Jump to content

THE POPE


cyron
 Share

Recommended Posts

sleep.gif I wanted Cardinal Ouellet to become the new pope... Oh well...

I'm actually glad this didn't happen considering how conservative his abortion views are, especially towards children spawned due to rape.

I mean sure, national pride, but I don't think I'd have that with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A non-European? Alright, that did surprise me.

haha i actually responded to that on the FE4 thread, but i suppose the proper place would be this thread.

it's not surprising at all. the Catholic church is losing credibility among the European/US population, something that is evident with their dwindling church attendances. all the scandals that have hit the catholic church have been detrimental for their image in increasingly secular societies.

now South America, Africa, and Asia are the continents where the Catholic church still has an appreciable influence, with their catholic populations increasing and such. since Europe and the US are essentially lost causes that selecting a pope from their area will have minimal effect for the church's popularity, they obviously went for the wiser decision and selected a pope from one of the nations with a constant and/or growing catholic base. like that, those people form a stronger tie with the catholic church, since hey, the pope is just like me.

even the fact that they chose an Argentinan for the pope position isn't all that surprising. Ethnically and culturally, Argentina is still very tied with Italy, with over half of the Argentinan citizens being of Italian descent. Essentially, they decided to have an ethnic pope, but not TOO ethnic, because the old farts in the Catholic church aren't ready to select a full blood African pope.

I'm actually glad this didn't happen considering how conservative his abortion views are, especially towards children spawned due to rape.

I mean sure, national pride, but I don't think I'd have that with him.

you mean, compared to the rest of the pope candidates? you'll hardly find any cardinal/bishop/priest who has different views, some are just more vocal than others.

Edited by Liz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that they picked a South/American, yeah, but I haven't managed to get myself informed about just what it means and why the pope selection was even treated to be a big deal, outside national pride and how it's the first time a pope has retired in so many hundreds of years. One opinion somebody dropped is that keeping one's head down was a better way to compete for the spot than to campaign for it, so maybe that's why I haven't heard like anything really about the candidates (aside from an editorial ran in my newspaper that they should pick somebody from the U.S. to put a brave foot forward or whatever in a declining but [religiously] influential region, which was a larf and a half).

That and I'm assuming nobody (at least among the people who'd actually be the ones doing it) is going to seriously suggest they'll turn a new leaf and start using their pedestal to advocate embracing the gays and the poor and the further-down outcasts, or do much of anything else that might actually make a difference in my opinion of the church at large.

Edited by Rehab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that they picked a South/American, yeah, but I haven't managed to get myself informed about just what it means and why the pope selection was even treated to be a big deal, outside national pride and how it's the first time a pope has retired in so many hundreds of years. One opinion somebody dropped is that keeping one's head down was a better way to compete for the spot than to campaign for it, so maybe that's why I haven't heard like anything really about the candidates (aside from an editorial ran in my newspaper that they should pick somebody from the U.S. to put a brave foot forward or whatever in a declining but [religiously] influential region, which was a larf and a half).

That and I'm assuming nobody (at least among the people who'd actually be the ones doing it) is going to seriously suggest they'll turn a new leaf and start using their pedestal to advocate embracing the gays and the poor and the further-down outcasts, or do much of anything else that might actually make a difference in my opinion of the church at large.

the pope selection has always been a big deal, ever since the position was invented. that's why there was that massive schism where there was actually two popes at once back in the 1300s or so. i believe it was called the Western Schism or something

whatever, the point is, the position as head honcho of all the Catholic church has always been a terribly big deal. it's just that there were some unique aspects of this particular election, what with the pope resigning and the shitstorm that's developing thanks to the pedophile scandals.

and everything about the papal elections has always been kept under wraps. i'm pretty sure there's some campaigning for the position within the Cardinals, but normal people have no say or influence in the cardinals' decision since it's not a popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah I know wars have been fought about the papacy and it has spun the wheels of politics many times over through history, I just don't honestly know what exactly the pope is supposed to impact today, or why people who aren't religious (guilty here) or who don't particularly care for most of the church's opinions (to the extent I know them, also guilty here) have direct cause to pay it mind. Aside from observing the passage of history and all that.

Like I know the church is still a pretty wealthy organization, does charity and missionary work, but being that church and state have been so far separated in most cases at this point, it seems to me the church holds views too outdated (conception bad, traditional marriage, yadda yadda) which are already known too well for it to be a very influential voice to the ears of either the people of the world or their governments, unless it radically changes.

Not that it's not a thing, it's definitely a thing, I just don't know what that thing entails, either for everybody to whom it has significance, or for everybody that doesn't consider religion a big part of their lives.

Edited by Rehab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still an old white guy, I see

Moving on to less offensive comment, I for one welcome our new Argentinian overlords, may they spread throughout the world like a plague WOW I'm not even doing a little well today. I...really just don't care I guess. Meh, atheism leads to just not giving two shits about other people's faiths, so I'll just move on. Other than a few jokes here or there that'll probably land me in hospital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Us?" I didn't know you were catholic.

Enough of your nitpicks, boy. I was trying to make an amused comment.

Edited by Shuuda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, they've got a new old cross dressing man who never has sex to tell us all how to have sex?

well, considering all the information leaks from the Vatican in these past few months, you can't really say for sure he's never had sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, they've got a new old cross dressing man who claims to never has sex to tell us all how to have sex?

fixed for all the nitpickers

also about Ouellet, that man is Santorum levels of backwords, more than most other candidates (except the "kill the gays" african guy, but that doesn't say much)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second Liz's initial post about the Argentinan selection and echo Rehab's sentiments about this being totally irrelevant to anyone's daily lives.

I actually believe it does have relevance even to non-christians (I consider myself one of those), since the Church still means a lot politically, and politics isn't something we can just forget about and go live our happy lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that I haven't seen outstanding reason to believe that the new guy's anything but practically more of the same, and more of the same is to me effectively nothing at all. If he helps kick into shape the church's practices regarding the sex scandals in which its employees are embroiled, pushes for it to become more accepting of peoples outside the umbrella of heterosexuality, and embraces a total reworking of its stance on contraception, fantastic, he'll have done me a direct solid, but I'm unaware of any reason I should have to hold my breath. So much the better for everyone within the church who wants it if he also (or alternatively) ends clerical celibacy, allows for the ordination of women, and builds an atmosphere where more flexibility in general and dissent among the clergy is allowed. I just don't know if I can expect any of it to happen, or what else he has any particular likelihood of doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

allows for the ordination of women,

I'm always interested in what goes on in the heads of people who say "if only these people would reject their beliefs but still purport to believe then I'd like them more."

Seriously, there are so many of you that say "if the Catholic Church did A B and C then I'd like them more" but many of those things you want them to stop are pretty explicitly written in the Bible. 1 Timothy 2:11-12, for example, in reference to your ordination of women thing.

Now, contraception and not allowing priests to marry are both things that the Bible doesn't comment on, so I have no issue with you saying you wish they'd change their views on that, but so many other things brought up in this topic and elsewhere are just silly. It's perfectly fine if you don't like the stance the catholic church takes on certain things. That is rational to me. You don't believe so why would you agree with them? But to say that they should do things a certain way yet still call themselves a church? You might as well say "The catholic church should stop being Christian." Which, again, if you were to be intellectually honest about it all I wouldn't mind. It's just when you say one thing but either pretend it doesn't mean something else or just don't understand it means something else, I wonder what goes through your head.

Edited by Narga_Rocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Narga: What, so people aren't allowed to say that they'd like a form of the Catholic Church less strictly tied to the word of the Bible? Considering the fact that Christianity itself was essentially a modernizing of Judaism to appeal to Roman society, I don't see what's wrong with Christianity continuing to grow in its understanding of the mission of Christ. The story of the Church is one of reconciling the timeless moral decrees of God with the understanding of morality brought to mankind by its own historical experience. The Church has grown and changed in time. There's no reason to fear that process.

Furthermore you're willfully misinterpreting what Rehab said. At no point did he say the Church should do X, only that he would like them more if they did X. Acting like Rehab (or anyone else criticizing the Church) is demanding that the Church change is completely disingenuous, and the attacking attitude carried with it completely counterproductive. Outsider opinions ought to be welcomed; the Church's primary issue in the Western world is its rapid loss in appeal over the past few decades, and so the first step in the solution would be to listen to what those outside the Church feel about it. No one said the Church has to do what the outsiders suggest, but when your organization is by definition needing to appeal to them, it's foolish to brush them off and act like their thought processes don't make sense and aren't worth considering.

I actually believe it does have relevance even to non-christians (I consider myself one of those), since the Church still means a lot politically, and politics isn't something we can just forget about and go live our happy lives.

Yes, but the specific appointment of a same-old-business pope does not. That's where the sentiment comes from. Had the Church appointed someone significantly different from the Church status quo on the usual array of religious-centric political issues, then sure, it would matter. But we're allowed to discuss things in the specific context of which new pope has been selected, and this new pope doesn't provide anything different from that status quo, so it's reasonable to expect that the new appointment won't change much of what's happening.

Edited by PresidentEden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...