes same-sex marriages.
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!
mrguyorama · 54m ago
When did Jesus say ANYTHING about homosexuality?
krapp · 42m ago
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.
IncreasePosts · 2h ago
Christians can't agree on pretty much anything in the Bible, which is why there are thousands of different sects, and a Wikipedia entry for "schisms in Christianity" that is dozens of entries long.
sepositus · 1h ago
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.
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.
quesera · 13m ago
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.
FeteCommuniste · 1h ago
Oddly enough practically the only philosophers who buy "natural law" arguments against homosexuality are Christian.
Makes my motivated reasoning detector go off.
moomin · 1h ago
Gay penguins are massively inconvenient for “natural law” arguments.
rich_sasha · 2h ago
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.
niam · 2m ago
"Moral guides" are perhaps the most worthy subjects of moral scrutiny.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
How men of cloth treat gay people is a good litmus test for whether they’re following the Christian tenets of love and forgiveness. Like, you’re dealing with one of God’s creatures, per the Christian worldview. You can’t claim to respect God’s plan and then turn around and say you know better when it makes you feel icky.
> job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the crowd
An American Catholic hating and despising gays is very much following their crowd.
FeteCommuniste · 1h ago
Many a preacher will tell you that their way of "loving" gay people is to warn them of the hellfire awaiting them if they don't quit doing gay stuff and repent.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> 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.
Tabular-Iceberg · 1h ago
Is it possible to have forgiveness without contrition?
Capricorn2481 · 1h ago
Nobody said "progressiveness" except you. People can judge it on its moral grounds.
If we dismiss criticism as being invalid because it happens to be another person's idea of "progressive," then that's surely the opposite of ignoring the crowd. That's using political labels to distract from the actual thing being discussed.
Considering there were literal pedophiles given more grace than openly gay bishops, it's a disheartening to hear "progressive" used like such a dirty word. But I guess the Overton window has shifted that much.
rich_sasha · 50m ago
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.
wkat4242 · 1h ago
> "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.
Of course he was a pope. It's in line with his church's doctrine. But I wouldn't call him progressive by any means.
peterhadlaw · 31m ago
Idk killing 73 million people actually doesn't make you a hero in my book. 73 million souls, approximately a year.
Eavolution · 1h ago
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.
dauertewigkeit · 1h ago
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.
deng · 1h ago
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.
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?
hirvi74 · 1h ago
Is the Catholic Church really that homophobic? The church might have a general stances against gay marriage, but it appears there is a history rife with acts of (nonconsensual) homosexuality.
lostlogin · 1h ago
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.
lo_zamoyski · 1h 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.
TZubiri · 2h ago
There will probably be a time for this debate. But in general, this is the church line, not really surprising.
> His educational background includes a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from Villanova University
Huh. Career counselors take note, new path opened up.
andrepd · 1h ago
Francis had a degree in chemistry if I'm not mistaken.
ryandv · 1h ago
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.
spauldo · 40m ago
The joke was of all the jobs a person might get after attaining a mathematics degree, "pope" usually isn't on the list.
moomin · 1h ago
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.
tgv · 1h ago
The Catholic church has embraced science. It even accepts evolution and the big bang theory (as in: accepts it as a possibility, doesn't disavow it)
moomin · 1h ago
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.
tgv · 2h ago
Damn, you're right. He'll be going by Leo XIV.
lordnacho · 2h ago
So, it this the Church setting up a confrontation with Trump?
kccoder · 2h ago
Maybe the selection didn't consider Trump in any way. Disappointingly for Trump, the entire world doesn't revolve around him.
dfxm12 · 2h ago
Is it Pizzaballa?
haunter · 2h ago
Chicago style Deepdishballa
ceejayoz · 2h ago
Unfortunately, no.
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
Looks like he’s a compromise candidate between the Church’s liberals and conservatives [1]. (American and African Catholics are on the conservative end.)
He no doubt means the largest Christian church (though from a Catholic perspective, there is only the Church and those who are in schism, heretics, etc.).
moomin · 1h ago
I think the relationship stays with the orthodox churches is “It’s complicated.”
zemo · 2h ago
not in the US
TZubiri · 1h ago
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.
carabiner · 1h ago
I really wonder if he's converted to neapolitan pizza at this point.
diego_moita · 3h ago
The correct title should be "Habemus Papam".
kurthr · 2h ago
"Habemus Papam, iter faciet"
moralestapia · 1h ago
Hmm, I wish CNN understood that the US is not the whole world but only a small part of it.
Leo is the second American Pope (after Francis), the first one from the US.
America is a continent, 4% of the world population happened to nickname their country (which has real name that is different) like that.
96% of the world refers to America as a continent, which is correct.
polalavik · 1h ago
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.
Which one do you choose?
danso · 42m ago
But “US” is not an adjective? It’d be like saying “First Brazil Pope elected”
aipatselarom · 35m ago
"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.
danso · 28m ago
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.
neaden · 4m ago
Pakistan and Bangladesh are on the Indian subcontinent, do you correct people from the country of India every time they say they are Indian?
spauldo · 44m ago
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."
EasyMark · 1h ago
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.
timeon · 1h ago
> Sure but most of the world
Not really. (Also we call English Channel 'La Manche' - even if we do not understand French).
Izikiel43 · 1h ago
> 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.
hollerith · 1h ago
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.)
Izikiel43 · 40m ago
Sure, but the op said "most of the world", which is not true, I gave a counter example.
No comments yet
moralestapia · 1h ago
>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.
hollerith · 1h ago
When using the English language, "American" means, "of or from the US", and always has.
pqtyw · 1h ago
> 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...)
Izikiel43 · 1h ago
> Well always saying "United States of America" would be rather cumbersome.
Then they should have chosen another name
pqtyw · 1h ago
I guess Columbia was an option? But that had similar issues...
lihaciudaniel · 2h ago
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....
ndegruchy · 1h ago
So, he's Bob Pope?
...I'll see myself out.
chuckreynolds · 2h ago
Theo Vonn walks onto balcony.... lol
lambdaba · 2h ago
His full name is Theodor Capitani von Kurnatowski III, I think it fits.
ReptileMan · 1h ago
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.
HughParry · 2h ago
Posted on the other thread as I thought it was pretty interesting:
>Roughly 0.5% odds on him on polymarket before he was announced
gkoberger · 2h ago
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%)
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.
alexchamberlain · 2h ago
I don't understand what people were basing that on; the conclave is a completely secret process?
RandomBacon · 2h ago
The winning lottery numbers are a secret too before they're drawn; people just like to gamble.
BurningFrog · 1h ago
Smart play for the Vatican to go with an American Pope to avoid tariffs!
Yes, everybody knows that Vatican is the industrial heart of the world
TheBlight · 1h ago
Why is this on HN?
ragazzina · 1h ago
A historical event of potential cultural significance.
pluc · 1h ago
How appropriately disconnected from the church to elect an American.
CharlesW · 1h ago
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.
velcro · 1h ago
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.
CharlesW · 53m ago
> 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.
bitmasher9 · 59m ago
How much real estate does the Catholic Church own in the US, and how much appreciation has that seen since 2020?
pluc · 1h ago
It kinda has a shitty reputation right now, especially in Europe. This will embolden the clown in Chief and that isn't good for anyone.
CharlesW · 59m ago
It's possible. My take is that a Pope who's relatably "like them" will be more effective at reminding U.S. Catholics that they may need to choose between their faith and Trumpist idolatry.
krapp · 37m ago
> My take is that a Pope who's relatably "like them" will be more effective at reminding U.S. Catholics that they may need to choose between their faith and Trumpist idolatry.
I mean... they clearly already have. If Trump supporting Catholics haven't changed their mind by now I don't think an American Pope is going to convince them. And unless we're assuming a third Trump term I don't see what the point would be. The damage has been done.
luckydata · 48m ago
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)
crmd · 29m ago
Look at his tweets prior to being elected pope. Trump and Vance are not going to be nice to him.
StefanBatory · 1h ago
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.
seydor · 2h ago
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
imzadi · 1h ago
"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?
theelfismike · 1h ago
St Peter was the first Pope; all Popes after are successors to him
perihelions · 1h ago
If they're constructed as ordinals, then, why do they call them cardinals?
psunavy03 · 1h ago
Cardinals are cardinal and Popes are ordinal. It's math.
imzadi · 1h ago
Ah, I see. Thanks.
ang_cire · 1h ago
No, St. Peter passed away several years ago.
przemub · 1h ago
Where?
imzadi · 1h ago
Successor of St Peter?
einhard · 1h ago
They are referring to Peter the Apostle, who was the first bishop of Rome [0]
He is not a US citizen.
He might have been born in the States but he is a fully naturalised citizen of Peru.
davis · 48m ago
Being born in the US means you are a citizen. He holds dual citizenships
mildred593 · 2h ago
There is strong suspicion that the recent popes are not what they say they are. In fact, there is a growing debate to know if the popes since Pius XII are really popes. We, Catholics, believe that the pope must declare the catholic doctrine, cannot change it since it was revealed by Jesus-Christ. This was always believed throughout history and was formally defined in the 1st council of the Vatican. But it seems with the Vatican II council and what happened afterwards, the recent popes did not follow this rule. This is clear evidence that those are false and not agreed by God.
The fact that St Malachie prophecy does not account for this new pope is another clue that there is something fishy.
tptacek · 21m ago
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.
(via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43928742, but we merged that thread hither)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-pope-could-it-be-american-c...
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.
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.
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!
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"
Which nobody uses. (It’s also meaningful to note that I would call myself an American in English but not in Spanish.)
Presumably there’s some symbolism to why the new pope wanted to adopt this particular name.
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.
[0] https://a.co/d/gmUTo49
[1] https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en.html
> 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...
"[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.”
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.
A religion that sets up clergy to provide guidance on family matters while simultaneously barring said clergy from having or knowing about family first hand is monumentally silly. I’ll try not to denigrate, but c’mon…
The current zeitgeist is that Catholic priests are pedophiles. This is a widely held belief because it is so frequently true.
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.
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.
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.
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]"
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.
Prevost has literally said to alleged victims that they should go to the police.
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.
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.
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.
They did absolutely nothing until it became too hard to ignore reality and now they are dealing with that.
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?
> 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 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.
[1] https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/263867/the-story-beh...
[1]https://www.history.com/articles/pope-conclave-smoke-color
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?
I don't think there is any way to access that page from outside the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNwgh787umM
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.
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
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".
(very very rough numbers of course)
Nobody is claiming nobody follows stocks.
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.
And it happens every day, all day. It's not discrete information.
Maybe the exact timing is ambiguous since candidates usually declare victory/admit defeat before all the votes have been counted officially, but still.
The US presidential election is a mess compared to this.
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.
Prevost was hovering around 1% on Polymarket, and was <0.5% between white smoke and announcement.
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.
What's the desired outcome? European, NATO, or Ukrainian security guarantees?
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.
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
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-pope-r...
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".
See: "Can't select an American pope until America is not powerful anymore."
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?
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”.
Not to be confused with "The EU" (en_US) which is "La UE" (es_ES).
My money's on the Canadian taking him down in the first round with a right hook.
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 vapid CINOs.. Gosh Darn them to Heck.
https://religionnews.com/2025/04/07/president-trump-imposes-...
“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.
> this column is satire
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."
Coulda been Pope Ditka.
Also... Bears fan from [deepest darkest] Peru could've gone with Pope Paddington? (I kid because I love)
That said, there are exceptions (my sister is dead to me though...)
Just put a cover on top of it and call it a calzone, I guess.
> 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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...
Ratzinger resigned.
But given that the conclave was so short that does suggest that there was not much division over direction.
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.
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.
(Interesting given he's a south sider).
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
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.
The Cubs were awful. But they had Ernie Banks.
go birds
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)
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?
My source: Warhammer 40,000
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.
"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 tens or hundreds of thousands of other people? It just doesn't make any sense.
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!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o81A31hlgEA
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.
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.
"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.
No comments yet
Have you ever heard of the question: "Is the Pope Catholic?"
Heh, if Epstein was still alive he'd be jumping joyfully that his buddy Trump became pope...
https://www.theballotboy.com/electing-the-doge
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!)
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...
> 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.
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.
And, infamously and comically, isn't exactly well supported by the text itself.
Source: grew up in churches that tried to do just that.
For the (fortunately) uninitiated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance
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.
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)..
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.
> 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.
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?
And teachings of Paul supersede the stuff from Jesus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Christianity has been comfortable with fairly sophisticated realpolitik since day zero.
Here you are.
https://whosoever.org/letter-to-louise/
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!
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.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed
We'll call it "natural law", to suggest that it comes from somewhere other than some random human.
Got it.
Makes my motivated reasoning detector go off.
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.
> 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 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 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.
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.
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...
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.
Even Obama opposed gay marriage in 2010.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-still-opposes-same-sex-ma...
Huh. Career counselors take note, new path opened up.
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.
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.
[1] https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/evidence/cardinal-prevo...
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.
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.
Leo is the second American Pope (after Francis), the first one from the US.
America is a continent, 4% of the world population happened to nickname their country (which has real name that is different) like that.
96% of the world refers to America as a continent, which is correct.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonyms_for_the_United_Stat...
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?
"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.
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.
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."
Not really. (Also we call English Channel 'La Manche' - even if we do not understand French).
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.
No comments yet
Nope. People from the US really need to get out of that bubble.
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...)
Then they should have chosen another name
In essence, it foretold last pope was francis, as peter the roman....
...I'll see myself out.
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.
>Roughly 0.5% odds on him on polymarket before he was announced
--
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...
(Credit: https://x.com/ArmandDoma/status/1920530249567056056)
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.
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.
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.
Lots to learn about the Pope Leo XIV. I liked his speech
Is that a typo?
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter
See Wikipedia for deeper discussion of the use of the term in English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)
The fact that St Malachie prophecy does not account for this new pope is another clue that there is something fishy.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43750950
Maybe they are a conclavist, and have elected their own pope?