But given that the conclave was so short that does suggest that there was not much division over direction.
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
And it happens every day, all day. It's not discrete information.
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".
Nobody is claiming nobody follows stocks.
(very very rough numbers of course)
The comparison that I think matters is that the Pope and the Dalai Lama are the best-known religious leaders there are. I mean there used to be Billy Graham and the Ayatollah Khomeini but I think most people would struggle to name the leader of the Methodist church or Nichiren Buddhism or a rabbi of my than local importance.
This is about the huge number of people knowing about a single event right away.
* I say a thousand here because even someone glued to every number on CNBC is parsing nowhere near millions of numbers. A much smaller sliver of people will see each of those individual trades.
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.
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.
[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.
[1] https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/263867/the-story-beh...
> The addition of the white smoke to announce the election of a new pope is more recent, however. Baumgartner traces it to 1914 [...]
but also
> In ancient times, the method to give the smoke these colors was to burn the ballots used in the voting with a bit of wet straw [...]
In ... the ancient times of 1914? Something's wrong here.
(For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article about this says that before 1914 black smoke meant "we held a ballot but it didn't successfully choose a new pope" and no smoke meant something other than that, though it's not clear there what the "we got one" signal was. The Wikipedia article, unlike the Catholic News Agency one, cites some references, but I haven't checked them.)
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.
Heh, if Epstein was still alive he'd be jumping joyfully that his buddy Trump became pope...
Have you ever heard of the question: "Is the Pope Catholic?"
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.
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.
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.
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?
You aren't bringing up the moral law.
And teachings of Paul supersede the stuff from Jesus.
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.
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:
The point is that the canon of writings assembled into the book is based on how people think at the time. Things change and evolve. A book canonized today would probably undo even more of the old testament teachings as archaic and no longer relevant with their version of Romans 14 and Acts 11:4-6. Francis 2:8-10 or from a series of letters sent to the people of Americas instead of Corinthians. These writings are just a snap shot in time
Makes my motivated reasoning detector go off.
We'll call it "natural law", to suggest that it comes from somewhere other than some random human.
Got it.
Here you are.
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!
Christianity has been comfortable with fairly sophisticated realpolitik since day zero.
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.
This is where I've yet to see convincing evidence. The whole meta-story of the first few chapters of Genesis was about creation. Not just creation of the universe as we know it, but the pro-creation between a man and a woman in the sanctimony of marriage.
Whether you have an overly-religious view of Genesis or not doesn't really change the fact that the original authors were clearly "sanctifying" this act of pro-creation (the "meme" if you want to use Dawkins' terms). Other cultures and tribes obviously had their own ways of sanctifying it, but in a large, almost universal majority of cases, it was always between a man and a woman.
Changing the gender to same-sex more or less destroy's the original intention of the meme. I mean, you can do it, but I don't think you're walking away with the authentic thought that was being communicated by the authors.
I'm purely speaking from an academic sense here (the art of understanding what someone wrote a long time ago). Sure, we can choose to ignore and/or change it because it's "out of date" but that leads back to a point I made elsewhere about how it's not usually within the Catholic tradition to so blatantly alter scripture.
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.
There are just a few (oblique) mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament. It clearly wasn't a main concern. Pope Francis' interpretation always seemed completely consistent with scripture. It's the extremely heavy emphasis on homosexuality that's inconsistent with it.
Also: being gay and gay acts are two different things. Catholic priests are not supposed to engage in any sexual acts, so in that sense, it doesn't really matter if a priest is gay.
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.
Agreed
> or refuse to recognise their relations, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness.
There I think we need a finer view. "Mx. Other" is important to you? Yes, absolutely, they should recognize that. What you do with "Mx. Other" is good? Absolutely not, it's harming both you and "Mx. Other" who you clearly love.
See https://boldlybeloved.com/ for a beautiful example of how to do accompanying _right_ (in my opinion).
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.
I think you need to reread the discussion. That is something you wrote in response to someone else. Someone expressed they found the position immoral, and you said "why are we judging people based on how progressive they are." I am explaining why that's reductive.
> But also I find it weird to turn around and tut-tut at a Christian bishop because he failed to express pro-gay views
Saying "we don't turn away gay people" is only pro-gay in the way that allowing Black people to have bank loans is pro-black. As in, not at all. It's just not anti-gay.
> A key tenet of Christianity is that homosexuality is, in short, bad
That's a motivation for bigotry, yes. It doesn't make the consequences different.
> And in turn, waiting for the Catholic Church to change its mind is like saying it should bend to popular, "progressive" views
What is progressive today is an outburst of long-standing grievances, previously quelled with violence. Gay people were killed purely on religious demonization, and legally tried in court as recently as the 50's. Not framed for a crime because they were gay, but tried for the crime of being gay. So yes, there may be an uptick in open discussion on the matter as we move into a world where we don't kill people for their sexual orientation, something we are still not out of in many parts of the world.
Now if you refuse to accept it as a moral judgement because "it sounds like what those progressives would say," that's you using a "dirty word" to refuse engaging with the topic altogether.
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.
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...
Even Obama opposed gay marriage in 2010.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-still-opposes-same-sex-ma...
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-ou...
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/us/politics/biden-express...
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.
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
Though in USAmerica, we're pretty flexible on the meaning of "Christian" anyway. Certainly the loudest proclaimers have no resemblance whatsoever to the expected meaning.
Those troublesome CINOs.. Gosh Darn them to Heck.
So even the Pope would say that you don't cease to be a Catholic if you call him an anti-Christ. Maybe excommunicated, but to be excommunicated you have to be Catholic.
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."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-pope-r...
More generally, I think religion doesn't really inform your political views. It can certainly reinforce them post-hoc, but it certainly isn't the basis of one's morality.
On one hand it's not like the Pope by himself can decide what Catholics should think and how they should act; on the other he's a religious leader- literally someone who is meant to lead others. If the leadership is effective, the others will follow, by their own will.
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?
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).
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.
My money's on the Canadian taking him down in the first round with a right hook.
>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...
In essence, it foretold last pope was francis, as peter the roman....
> 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...
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.
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]"
Doesn't seem likely since none of the Churches that existed prior to the Protestant Reformation allow it.
All of the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, do allow men who are already married to become priests. The rules are more strict for Catholics than the others.
Certainly not in general. You either have to be Eastern or Greek Catholic, Anglican/Episcopal convert etc. Overwhelming majority don't have that option.
Our local priest is married with kids and grandkids.
Nor are they expected to refrain from sex within marriage, which may be what you mean.
Since, IIRC, the 1200s (may be off by a couple centuries), there has been a practice (not a doctrine) prohibiting ordination of married men in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.
Because this is a prohibition but not a doctrinal invalidity, it does not apply invalidate otherwise-valid ordinations (e.g., by Bishops holding valid apostolic succession), and the prohibition was never applied to the Eastern Churches that were at the time (Inthink the Maronite Church was) or later came into union with Rome. There is also now a special exception allowing (with individual permission, not automatically) married Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and are otherwise eligible for ordination as Catholic priests to be ordained in the Latin Rite despite being married. So it is possible to encounter married priests in the Latin Rite (Western) Catholic Church, but the door is not generally open to married men becoming priests.
I find this to be unlikely.
This position also ignores the East, as we tend to do, although I will admit they understood themselves to be changing convention when permitting it.
On the other hand, de-facto marriages (say, a live-in servant woman the priest treated like a wife, including having sex with her) were overlooked by the catholic church on continental Europe well into the high middle ages.
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.
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.
The official Catholic translation agrees with KJV as does Thomas Aquinas in his commentary. In fact, I don’t know that there’s ANY disagreement about this translation anywhere.
The clear issue is that the Catholic Church believes (and states) that their ecclesiastical authority supersedes even the Bible on not only this minor topic, but more important ones too.
You can look it up in the original Greek, but translation is extremely clear with the approved Catholic translations saying the same thing.
Thomas Aquinas in his Latin (and in the English translation of his writings) agrees with the translation and also agrees that priests fall under the Bishop, but then seems to completely ignore the obvious contradiction.
Finally, mandatory celibacy wasn’t mandatory until the second Lateran Council in 1139 with the admittance that it was ecclesiastical rather than dogma (with the ruling clearly going against the New Testament).
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.
How frequently? The issue is them covering up those crimes and protecting the perpetrators. It's like saying that BBC is run by podophiles (when it was "just" aiding and abetting them).
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.
They did absolutely nothing until it became too hard to ignore reality and now they are dealing with that.
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.
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.
It's the bias of the Church and the unwillingness to involve the law that people are criticizing.
Also "The law is unbiased" is a new one. They are as unbiased as you and I.
Very disgusting that, to this day, this cover-up is defended.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of catholic doctrine. One cannot have their priesthood 'removed'. However, they can be banned from the public performance of it, which is usually the punishment doled out.
As for excommunication... excommunication is removeable via confession, which is freely given.
"[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.”
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.
Lots to learn about the Pope Leo XIV. I liked his speech
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/stock-market-today-dow-s...
Prevost was hovering around 1% on Polymarket, and was <0.5% between white smoke and announcement.
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.
(Interesting given he's a south sider).
https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/05/08/pope-leo-xiv-is-a-cu...
> But later in the day, an ABC7 reporter caught up with one of the pope’s older brothers, John Prevost, and asked him to confirm the report.
> He said it wasn’t true.
> “He’s a Sox fan,” John Prevost told ABC7.
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 hundreds or 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!
My source: Warhammer 40,000
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.
[1] https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/evidence/cardinal-prevo...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-pope-could-it-be-american-c...
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.)
I think there are legal implications. Akin to "Washington District of Columbia"
Decades ago, Mexicans refered to the capital as "el DF" But I dont know about more recently.
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!
I guarantee less than 1% of Americans feel like this or are even thinking about the issue at all.
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)/s
Traditional papal symbols of Benedict XVI return and that whole speech of “Do not be afraid to evangelize with the truth” gave me a sense of confrontation with the modern ideology.
No media covered / decoded what that gesture signifies.
What do you think the premise of the motto Make America Great Again is? The difference between Trumpists and others who see a decline is that the former see the 2016 and 2024 elections as reverses in the decline, whereas other see them as sources or exacerbations.
The fact that St Malachie prophecy does not account for this new pope is another clue that there is something fishy.
Maybe they are a conclavist, and have elected their own pope?
Or, hear me out, the prophecy is bs. That wouldn't fit your "puzzle" though.
Next you're going to mention Nostradamus. Seems to be a trendy thing to do these days.
What's the desired outcome? European, NATO, or Ukrainian security guarantees?
Additionally, Noam refers to Trump's statements from the beginning of the Ukraine war. Trump's position on the matter has done a total 180 since. Why would Noam continue to hold the same view if Trump doesn't?
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_missions_in_California
Texas, California, Florida, totally unimportant backwater states, right? No Latin American culture, ethnicity, political or religious influence to speak of.
That didn't last thar long though. Since it was overtaken by Protestants who banned Catholicism (like it was banned in all the other colonies ) in 1689.
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.
...I'll see myself out.
go birds
Is that a typo?
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."
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.
> As of 2013, according to Grubhub data and the company Chicago Pizza Tours, thin-crust outsells the more widely known deep-dish style among locals, with GrubHub stating that deep-dish comprises only 9% of its pizza deliveries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_pizza#Thin-crust...
Coulda been Pope Ditka.
Also... Bears fan from [deepest darkest] Peru could've gone with Pope Paddington? (I kid because I love)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Nope. People from the US really need to get out of that bubble.
Maybe you live in a smaller bubble.
India: "Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, a 69-year-old American, has been elected as Pope Leo XIV, making history as the first American to head the Roman Catholic Church." https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/10-facts-ab...
Denmark: "For første gang i verdenshistorien er paven amerikansk." https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/fra-missionaer-i-peru-til-n...
Brazil: "Papa Leão XIV é americano e tem cidadania peruana" https://www.estadao.com.br/brasil/papa-leao-xiv-e-americano-...
Nigeria: "America’s Robert Francis Prevost announced as new pope" https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/05/breaking-americas-robert...
Slovakia: "Lev XIV. je prvý Američan na pápežskom stolci." https://svet.sme.sk/c/23488126/novy-papez-lev-xiv-profil.htm...
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.
I can't think of the last time I needed to describe myself as being from the continent, but if you really want to call yourselves Americans, I say go for it. People can call themselves whatever they like.
Still, I can't help but notice Argentinean newspapers using americano to refer to refer to things from the US.
Not really. (Also we call English Channel 'La Manche' - even if we do not understand French).
[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.
Ask foreign speakers if you don't believe it.
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."
I have a hard time believing people in South America actually call themselves Americans or are remotely confused about where someone identified as American is from.
This all seems pedantic.
Yes, everyone from the Americas could conceivably be called an American, but the lack of any shared continental cultural identity largely removes any need to self-identify as an inhabitant of the continent. But hey, if people desperately want to call themselves Americans, I say go for it.
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.
If the pope renounces his US citizenship for the purpose of having diplomatic immunity or treats his acceptance of the papacy as an expatriating act with intent to relinquish citizenship within the meaning of INA §349(a)(4), he would not be inadmissible under the Reed Amendment: that amendment only applies when the reason for renouncing is to avoid taxation, and might not apply to relinquishment under §349(a)(4) regardless of reason since it uses the verb renounce rather than relinquish.
Why might the verb matter? The only parts of INA §349 that use the verb renounce are the ones about explicitly swearing or affirming an oath or affirmation of renunciation, not the other potentially expatriating acts. Relinquishment is the broader term in the statute which encompasses all such acts.
And I say "might" only because this amendment has been so rarely enforced that the courts haven't had occasion to rule on it. Only two people have ever been denied admission to the US under the Reed Amendment. It was a very badly drafted legal provision.
If the Pope were a mere diplomat, his immunities would be restricted to the acts directly related to his job in any country of which he’s a national or permanent resident. That’s because, unlike sovereign immunity, diplomatic immunity is based on a Vienna Convention full of restrictions like that.
There's also the interesting question of whether he will remain a US citizen after all, or whether taking the office of pope will count as him relinquishing US citizenship under INA §349(a)(4): https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/L... In the latter case, the tax question would not arise.
Existing US Department of State policy applies an administrative presumption to most cases of accepting foreign government employment that the person does not intend to relinquish US citizenship unless they affirmatively state otherwise, but they don't apply any such presumption to becoming a foreign head of state or a foreign head of government. They actively analyze such cases individually with no default presumption.
Pope Leo XIV will lose his US citizenship due to his acceptance of the papacy if and only if he intended to relinquish US citizenship by that act, based on the standard of proof of the preponderance of the evidence (the same as in civil lawsuits). He has the right to dispute the question in court if he and the US Department of State disagree on the answer, but I imagine this would in practice be handled more quietly for such a high-profile case.
I couldn't imagine a Pope applying for a pay raise. Or rather, to whom would the Pope got to get a pay raise ... hm ;)
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.
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.
His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, By the Grace of God Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem, etc.; Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator, of Teschen, Friaul, Ragusa and Zara; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trento and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro and on the Windic March; Grand Voivode of the Voivodeship of Serbia
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_title_of_the_emperor_of_... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_Austria#Titles,_s...
Ratzinger resigned.
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...
By the Grace of God Emperor of Austria; Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria; King of Jerusalem etc.; Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Bukowina; Grand Prince of Transylvania, Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Silesia, Modena, Parma, Piacenza, Guastalla, Auschwitz and Zator, Teschen, Friuli, Dubrovnik and Zadar; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenburg etc.; Lord of Trieste, Kotor and the Windic March, Grand Voivod of the Voivodeship of Serbia etc.
> 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.
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.
> [Honorary knighthoods] are a way for the UK to recognize the achievements of individuals who are not UK citizens. They are awarded on the advice of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and are conferred by the Crown.
> In the US, accepting a title of nobility from a foreign state is prohibited without the consent of Congress. However, this prohibition is different from accepting an honorary knighthood, which is more of a recognition or award rather than a title of nobility.
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.
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.
(Credit: https://x.com/ArmandDoma/status/1920530249567056056)
Presumably there’s some symbolism to why the new pope wanted to adopt this particular name.
Alright, so here's the scoop, rapid-fire style:
### *Pope Innocent*
There were 13 Popes named Innocent (yes, really), and a few of them made serious waves:
* *Innocent III (1198–1216)*: Easily the GOAT of the Innocents. He:
* Claimed supreme authority over all European monarchs (lol divine-right checkmate),
* Launched the Fourth Crusade (the one that sacked *Christian* Constantinople, oops),
* Convened the Fourth Lateran Council (massive doctrinal flex: transubstantiation, papal primacy, etc.).
* Issued the witch-hunting bull *Summis desiderantes*, basically legalizing the Inquisition's nastier tactics,
* Had *illegitimate children*—not exactly celibate—but hey, nepotism was in vogue.
* Condemning the Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years’ War because it weakened Catholic power.
There were 12 Piuses (yeah, they were into repetition), with *Pius IX* and *Pius XII* being the most talked about:
* *Pius IX (1846–1878)*: Longest reigning pope ever (31 years!). Key things:
* Declared the *dogma of the Immaculate Conception*,
* Convened Vatican I (the council that said the pope is infallible when speaking *ex cathedra*),
* Lost the Papal States—literally went from a prince to a prisoner in the Vatican.
* He’s accused by some of staying silent during the Holocaust,
* Others argue he did more behind the scenes and saved many Jews secretly.
* Canonization is still a hot topic for him.http://www.popepiusclock.com is a thing
My guess is new Pope Leo 14 will try to thread the needle on rising global interest in experimenting with socialism and the possible ramifications of AI automation.
The three most recent popes are the longest run of Popes with none choosing the name (counting JPI as choosing both of two recent predecessos) of a recent (one, two, or three back) predecessor since the 1500s.
(John Paul II is also something of an anomaly, because John Paul I died barely a month into his papacy and so didn't have time to put in place any real agenda. John Paul II was more commemorating John Paul I the man.)
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.
https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/05/08/pope-leo-xiv-is-a-cu...
https://abc7chicago.com/post/2025-is-new-pope-cardinal-rober...
(via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43928742, but we merged that thread hither)
I'm seeing a lot of shade thrown at the new Pope just for opposing Trump and his policies. Some even go as far as to call him a "woke Marxist Pope". Not very christian.
See Wikipedia for deeper discussion of the use of the term in English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)
> 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
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!)
With the construction of tall city blocks and the breezes off of Lake Michigan, the atmospheric use has become somewhat more true. No more so than most USAmerican cities though.
The elements of the conflict now raging are unmistakable, in the vast expansion of industrial pursuits and the marvelous discoveries of science; in the changed relations between masters and workmen; in the enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses; the increased self reliance and closer mutual combination of the working classes; as also, finally, in the prevailing moral degeneracy. The momentous gravity of the state of things now obtaining fills every mind with painful apprehension; wise men are discussing it; practical men are proposing schemes; popular meetings, legislatures, and rulers of nations are all busied with it - actually there is no question which has taken deeper hold on the public mind.”
From the last Pope Leo over 100 years ago.
Btw how do you know this?! Have you memorized stuff of all the passed popes?
I was raised Catholic and couldn't have even told you there'd been a single Pope Leo, let alone 13 of them before today. The only Pope quote I could even give you is the term "Ex Cathedra".
For further details see the encyclical's Wikipedia entry at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_Novarum
For the text itself: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docum...
https://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/...
At least in the contemporary western world, if not throughout the entire world, the human imagination concerning both religious faith and ethics is largely shaped by mass media, especially by television and cinema. Western mass media is extraordinarily effective in fostering within the general public enormous sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the Gospel.
However, overt opposition to Christianity by mass media is only part of the problem. The sympathy for anti-Christian lifestyle choices that mass media fosters is so brilliantly and artfully engrained in the viewing public, that when people hear the Christian message it often inevitably seems ideological and emotionally cruel by contrast to the ostensible humaneness of the anti-Christian perspective.
If the “New Evangelization” is going to counter these mass media-produced distortions of religious and ethical reality successfully, pastors, preachers, teachers and catechists are going to have to become far more informed about the challenge of evangelizing in a world dominated by mass media.
The Fathers of the Church, including Saint Augustine, can provide eminent guidance for the Church in this aspect of the New Evangelization, precisely because they were masters of the art of rhetoric. Their evangelizing was successful in great part because they understood the foundations of social communication appropriate to the world in which they lived.
In order to combat successfully the dominance of the mass media over popular religious and moral imaginations, it is not sufficient for the Church to own its own television media or to sponsor religious films. The proper mission of the Church is to introduce people to the nature of mystery as an antidote to spectacle. Religious life also plays an important role in evangelization, pointing others to this mystery, through living faithfully the evangelical counsels.That username had already been taken. How about Leo14?
Fine.
xeromal•5h ago
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•5h ago
netsharc•4h ago
In the past wasn't the church basically a political entity, there was even a period when some kingdoms didn't recognize the Vatican pope... (I suppose it's still is very much a political organization)
tough•4h ago
alabastervlog•3h ago
Medieval Catholic monasteries were basically corporations where the board lived together and spent tons of time praying and celebrating festivals. Prayers were like NFTs and they traded them to nobles in exchange for traditionally-productive capital, which the corporation would then manage to provide them goods and monetary revenue.
Here I was tempted to write "the past was weird" but then we have actual NFTs and those are amazingly silly, so, how weird was it really?
yjftsjthsd-h•3h ago
ImJamal•59m ago