I'm not a catholic but I decided to watch the new Conclave movie as well as a Tasting History by Max Miller to learn a little bit about it. Very interesting but I'd love a historical movie on some of the past conclaves when the pope managed a standing army.
Edit: The Max Miller video was about the baby back ribs cooked in proto-bbq sauce made from grapes that was eaten by a conclave.
In the past wasn't the church basically a political entity, there was even a period when some kingdoms didn't recognize the Vatican pope... (I suppose it's still is very much a political organization)
A bunch of Buddhist monasteries were also banks, back in the day.
Medieval Catholic monasteries were basically corporations where the board lived together and spent tons of time praying and celebrating festivals. Prayers were like NFTs and they traded them to nobles in exchange for traditionally-productive capital, which the corporation would then manage to provide them goods and monetary revenue.
Here I was tempted to write "the past was weird" but then we have actual NFTs and those are amazingly silly, so, how weird was it really?
The Church isn't a political entity per se since the Church didn't hold the power over the Papal States or Vatican City. It is the Pope who held both church and secular power.
The field of candidates in this conclave was relatively open compared to the past few conclaves, so it is a little surprising that the cardinals were able to come to a consensus by the fourth ballot. That suggests that one of the initial front runners (likely Parolin or Tagle) was able to generate momentum early on and get the 2/3 majority pretty quickly. But we'll see in about 30 minutes if the cardinals have surprised us all with someone completely different!
Given the number of cardinals Pope Francis appointed, I would imagine there's a fairly strong consensus at least on the direction of the church, which in theory would eliminate a strongly divided conclave, at least.
It's not quite so obvious that all of Francis's appointees were lockstop in line with his vision. Up until the last consistory he tended to appoint cardinals from the "peripheries," places that did not historically have a strong presence in the Church. (For instance he appointed a cardinal from Mongolia and one from the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia.) These cardinals are a bit of wildcard.
But given that the conclave was so short that does suggest that there was not much division over direction.
I used to be a CNBC junkie. Before there was crypto I used to enjoy adopting a penny stock and watching the ticker for it very closely; you can learn a lot about market dynamics when you are trading a stock where you buy $2000 of stock and that is 30% of the volume for the day. (Try $KBLB for a stock where if you think the price is too high or too low you will find that both opinions are vindicated if you wait long enough.)
Also those trades occurring "millions and millions" of times a day as opposed to a new pope every decade or so.
The comparison that I think matters is that the Pope and the Dalai Lama are the best-known religious leaders there are. I mean there used to be Billy Graham and the Ayatollah Khomeini but I think most people would struggle to name the leader of the Methodist church or Nichiren Buddhism or a rabbi of my than local importance.
Is that supposed to affect the comparison? A million trades seen by a thousand people each* isn't impressive, and numbers like that happen in all kinds of situations.
This is about the huge number of people knowing about a single event right away.
* I say a thousand here because even someone glued to every number on CNBC is parsing nowhere near millions of numbers. A much smaller sliver of people will see each of those individual trades.
What I was thinking is that a billion people all around the globe got an involuntary information upload all at roughly the same time.
Being on the street hearing the bells and recognizing what it meant while a huge number of people all around the globe have the same realization at the same time feels somehow incredibly connecting, and not even necessarily at a religious level.
Pretty sure the US presidential election is on par.
Maybe the exact timing is ambiguous since candidates usually declare victory/admit defeat before all the votes have been counted officially, but still.
> Pretty sure the US presidential election is on par.
Contested US elections are logistically, a huge mess that takes forever to resolve, and even when the writing is on the wall, everybody waits and hemms and hawws because <some other network hasn't called it yet>, <so we can't call it>. (And that's not even counting the potential faithless electors, a potential coup in the House, conspiracies to commit election fraud directed from the president's office, etc.)
Canadian elections are figured out and their results are broadcast to the world before Western Canada even finishes voting. (Spoilers: It's always all blue starting from Manitoba and going all the way to the eastern fringes of Greater Vancouver.)
They are, of course, utterly uninteresting, with the last one coming and going without even a mention on the front page of Hacker News.
Blue starts at Saskatchewan not MB. Please stop spreading this idea that everyone on the Prairies is analagous to a bible-thumping Albertan. Rural Ontario also
goes mostly conservative ; just like every other province, the split is urban and rural. Alberta and Sask buck this trend by having much higher consistent Con representation in the big cties. Manitoba does not. Only 2 Winnipeg ridings went Con and one was due to heavy vote splitting. Northern Mb is a consistent safe riding for the ndp or libs which is unheard of for a rural riding in AB or Sk.
Yes the whole world is somewhat curious who the president is but especially in timezones where it's inconvenient to follow that it's more a "we'll read it in the news later" thing.
The fact that a new pope has been elected is an information is information you don't need to look for because it's announced through one of the oldest public announencement systems ( the church bells )
Here in Ljubljana too. I wasn't even fully aware of them, doing something else, but somehow it made me check my phone and there was the news bulletin, only a couple of minutes old.
I think that gets close since you can hear them from the reaction around you, but I don't think it's a equally distributed.
You may have regions where the fans are very vocal but you also have a lot of regions where people don't care all that much especially if you are in a region that got eliminated in an early round
I'm in the UK and you simply didn't have that kind of reaction because Anglican church does not care about the pope. I asked my friend group if they've heard there was a new pope elected and their reaction was "what happened to the last one?".
It was on the news but there were no bells ringing etc. Same as in your football example I suppose.
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.
Annoyingly, when I go to that page, even from Google where I found that URL too, I end up at the German homepage www.history.de (no path, the main page). I cannot go to history.com no matter what.
I hate "intelligent" websites as much as I like touchpad microwaves, and that means not at all. Why would anyone assume an enforced(!!!) connection between my geographic location and the language-version of the website?
It's one of the classic falsehoods that programmers (or perhaps more accurately, product managers) believe about localization: that location equals language.
From Catholic News Agency [1], for your convenience:
The history of the white smoke, which indicates that the cardinals have elected a new successor of St. Peter, is ancient. In 1274, at the Second Council of Lyons, Pope Gregory X, in a document titled Ubi Periculum, determined the procedure for holding a conclave.
There he specified that the election would be done in isolation and with strict secrecy. For this reason, and to avoid any communication with the outside, the smoke signal was eventually adopted as part of the ritual. The tradition of burning ballots goes back to at least 1417, and likely before then, according to historian Frederic J. Baumgartner. The addition of the white spoke to announce the election of a new pope is more recent, however. Baumgartner traces it to 1914, with the election of Pope Benedict XV.
If the smoke coming out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel is black, it means that none of the proposed candidates has reached two-thirds of the votes needed to be elected. If the smoke is white, the Church has a new universal pastor.
In ancient times, the method to give the smoke these colors was to burn the ballots used in the voting with a bit of wet straw so that it would come out black, or dry so as to obtain white smoke.
Nowadays, and due to some episodes that caused confusion, special chemical compounds and a procedure that includes two different tubes, one for each color of smoke, are used.
In addition, a bell is rung, part of the ritual introduced when Pope Benedict XVI was elected, which confirms the smoke is white and a new pope has been elected.
> The addition of the white smoke to announce the election of a new pope is more recent, however. Baumgartner traces it to 1914 [...]
but also
> In ancient times, the method to give the smoke these colors was to burn the ballots used in the voting with a bit of wet straw [...]
In ... the ancient times of 1914? Something's wrong here.
(For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article about this says that before 1914 black smoke meant "we held a ballot but it didn't successfully choose a new pope" and no smoke meant something other than that, though it's not clear there what the "we got one" signal was. The Wikipedia article, unlike the Catholic News Agency one, cites some references, but I haven't checked them.)
It definitely can’t be “ancient times” because the Sistine Chapel chimney was only added in the 18th century to protect Michelangelo’s frescos from the soot of burning ballots (1417 is just the oldest known reference to the practice, it’s likely older than that).
The whole black smoke/no smoke didn’t start out as a signal but everyone kept trying to interpret them as such in the 19th century. Black smoke meant no election and no smoke was ambiguous so they eventually switched to white smoke to keep the public from going crazy speculating. L
The first reference to non-black smoke I can find is in "Conclave di Leone XIII" by Raffaele De Cesare about the 1878 conclave (Leo XIII’s election):
> "Cardinal Borromeo, tasked with burning the ballots, burned them without straw, and the smoke was barely visible. There were few people in the square. The external steps of St. Peter's were full of onlookers until midday, but after the smoke, it slowly emptied. No one supposed that the Pope had been elected." (translated from Italian)
The 1914 conclave is the commonly accepted date because Pius X decreed in 1904 that all papers relating to the election (not just the ballots themselves) were to be burned after the voting. Since they’d burn all the others papers (without wet straw) only after a successful election, it would produce a lot more white smoke so the Catholic church made an administrative decision to make that into an explicit signal (though I think they use something to “enrich” the color now).
Yeah I usually don't pay attention but as an American, rock on Pope Leo! I think this is a nice plus in a sea of minuses that has hit the USA lately as far as it's status in the world looking more and more like the bad guy.
It's a modern rhetorical fallacy that science is directly antithetical to religion, when many of history's greatest scientists were themselves "spiritual" in some way (though that degree of spirituality may have ranged from near-atheistic scientific pantheism a la Einstein and Sagan, to members of the clergy). I am glad there are still numerous counterexamples of those with firm educations in hard STEM fields that still contemplate the divine.
Probably two modern developments presaged this viewpoint: the laughable apologetics of the Creationists, which have already been refuted ad nauseam by the New Atheists; and semantic drift and inaccurate (or even lacking) definitions for the word "god," which is probably better understood in modern English as "mind" or "mental construct" or "the abstract" (as contrasted with the "concrete" or physical body a la Descartes, in a similar fashion to the distinction between the rarefied air of mathematical models, and the hard reality of physical law).
It's easy to chastise an ideology when you misunderstand some of its most basic terminology, as has been done with words like "god" or "spirituality."
Ironically I often find it is people who are not educated in STEM that cleave most vociferously to the point of view that religion and science are fundamentally irreconcilable.
Well, to be fair "thought deeply" might mean "engaged in a scholasticism-tier effort of apologetics to argue a position it held to be true a priori"...
>It even accepts evolution and the big bang theory
There's no need for "even" in the sentence. Georges Lemaître who was the originator of the big bang theory was a literal catholic priest and theoretical physicist, and funnily enough the theory was originally accused of bringing religious bias into physics.
Likewise prominent Catholics who were Darwin's contemporaries like John Henry Newman had no issue with evolution back then either. The Church fathers never read the bible like a positivist text. (this is a very 20th century fundamentalist invention)
True, but in online discussion about religion, Genesis (aka the big bang and evolution) is often the most contended point, even for those who don't have a literal view of the Bible. the discovery of chemical elements or the proof of Fermat's theorem is also scientific, but has another weight than the aforementioned two. Hence "even."
I’ve seen Americans in Westminster Abbey puzzled and faintly outraged that Charles Darwin is buried there. It’s true that later in life he moved away from his faith, but did so privately and even then his main issue was the problem of suffering.
"I 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...
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?"
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.
"Whereas Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay clerics, Cardinal Prevost has expressed less welcoming views to L.G.B.T.Q. people.
In a 2012 address to bishops, he lamented that Western news media and popular culture fostered “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel.” He cited the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.”"
> However, regarding the Vatican’s 2023 document Fiducia Supplicans, which permits non-liturgical blessings for couples in irregular situations (including same-sex couples), Prevost emphasized the need for national bishops’ conferences to have doctrinal authority to interpret and apply such directives in their local contexts, given cultural differences.
Curious, do you think he's wrong that it's at odds with what was taught by the apostles? It's obviously unpopular, but I have yet to see a convincing argument (based in the teachings of the Bible) that promotes same-sex marriages.
If I were in his position, and part of my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy scriptures," then I would probably want to be as accurate as possible.
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.
I think the crux of the problem is that with all the statements the Bible makes, at a plain reading of the text, who are we, as mere humans to decide which parts should be strictly adhered to, or which parts should not, or which parts mean something completely different from the plain reading? As far as I can tell there is no consistent application of logic and understanding what parts matter and which parts do not. And depending on who you talk to, those parts change.
I understand that as part of the faith, it is not our place to know the reason God has chosen. However, I believe that there are very serious concerns about the intentions of the people 'qualified' to interpret the texts. Relying on "just trust us" gets us into big trouble, fast.
As the saying goes, the devil may quote scripture too.
> As far as I can tell there is no consistent application of logic and understanding what parts matter and which parts do not
I would disagree. The art of hermeneutics has been around for a _long_ time and has been refined over time as we develop new understandings about the ancient cultures that wrote these documents. So, yes, things do change, but I would argue they do not _dramatically_ change. For example, the message of "the gospel" has been the same since the founding apostles. But our understanding of something like Genesis 1 has changed dramatically over the years as our understanding of the sciences, history, etc. increase.
For much of Christian history the Bible was largely interpreted as being pro slavery and against interracial marriage. Most people now disagree with those interpretations. There is growing support for LGBT within the church. Here's one example https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/introducin...
The Bible doesn't even have the concept of race as we understand it today, because that concept is a very recent invention (to my understanding). Anyone using it to support anti-interracial marriage positions would be doing so anachronistically, rendering their own claim invalid.
Not the New Testament. Christianity has the luxury (compared to some other religions..) of having very few "divinely ordained" rules. The teachings of Jesus supersede the stuff from the Old testament (the one with all not very nice things) however they are rather vague and undefined.
So various churches can freely pick/discard almost whatever they want besides the 10 commandments while Muslims can't exactly just throw away the Quran or Hadith (which are much more specific)..
> The teachings of Jesus supersede the stuff from the Old testament (the one with all not very nice things) however they are rather vague and undefined.
Except Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and not one stroke of a letter of the law will pass away. So he didn't change anything about slavery, mistreatment of women, etc.
He also said 'Love your neighbor as yourself' and a bunch of similar things. Which kind of makes it complicated. I guess selling other people to slavery is fine as long as you also sell yourself (just like mistreating others).
> didn't change anything about slavery, mistreatment of women, etc.
The "fulfill" bit is rather ambiguous. AFAIK the most popular interpretation (certainly when it comes to ceremonial rules like not eating pork/shellfish/etc.) is that his intention was to "bring the law to its intended goal/purpose" rather than to maintain it in perpetuity.
But none of that ever applied to gentiles. Not before Christ, not after. Jews today do not claim that non-Jews are obliged to, or even ought to, perform any Mitzvot whatsoever -- and that's despite generally acknowledging that there are universal moral laws which bind all "children of Noah".
So if the remaining Jews continue following the Old Covenant, but others choose to rather follow Jesus' 'New and Eternal Covenant', then where would this obligation towards Old Testament law come from?
To be fair modern Jews don't really follow the laws from the book of Deuteronomy (the one with rape -> marriage thing..) either due to other (but in a way kind of similar) reasons
Jesus never said he was superseding a single thing. His entire ministry was about railing against the legalistic structure of the Pharisees, who were more interested in following "the Law" than having common sense or taking care of people. His ministry was about Jews, for Jews, and had nothing to do with gentiles at all. The grifter Paul is the one who opened up their cult to gentiles.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”
Yup. He said that in the Bible. But he also fed people on the Sabbath because there were people needing to be fed, not because the recognition of the Sabbath day was abolished, but because the ridiculous legalistically dogmatic adherence to the Law was harming people. Just like today, where we've got ICE agents rushing parents and leaving their children alone in the backs of their vehicles. Also, his fulfillment was about being the sacrifice that sinners couldn't make for themselves, not about ignoring Old Testament laws.
Interesting that you should mention the Old Testament. 2025 is a year of Ordinary Jubilee. I'd invite you to research what a Jubilee Year meant to the Jews, and what it currently means to Christians. Because Jubilee Years have never been abolished.
Hint: there's parts about freeing slaves, about repatriating foreigners, and about fallow fields. It's really sort of awe-inspiring how our secular government is implementing Jubilee by fiat.
Prooftexting is not a good idea. If you think you have a gotcha, then you should get in line with the multitude of teenagers who think they've bested the Church with a verse, and from a bad translation at that.
Think about it. It's been thousands of years. A little humility is called for. You're not the first or the last to make flippant remarks like this without understanding.
That's not exactly a "gotcha." The church's official stance on women has changed drastically over the last couple millenia. It's reasonable to suggest that its stance on same-sex couples might eventually change as well.
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.
Indeed. You can find yourself in some very frustrating loops, down to the parsing of words back to the original languages they were translated from, when trying to argue the Bible as a sole foundation for literally everything.
Source: grew up in churches that tried to do just that.
Which leads to many Protestants saying the Bible is infallible, but which books belong to the Bible is not infallible. Which, don't tell them, means they have no clue if the books they think are infallible are actually infallible.
Yes, this is accurate, they have a whole element of "tradition" that gets encompassed into teachings. However, I may be wrong, but these "traditions" mostly came out of areas where the Bible wasn't super clear. I suppose that's where the debate is, then, because it seems to be a minority view that the Bible doesn't have a clear definition of marriage.
That is true, but doctrine does need to not violate scripture. So if the Bible prohibits something (which IMO it pretty clearly does prohibit gay relationships), the church can't say "well actually it's ok now". If that did happen it would cause quite a crisis for the church, since it is a Catholic article of faith that God guides the official dogma of the church as he guided the humans who wrote the books in the Bible. So if the two are in disagreement, the whole faith kinda collapses.
The Old Testament said to not eat pork. The church today says it's okay. It also says not to keep the festivals of the pagans specifically one where you cut down a tree and adorn it with ornaments, yet it is now top two "holy" holidays
If you're genuinely interested in learning more (and not just sneering at your outgroup), then I would suggest reading "Hard Sayings" by Trent Horn. In that book, he attempts to tackle some of the more difficult (to modern minds) passages in the Bible and explain why things that may seem contradictory are not necessarily so. This is definitely a topic where theologians and apologists have thought about it and tried to come up with answers.
This is usually taught within the first year of any seminary or religious study of Christianity. It's widely understood _why_ people are now permitted to eat pork. A good place to start is reading modern commentary on Acts 11:4-6 and basically all of Romans 14.
And the New New Testament could come out and say that same sex is not taboo and there's plenty of people in the world now to not be concerned about shallow gene pools.
The point is that the canon of writings assembled into the book is based on how people think at the time. Things change and evolve. A book canonized today would probably undo even more of the old testament teachings as archaic and no longer relevant with their version of Romans 14 and Acts 11:4-6. Francis 2:8-10 or from a series of letters sent to the people of Americas instead of Corinthians. These writings are just a snap shot in time
But I don't know why we are playing hypotheticals here. Such a dramatic change (i.e., introducing Francis 2:8-10) is far outside of the bounds that have been set for thousands of years within the Catholic tradition. The original discussion was why it might be more appropriate for a Pope to have a view that reflect's the biblical understanding of marriage rather than one that fits the modern times. If he is leading the global church through interpreting scriptures and maintaining the traditions, such a dramatic change as introducing new teachings that would seemingly contradict our prior understanding of marriage would completely step outside the bounds of his office.
You keep ignoring the main point in that the canonized book was done so by men that selected writings that they felt represented the views they held. For thousands of years, pork was bad. Suddenly pork was good, so writings they felt supported that decision were included. If there were writings that taught otherwise, it was very convenient to leave them out. Look at the writings of Enoch as an example. It didn't toe the line, so it was omitted. A decision made by men.
> You keep ignoring the main point in that the canonized book was done so by men that selected writings that they felt represented the views they held
No, you're trying to trivialize changing the canon of the Bible. It's a pointless argument if you're not going to adopt the understanding of the Catholic tradition and then argue within it as the subject of this conversation is the Pope.
I was under the impression we were arguing why it's important for the Pope to have an accurate view of the Bible. Instead it seems like you're just wanting to say that it's all man-made anyways so might as well change it which is a completely foreign thought process to a genuine Catholic.
The catholic tradition of changing the canon? They modified the 10 commandments to allow for idols. Moses's own brother got in trouble for making an idol. You think that was some small change? They did it to increase their membership and income streams. Allow the pagans with their mother/son idols to keep them with a Mary/BabyJesus rename, and bada-bing, new members. So excuse me if I don't hold their respect for canon quite so sacrosanct as you apparently do.
> I don't hold their respect for canon quite so sacrosanct as you apparently do.
That's fine, it just makes it pointless to make a argument for what the office of Pope should and shouldn't do. It's like going into a Muslim country and telling everyone how stupid their views are because you don't respect their holy texts. Why bother?
That was my point, you're not interested in having an actual conversation. Which is fine. That's why I said I had a misunderstanding of what was going on here. But it's clear now.
The Bible is a book used by a much wider audience than the Pope's followers. The pope at the time just tweaked the book to increase his followers. A very convenient reasoning from the Pope's perspective. So you seem to not be accepting that on why would a pope should and shouldn't do.
Since the time of the canonizing of the book, lots of history has happened where the pope of the time has softened some of what was traditional practices. Again, not sure why it is okay to accept some pope from historical time could canonize the bible, but a future pope would not have similar authority to make further amendments. He is the Vicar after all, and is infallible. Unless you do not believe that about modern popes??
I said you were trivializing it, not that it was impossible. My original comment is it's "far outside the bounds" of what has been traditionally done by Pope's. To suggest that the answer to the question on marriage is to introduce an entirely new canon to the Bible that appears to contradict previous books of the canon (I supposed he'd have to remove those at the same time) is simply unprecedented and has never once occurred in the history of the church since the Bible was canonized.
> You keep ignoring the main point in that the canonized book was done so by men that selected writings that they felt represented the views they held
No, you're trying to trivialize changing the canon of the Bible. It's a pointless argument if you're not going to adopt the understanding of the Catholic tradition and then argue within it as the subject of this conversation is the Pope.
I was under the impression we were arguing why it's important for the Pope to have an accurate view of the Bible. Instead it seems like you're just wanting to say that it's all man-made anyways so might as well change it which is a completely thought process to a genuine Catholic.
Biblical interpretation does not work like that. Later texts cannot abrogate earlier texts. Whatever they say must dovetail with the things said earlier, not contradict them. That actually doesn't leave a lot of manoeuvring room (as in, any room) for changing core beliefs.
Christians can't agree on pretty much anything in the Bible, which is why there are thousands of different sects, and a Wikipedia entry for "schisms in Christianity" that is dozens of entries long.
I don't think that's a fair statement. For example, a large majority of denominations (I'd say >80%) agree on something like the Apostle's Creed [1]. But yes, for less core doctrines, there are sometimes dozens of flavors.
It's important to realize that while the pope's main role is to guard revelation from corruption and manipulation, the teachings on same-sex attraction and the gay lifestyle do not require revelation. They rely solely on the natural law. Ethics rooted in unaided reason suffices.
I don't think you know what natural law means. This is from wikipedia.
It wouldn't matter if 99% of animals and humans were gay.
> Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophical and legal theory that posits the existence of a set of inherent laws derived from nature and universal moral principles, which are discoverable through reason. In ethics, natural law theory[2] asserts that certain rights and moral values are inherent in human nature and can be understood universally, independent of enacted laws or societal norms. In jurisprudence, natural law—sometimes referred to as iusnaturalism[3] or jusnaturalism,[4] but not to be confused with what is called simply naturalism in legal philosophy[5][6]—holds that there are objective legal standards based on morality that underlie and inform the creation, interpretation, and application of human-made laws.
I don't see how an appeal to natural law holds any value since humanity has a near infinite ability for motivated reasoning. To the point where if someone advocates natural law that suggests to me either that they have a serious lack of wisdom or they aren't arguing in good faith.
Natural law isn't really related to the reason why people are motivated to do something. It is considered one motivation, but not the only one.
Also, what does your comment have to do with gay penguins that i was responding to? I was just trying to show natural law has nothing to do with gay animals.
If you're basing everything on the Bible, then you must understand that the Bible was canonized by men in a way that fit their beliefs. Even the beloved 10 commandments are different for Catholics than from the Old Testament. After getting to an age to understand this, the holiness of the scripture just lost its bling for me.
The catholic version makes no mention about idols. It then splits covet into 2 separate commandments; one about neighbor's wife, the second about neighbor's things. There are many websites with much more details easily found with a simple search comparing differences of the catholic ten commandments
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/exodus/20 verse 4 starts with "You shall not make for yourself an idol". And yes, different denominations number the commandments differently, but with the exception of Samaritanism, all Abrahamic faiths agree on what the whole of them are.
The 10 commandments are the same. Catholics just order and number things differently than Protestants. Both have the same commandments, unfortunately, some Protestants can only read a sentence and don't
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!
It would be hard to argue that the bible actively promotes same-sex marriage, but I think you could reasonably argue that it says nothing on the subject and so leaves it for the church/community to decide.
There are places where the bible gives guidance for heterosexual marriages, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all other marriages are prohibited. Most people are heterosexual, so it makes sense that the bible would talk about marriage in a heterosexual context.
There are also several verses that condemn gay sex, but I think you could make the case that it's not talking about the types of loving, committed gay relationships that we have in mind today. And also, even if gay sex is forbidden, you could still hold that gay couples are allowed to get married and adopt children, but that they should remain celibate. That's rough, but Christians commonly hold that heterosexuals aren't supposed to have non-procreative sex either. For comparison, the American Jewish Conservative movement holds that male-on-male anal sex is biblically prohibited, but all other aspects of gay relationships are permitted. And even though the sexual act is forbidden, it's also forbidden to invade someone's privacy by questioning whether they're doing it.
> It would be hard to argue that the bible actively promotes same-sex marriage, but I think you could reasonably argue that it says nothing on the subject and so leaves it for the church/community to decide.
This is where I've yet to see convincing evidence. The whole meta-story of the first few chapters of Genesis was about creation. Not just creation of the universe as we know it, but the pro-creation between a man and a woman in the sanctimony of marriage.
Whether you have an overly-religious view of Genesis or not doesn't really change the fact that the original authors were clearly "sanctifying" this act of pro-creation (the "meme" if you want to use Dawkins' terms). Other cultures and tribes obviously had their own ways of sanctifying it, but in a large, almost universal majority of cases, it was always between a man and a woman.
Changing the gender to same-sex more or less destroy's the original intention of the meme. I mean, you can do it, but I don't think you're walking away with the authentic thought that was being communicated by the authors.
I'm purely speaking from an academic sense here (the art of understanding what someone wrote a long time ago). Sure, we can choose to ignore and/or change it because it's "out of date" but that leads back to a point I made elsewhere about how it's not usually within the Catholic tradition to so blatantly alter scripture.
> The whole meta-story of the first few chapters of Genesis was about creation. Not just creation of the universe as we know it, but the pro-creation between a man and a woman in the sanctimony of marriage
I find this to be a very strange reading. I never got that from the creation narrative at all. Looking through it, I only see two places that seem to be about marriage. First there's Genesis 2:22-24:
> 22. And God YHVH fashioned the side that had been taken from the man (adam) into a woman (ishah), bringing her to the man (adam). 23. Then the man (adam) said, “this one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called woman (ishah), for from a man (ish) was she taken.” 24. Hence a man (ish) leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife (ishah), so that they become one flesh.
This doesn't mention procreation at all! It seems to say that men and women come together because they have a common origin, not necessarily because it produces offspring. You could still say that this supports heterosexual marriage, but I don't see any particular reason to read it as prohibiting other types of marriage. And in fact, it seems to work fine with gay marriage – two men or two women are also presumably from the same flesh and bones as Adam and Eve.
Then there's Genesis 3:16:
> And to the woman [God] said, “I will greatly expand your hard labor—and your pregnancies; in hardship shall you bear children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.
This says something about bearing children and about male-female relationships, but it doesn't really draw the line saying that the purpose of marriage is to produce children. It also presents all of this as an unfortunate state of affairs.
I guess there's also 1:28-29:
> 28. And God created man (adam) in the divine image, creating them in the image of God—creating them male and female. 29. God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.”
That talks about reproduction, but it doesn't say anything about marriage.
> I'm purely speaking from an academic sense here (the art of understanding what someone wrote a long time ago).
Right. I think whoever wrote the creation story was trying to provide an explanation for why the world was the way it was: why the world exists, why there are seven days in a week, why there are men and women, why they have dominance over the animals, why there's suffering, why snakes have no legs, and so and so forth. I don't think they meant for the creation story to give instructions at all, except a moral that one should obey God. I don't get the impression that the author was trying to sanctify marriage or procreation at all. If they were, it seems like they would have described Adam and Eve's wedding, they would have spent more than one sentence on the birth of their first child, and they wouldn't have presented pregnancy as a curse.
> That talks about reproduction, but it doesn't say anything about marriage.
Later in chapter 2, God is quoted as saying:
> Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
Jesus himself then comes back and quote this exact verse in Genesis in the context of divorce being bad (Matthew 19). It's clearly referencing marriage within the context of creation.
You may not agree it's the central thrust of the text, and perhaps I overstated the position, but marriage between a man and a woman is certainly a major theme in these first two chapters. I'd be impressed if you can find Rabbinical texts that support a different theory.
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.
Jesus travelled around the land healing the sick and helping the poor. He didn't travel around the land with a sign saying "God hates fags".
There are just a few (oblique) mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament. It clearly wasn't a main concern. Pope Francis' interpretation always seemed completely consistent with scripture. It's the extremely heavy emphasis on homosexuality that's inconsistent with it.
Also: being gay and gay acts are two different things. Catholic priests are not supposed to engage in any sexual acts, so in that sense, it doesn't really matter if a priest is gay.
My argument based on the teachings of the Bible would be that Jesus said to judge a tree by its fruit. When I look at Christians who oppose LGBTQ people their fruit tends to be... not great. On the other hand, those who support LGBTQ people tend to be much more Christlike.
I think "progressiveness" isn't necessarily a good metric to judge an entity that believes itself to be a moral guide. It's very job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the crowd.
That's not to say the teachings are right, and of course no one has to follow the teachings. But it'd be a bit like saying, dunno, dismissing a judge's verdict on the basis of it not reflecting popular opinion. It's not meant to reflect popular opinion, but be consistent with the law.
How men of cloth treat gay people is a good litmus test for whether they’re following the Christian tenets of love and forgiveness. Like, you’re dealing with one of God’s creatures, per the Christian worldview. You can’t claim to respect God’s plan and then turn around and say you know better when it makes you feel icky.
> job is to deal moral teachings, rather than follow the crowd
An American Catholic hating and despising gays is very much following their crowd.
Many a preacher will tell you that their way of "loving" gay people is to warn them of the hellfire awaiting them if they don't quit doing gay stuff and repent.
> Many a preacher will tell you that their way of "loving" gay people is to warn them of the hellfire awaiting them if they don't quit doing gay stuff and repent
I can actually accept this. They’re expressing an opinion, nothing more. If they then proceed to ostracise that person, or refuse to recognise their relations, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness.
> If they then proceed to ostracise that person, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness.
Agreed
> or refuse to recognise their relations, that’s crossing into hate and pridefulness.
There I think we need a finer view. "Mx. Other" is important to you? Yes, absolutely, they should recognize that. What you do with "Mx. Other" is good? Absolutely not, it's harming both you and "Mx. Other" who you clearly love.
See https://boldlybeloved.com/ for a beautiful example of how to do accompanying _right_ (in my opinion).
They try so hard these days to put a "loving" spin on things but it's always the same when you get down to it.
"Sorry, gay people, your desires for sexual intimacy are actually just temptation from Satan / the corrupt nature you inherited from Adam and Eve. Now be celibate your whole life because you were born broken."
They don't say the last bit in so many words, of course.
They say the same thing to those with other sinful desires. Why is it loving to say "I know you've desired to live without eyes your whole life, but you need to accept that God didn't give you that cross" but unloving to say "I know you desire to act sexually with a member of the same sex, but God didn't make sexual relations for the purpose of unity only"?
Now explain why a sterile man and woman or a pair of hetero 65 year olds marrying isn’t “against nature” or a thwarting of the primary “reproductive purpose” of marriage.
Biblically, sex should only take place within a marriage. If it takes place within a marriage, the sex is sanctified, and non-sinful. Any sex that takes place outside the context of a marriage, is inherently sinful. That means adultery, abuse, and so on. Same-sex individuals simply cannot marry within the Biblical meaning of the term, which means that their sexual activity will not be sanctified, and will therefore be a sinful action by nature of what it is.
Being a homosexual or feeling attraction to your own sex is not sinful - it's a very difficult temptation that, with God's help, you are supposed not to give into. It's acting on this same-sex attraction that is sinful, in much the same way as acting on attraction to your neigbor's wife would be sinful.
I think it's also important to recognize that while the Catholic church has values and principles they adhere to and are unlikely to change because they are so deeply founded in tradition and scripture - for example, that marriage (as in the sacrament) is between a man and a woman - the "men of the cloth" are expected to take care of their ministry as caring and loving sheperds. But that process is often based on personal and individual relationships and they will not reach headlines in the media.
The elephant in the room is the AIDs crisis. They already had a chance to demonstrate that they were capable of disagreeing with homosexuality but still treating people with live. Instead they left them to die.
What we have now is just saying "we super duper pinky promise that we've learned our lesson and won't do the exact same thing next time even though we totally are with MAGA."
Nobody said "progressiveness" except you. People can judge it on its moral grounds.
If we dismiss criticism as being invalid because it happens to be another person's idea of "progressive," then that's surely the opposite of ignoring the crowd. That's using political labels to distract from the actual thing being discussed.
Considering there were literal pedophiles given more grace than openly gay bishops, it's a disheartening to hear "progressive" used like such a dirty word. But I guess the Overton window has shifted that much.
If there's any labelling of "dirty words", it is by you. A key tenet of Christianity is that homosexuality is, in short, bad. I don't hold that view. But also I find it weird to turn around and tut-tut at a Christian bishop because he failed to express pro-gay views. And in turn, waiting for the Catholic Church to change its mind is like saying it should bend to popular, "progressive" views. Quotes because, simply calling non-homophobia progressive is in itself reductive.
> simply calling non-homophobia progressive is in itself reductive
I think you need to reread the discussion. That is something you wrote in response to someone else. Someone expressed they found the position immoral, and you said "why are we judging people based on how progressive they are." I am explaining why that's reductive.
> But also I find it weird to turn around and tut-tut at a Christian bishop because he failed to express pro-gay views
Saying "we don't turn away gay people" is only pro-gay in the way that allowing Black people to have bank loans is pro-black. As in, not at all. It's just not anti-gay.
> A key tenet of Christianity is that homosexuality is, in short, bad
That's a motivation for bigotry, yes. It doesn't make the consequences different.
> And in turn, waiting for the Catholic Church to change its mind is like saying it should bend to popular, "progressive" views
What is progressive today is an outburst of long-standing grievances, previously quelled with violence. Gay people were killed purely on religious demonization, and legally tried in court as recently as the 50's. Not framed for a crime because they were gay, but tried for the crime of being gay. So yes, there may be an uptick in open discussion on the matter as we move into a world where we don't kill people for their sexual orientation, something we are still not out of in many parts of the world.
Now if you refuse to accept it as a moral judgement because "it sounds like what those progressives would say," that's you using a "dirty word" to refuse engaging with the topic altogether.
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.
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.
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.
> "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.
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.
Almost every American public figure was anti-LGBT in 2012. The majority of the Democratic Party including the Obama, Clinton, and Biden families were against it. It sounds ridiculous now but Donald Trump was the most LGBT friendly president in history at the time of his first inauguration.
Wait to see what he does now or find a more recent position.
I 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.
It's only a matter of time before that same person gets called out by the new pope and responds by calling him a loser. If we're lucky, that will be the catalyst that finally erodes any remaining support he has.
Don't hold your breath. My whole family are staunch Catholics and disliked Francis because of his more "liberal" leanings. Some Catholics believed he was the "anti-christ" and loved Trump. Seriously.
Exactly. The day orange loser posted his picture as the pope, you just had to read what catholics were saying in r/conservative. It was a mostly along the lines of "I don't think it was very wise to do that, but I'll never stop supporting him".
The beautiful irony is if he started to embrace the true teaching of Christ (love one another, forgive your enemies, help the poor etc), they would start to renounce him.
I'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.
The popes have long ruled that once a Catholic, you're stuck as a Catholic, though they may dispense from some requirements, sometimes.
So even the Pope would say that you don't cease to be a Catholic if you call him an anti-Christ. Maybe excommunicated, but to be excommunicated you have to be Catholic.
> It strikes me as fairly irrelevant what Catholics call ex-Catholics.
> I don't think you can call yourself a Catholic if you do not adhere to certain tenets of the Catholic Church.
If John calls himself a Catholic, and the Catholic Church up to the Pope calls him a Catholic, you are pretty silly saying he is not a Catholic because he doesn't agree with the heirarchy on things on your personal priority list for what makes someone a Catholic.
Does it make sense to call yourself that if you fail to hold to beliefs of the Catholic Church on central issues like “Who is a Catholic”?
I mean, if we are accepting your argument that neither your belief that you are Catholic nor the Church’s beloef that you are Catholic matters and you are not Catholic despite both of those if you disagree on important matters with the teachings of the Church, what is the natural conclusion?
If one can disbelieve the Primacy of the Pope, and instead that the Pretender wearing the Pope's garments is in fact the anti-Christ, and still believe they are an adherent of Catholicism, then they have asserted a Schism in the Church and that other Catholics are Apostate. You may choose to continue to use the label "Catholic", for convenience or perhaps because you think you are the One True Catholic, but the word no longer has meaning.
For a Church to place a permanent label on a person who holds Apostate beliefs is simple paternalism. A self-declared Atheist is not a Catholic, no matter what any dude with a pallium or a ferula might have to say about it.
I think the problem is a matter of definition, and a conflict in common uses of the word:
1. Formally a Catholic in the eyes of the church.
2. Calls themselves a Catholic
3. Is Catholic in their beliefs.
The last has a lot of grey areas as its not clear what you need to believe. There is no formal definition. its clear you do not have to agree with the Church on every single thing. On the other hand at some point (e.g. not accepting the trinity) you are seriously at odds with Catholic beliefs.
The first two definitions might sometimes include atheists.
> I'm pretty sure you cease to be a Catholic when you call the Pope the anti-Christ. Infallible, God's representative on Earth, etc.
Infallible (i.e. with the authority of a church council) only when speaking ex-cathedra on matters of church doctrine. Its never clear what it applies to and its very rarely generally accepted (maybe once every 200 years or so) that it applies to a particular teaching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Frequency_...
The 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
I'm so sick of prevailing wisdom with people just making shit up just to fill time on 24/7 news coverage and people can have their talking head shows with diverse "views".
If he's on the same positions as Pope Francis but he's American, then this is a great move by the Catholic Church. Many Americans will naturally root for "their" Pope, and this will lead them away from the positions of Trump and the Evangelicals.
I doubt so, Christian Republicans conveniently ignore the parts of the Bible that directly contradict their ideology. How else could J.D. Vance consider himself a Catholic when his actions so directly go against the teachings of Christ?
More generally, I think religion doesn't really inform your political views. It can certainly reinforce them post-hoc, but it certainly isn't the basis of one's morality.
Well then, if organised religion has no sway on people's beliefs and actions, we can as well close the whole show and send home all those priests, bishops and cardinals, imams and mullahs, rabbis and brahmins, etc. etc.
The Pope, like most leaders, is not someone who has absolute power on what others should think and do; but is someone who can exercise a force of attraction in a specific direction. And he is very likely to have a stronger ability to attract and influence Americans because of his origins.
As a practicing Southern Baptist, I don’t find Vance’s political ideology contradicts Christ’s teachings.
Could you provide some good exemplar backed by scripture please? Preferably not cherry picked lines that tacitly support your earthly ideology, please.
I agree that your statement about religion not informing political views is true of many people. I would argue that the "standard" positions of both major parties in America have components which seriously contradict standard Christian teachings. If one wanted to find a party that more accurately reflected Christian positions they'd have to do something like vote for the American Solidary Party, which is arguably completely ineffective (I still did it).
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?
>TIL. That’s funny because afaik Mexicans refer to the USA as “estados unidos”.
Just as bad is that norteamericanos is the popular term for Americans (in the American sense), despite the existence of Canada and Mexico itself on the continent.
I'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.
This (continuing Francis' school of thought) should be rather predictable - Pope Francis appointed the majority of voting cardinals, so it's not a stretch to think this is generally his intended outcome.
1. If the pope were of median age for a Cardinal when selected, then about half the popes would still be around when he died. I don't have numbers, but my instinct would be that more senior Cardinals are more likely to be selected pope, which would mean a minority would be appointed by the previous pope at the time of the Conclave.
2. It was only in 1970 that an age-cap was put on Cardinals in the conclave, which significantly increases the power of the previous pope has on his successor; this disqualifies 117 out of 251 Cardinals today.
3. There are certain positions that customarily come along with a cardinality; following this custom diluted the pope's power a bit. Francis did not follow this custom[1]
If you want a discussion of the papal selection, you could do worse than this substack post[2] from a week ago.
It's not as straightforward. Francis was voted by cardinals who were appointed by the much more conservative JPII and Benedict XVI, so it's not that easy to control or direct the outcome of a conclave.
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.
> 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).
I'm just looking at this out of statistical curiosity: of these bishops you mention, were they in a position in the hierarchy that would be subject to this responsibility during the 80s or 90s? They always select popes that have been high up in the hierarchy for a while. Not that they have to select cardinals, but it takes that much to be a cardinal no less.
It's not, really; the Catholic Church (among most other religious orders) routinely prioritises self-preservation over the safety of children.
If we were to use "was in proximity to allegations of child abuse and didn't act on it" as a barometer for who was permitted to ascent to the papacy, we'd have a pretty small pool to choose from.
I am not Catholic and priests should be permitted to marry.
The zeitgeist is inaccurate. Sexual abuse and subsequent cover ups were a massive problem that has largely been addressed, but the numbers of offenders are proportionally lower than those in public schools. From wikipedia:
"Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft, the author of a 2002 report on sexual offenses in schools, said sexual violence is much more prevalent in schools than in the Church.[315] Ernie Allen, former president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, stated: "we don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this [sexual abuse and pedophilia] or as a place that has a bigger problem [with this issue] than anyone else."[316]"
> I am not Catholic and priests should be permitted to marry
Doesn't seem likely since none of the Churches that existed prior to the Protestant Reformation allow it.
All of the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, do allow men who are already married to become priests. The rules are more strict for Catholics than the others.
> All of the ancient churches, including the Catholic Church, do allow men who are already married to become priests.
Certainly not in general. You either have to be Eastern or Greek Catholic, Anglican/Episcopal convert etc. Overwhelming majority don't have that option.
No, married priests are not expected to be celibate (a term that in Catholic contexts specifically means “unmarried”) after taking their vows, they remain married.
Nor are they expected to refrain from sex within marriage, which may be what you mean.
Being a married Anglican priest is basically the only conventional way to do that. The discipline of celibacy is otherwise strictly observed.
Of course, if a married Eastern Catholic priest decided to join the Latin Church with the rest of his family, this could happen too.
But generally, a married man will want to discern the diaconate, as the priesthood will simply be out of the question, except in these exceptional circumstances.
> Wait what am I missing? Catholic priests who were married before becoming priests is a thing.
Since, IIRC, the 1200s (may be off by a couple centuries), there has been a practice (not a doctrine) prohibiting ordination of married men in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.
Because this is a prohibition but not a doctrinal invalidity, it does not invalidate otherwise-valid ordinations (i.e., by Bishops holding valid apostolic succession), and the prohibition was never applied to the Eastern Churches that were at the time (Inthink the Maronite Church was) or later came into union with Rome. There is also now a special exception allowing (with individual permission, not automatically) married Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and are otherwise eligible for ordination as Catholic priests to be ordained in the Latin Rite despite being married. So it is possible to encounter married priests in the Latin Rite (Western) Catholic Church, but the door is not generally open to married men becoming priests.
This is an overgeneralization. By the fourth century it became standard to forbid marriage because was believed that previously permitted marriage was only for individuals who remained celibate within the marriage.
I find this to be unlikely.
This position also ignores the East, as we tend to do, although I will admit they understood themselves to be changing convention when permitting it.
> By the fourth century it became standard to forbid marriage because was believed that previously permitted marriage was only for individuals who remained celibate within the marriage.
On the other hand, de-facto marriages (say, a live-in servant woman the priest treated like a wife, including having sex with her) were overlooked by the catholic church on continental Europe well into the high middle ages.
I am talking about men who are already priests cannot marry. I think you are talking about men who are married becoming priests which is allowed in the Catholic Church and well as the East.
None of the Eastern churches allow priests to marry.
> The current zeitgeist is that Catholic priests are pedophiles. This is a widely held belief because it is so frequently true.
Just not true; the rate isn't really higher than what you see at football clubs, scout clubs, etc. What made it so bad in the catholic church are the cover-ups. Lots can be said about that. It was really bad. But the notion that many (or all) Catholic priets are pedos is complete bollocks.
What also made the abuse scandal so bad was that it is predominantly a problem of homosexuality. And the Catholic Church has been quite accustomed to ordain gay men to the priesthood and accept them into monasteries. And this is not generally a problem if the men have good self-control and they can uphold their vows.
But if homosexual men begin to dabble in pederasty and begin to abuse their positions of power against vulnerable and defenseless boys, this is a real scandal, and the Church has been quite embarrassed for people to find out just how prevalent homosexuality is among the ranks of clergy and religious. And the general public and the mainstream media know this, and they have leveraged that embarrassment against the Church in order to discredit her.
And the homosexual aspect of all of this tends to get swept under the rug and sort of ignored, because the general public, in a hypocritical sort of way, doesn't really mind if men are having sex with boys, at least they're not supposed to, but the absence of little girls from the records has been difficult to deny.
The Church can try and correct this by denying entry to homosexual men. But then she will have a profound vocations crisis if she is selecting heterosexual men and hanging the gays out to dry with nothing at all to do. More than a vocations crisis, she will be accused of being "unwelcoming" and "unjust" towards gay men entirely. So she is truly upon the horns of a dilemma.
> In 2022, alleged victims of abuse in 2007 by priests Ricardo Yesquén and Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzáles said Prevost failed to investigate their case.[58] The Diocese of Chiclayo stated that Prevost followed proper procedures, met with Ana María Quispe and her sisters in April 2022 to personally attend the victims, encouraging civil action while initiating a canonical investigation (which he sent to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith).[59][60] The sisters stated in 2024 that no full penal canonical investigation occurred, and an article from América Televisión agreed the church's investigation was not thorough.[61][62]
Please consider whether you might be prejudiced, and whether the things you believe might be false. Your assertions certainly are.
The Bible agrees with your musing as it says bishops are to be be married with kids. Peter (who the Catholics claim as the first Pope) was married as the Bible says Jesus healed his mother-in-law.
1 Timothy 3:1-7
[1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
[2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
[3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
[4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
[5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
[6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
[7] Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
I would suggest you read the original Greek if you want to hang your textual arguments on specific words, and then also realize that the Latin translation which is canonical for Catholics is also a translation. A lot is lost in both directions.
Looking for the original words in the bible is a fool’s errand. It was written in many languages by many people over many centuries. Every bit of the bible was translated.
That’s an appeal to ignorance. You can look up the Greek yourself (I’ll link a basic translation below). There’s just not much room to mistranslate “one wife”, or “husband”.
The official Catholic translation agrees with KJV as does Thomas Aquinas in his commentary. In fact, I don’t know that there’s ANY disagreement about this translation anywhere.
The clear issue is that the Catholic Church believes (and states) that their ecclesiastical authority supersedes even the Bible on not only this minor topic, but more important ones too.
"Episkopos" literally translates to "overseer" ("epi" = "on/over"; "skopo" = "watch/behold/contemplate"). "Guardian" is also in LSJ, as is the translation you give of "bishop." It's likely this is the unambiguous word for "bishop" in this text, which is pretty funny.
> Late Latin episcopus in Spanish became obispo, in Italian vescovo, in Welsh esgob. The Germanic forms include Old Saxon biscop, Old High German biscof.
Episkopos literally changed over time into the English transliteration of Bishop.
You are misusing transliteration and, more importantly, making the error of assuming that because something is the etymological root of a term that it can have had no other meaning when it was written than that term for which it is the root.
Yes. Episkopos is where we get “bishop" and presbuteros is where we get “priest”, but their use for distinct positions in the heirarchy of orders are newer than the NT itself, in which they are used more loosely and apparently, at least in some cases interchangeably.
Confusing knowing etymology (either forward or backward) for knowing meaning in context is a common, but potentially very serious, error.
You argued that I was mistranslating. I showed that the etymology and transliteration made a mistranslation effectively impossible. You then completely ignore the evidence to make up an assertion about changing semantics with ZERO proof (even though the burden of proof is on you).
The only reason the word bishop exists in English is because we needed a loan word for episkopos. It has served that purpose and in the religious context has had no significant change in semantics.
As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1
> But since Dionysius declares that there are three orders, namely, bishops who rule, priests who enlighten, and deacons who cleanse, why does the Apostle make no mention of priests?
> The answer is that priests are included under the term, bishop, not as though the two orders are not really distinct, but only nominally. For priest is the same as elder, and bishop the same as overseer. Hence priests and bishops are indiscriminately called both bishops and priests.
I am the one who argued you might be mistranslating (not the person you just replied to), and I am now somewhat convinced that you are, and that the intent of 1 Tim was to discuss church leaders in a more general sense than the modern term of "bishop." The etymology bears very little weight on the actual meaning of the translation. Lots of words change meaning over time.
Your quote of Aquinas also appears to disagree with you, and takes "episkopos" more generally than the modern usage of "bishop." It actually seems that the catholic bishops may have adopted a word that was in common use for an overseer of a parish.
More recent translations and scholarly commentaries all turn away from the "episkopos" = "bishop" idea. Again, the literal translation of "episkopos" is "overseer."
Aquinas takes it in the only sense that would make sense if you could. These verses discuss the overseer of a church and the rest of the chapter discusses the requirements to be a deacon of a church. The two are completely linked by the context.
Because it is discussing churches, it would be saying that priests must be married. As all bishops are priests, it would apply to them as well.
Even if you took the broader position that it must apply elsewhere, the Catholic Church has only three orders -- deacon, priest, and bishop. These verses MUST be discussing either priest or bishop meaning at least one of those two is not following what Paul wrote.
> As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1
Aquinas is writing a narrative more than 1,000 years after the fact rationalizing how it is possible for the biblical narrative to be consistent with the order observed later. He does a very good job of that. It is not, in the slightest, evidence that the three-orders system and the particular roles assigned to each—which has evolved considerably over time since it is first clearly attested within the Catholic Church, without even considering what Protestants and newer movements claiming the title "Christian" have done with it —actually existed at the time of the NT and was being referenced therein.
This makes no fundamental argument aside from "we decided to change things to be different from what is in the Bible".
The clear reference was to the overseer of a church or what would be considered a pastor or priest. All bishops are priests.
Mark 10:8-9 KJV
[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
This shows that even if you considered bishops to be a new creation, they shouldn't abandon their family for the position. And of course, the order of deacons isn't necessary of commentary as it is specifically addressed in the next part of 1 Tim 3.
I’m clearly quoting a large section of the chapter and quoted the entire part before it starts discussing deacons.
Paul was an evangelist who preached, converted, then moved on. He wasn’t really a bishop. He also wrote 1 Timothy.
You can look it up in the original Greek, but translation is extremely clear with the approved Catholic translations saying the same thing.
Thomas Aquinas in his Latin (and in the English translation of his writings) agrees with the translation and also agrees that priests fall under the Bishop, but then seems to completely ignore the obvious contradiction.
Finally, mandatory celibacy wasn’t mandatory until the second Lateran Council in 1139 with the admittance that it was ecclesiastical rather than dogma (with the ruling clearly going against the New Testament).
That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree?
"You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance.
If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.
> That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree?
You are not making a good argument. If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that.
> "You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance.
Fine, ignore the scholars. Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position. If it was that clear you should be able to find somebody who agrees with you.
You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation. This is why there are thousands of different churches. Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture. You are trying to prove Christians, or maybe just Catholics, are idiots or whatever you are trying to do. If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility.
> If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.
Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture.
The Catholic Church believes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15
> So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter
There is clearly things outside of scripture they believe.
Anybody who can follow basic logic can come to the Catholic position from the Bible as I have already mentioned.
Premise 1: The apostles are bishops.
Premise 2: Paul was an apostle.
Premise 3: Paul was not married and had no children.
Therefore bishops are not required to be married and have children.
> If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that.
Can you point to a bishop appointed by Jesus' 12 disciples who was not married with children? If not, then you are making a baseless assertion.
> Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position.
Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children. Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible.
> You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation.
You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems. The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation. It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms.
> Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture.
If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole?
> If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility.
Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts. You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable.
> Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture.
Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here.
If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said.
> Premise 1: The apostles are bishops.
What evidence do you have for this? Apostle means "messenger" or "sent forth". This is far different than Bishop which means "overseer". Paul was certainly familiar with both terms (calling himself a "servant of God, called to be a apostle (messenger)").
Ephesians 4:11 (KJV)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Paul sees a clear distinction between the messengers and those who would oversee the churches. This is why he doesn't see his writings as hypocritical and why the other two premises simply do not matter to the conclusion.
> Can you point to a bishop appointed by Jesus' 12 disciples who was not married with children? If not, then you are making a baseless assertion.
First let me say more than just Paul was unmarried. John was also unmarried. There is also debate if Peter's wife was alive. We only hear about his mother in law, not a wife.
In terms of bishops consrecated by the apostles, we do not have a huge amount of evidence for most, but almost everybody believes St Ignatius of Antioch was unmarried.
> Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children.
You can't use the verse we are debating to prove your point.
> Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible.
OK? You did see that I said "Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position". I know Protestants rejected this understanding. My point is that if everybody in the Church disagrees with your understanding for the first 3/4 of the existence of the church then you are in the wrong.
I don't care what they think on the Bible because they reject what all the early Christians believed.
> You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems.
You are literally saying you know what the Bible means better then almost every Christan who has ever lived. Only a minority of modern Christians agree with you. That is a steller example of pride.
> The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation.
Nobody is saying there is a mistake. I am saying you are misunderstanding and your only evidence is your interpretation and some people 1500+ years after it was written.
> It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms.
This is a bad example. They do not deny that Smith taught polygamy. They belive that Woodruff received a revelation telling them it is no longer permissble.
Nobody is claiming there is a new revelation when it comes to the bishop topic.
> If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole
That makes absolutely no sense. If I write the statement "the sunrise was beautiful." Somebody could say I believe the sunrise was ugly. Does that mean that my statement is a farce? No, it just means they don't know what I was saying.
> Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts.
This is not an adhominen. I am literally trying to help you out and give you constructive criticism.
> You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable.
I take issues with your interpretation. You clearly don't understand and context and are saying if the Bible isn't worded in the exact way I want it to be, then it doesn't mean what it says.
> Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here.
You sure love the phrase ad-homenem despite not knowing what it is. Telling somebody they don't understand something isn't an ad homenem. I am not attacking your character or anything like that.
> If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said.
> almost everybody believes St Ignatius of Antioch was unmarried.
Speaking of him, read Philadelphians. He makes the assertion that the apostles were married men (including Paul). What he makes of himself, it either implies that he is married or would like to be (to be like those others).
> You can't use the verse we are debating to prove your point.
I'm asserting that it says what it says. YOU are the one who must prove that Paul didn't mean what he said.
> You are literally saying you know what the Bible means better then almost every Christan who has ever lived.
To the contrary, YOU are making an assertion that everyone believes this, but are then failing to show any proof except clear cases of "nobody knows, but I'll assert that they were unmarried anyway".
> only evidence is your interpretation and some people 1500+ years after it was written.
Even the Catholic Church didn't mandate celibacy until nearly 1200AD. You are making a very fallacious argument both on this count and that an appeal to authority or extra-Bibical tradition isn't an argument to overturn what the book clearly says.
> the Church disagrees with your understanding for the first 3/4 of the existence of the church then you are in the wrong.
This is a very misleading representation of history. Locking the Bible behind a Latin barrier meant that most people couldn't read and question and most who could read Latin had no access to a Bible and it seems that most of those who did had very little inclination to read it. Of those priests or educated laity who did read and question, most were captured and tortured until they died or recanted.
Under such ignorance and extreme pressure to comply, an appeal to tradition is especially weak.
> This is a bad example. They do not deny that Smith taught polygamy. They belive that Woodruff received a revelation telling them it is no longer permissble.
The very core of their beliefs around the requirements for becoming a God are rooted in this claim and having multiple wives is a necessity for this in the afterlife (not to mention that God is believed to have multiple wives). While I disagree that polygamy is good (it seems to always result in misery), I do respect the LDS who stick to their book no matter what.
> Nobody is claiming there is a new revelation when it comes to the bishop topic.
If there's no new revelation, then the old revelation still applies, but is being ignored.
> it just means they don't know what I was saying.
Explain what you mean without then.
> Telling somebody they don't understand something isn't an ad homenem. I am not attacking your character or anything like that.
Telling me that I am prideful or uncharitable or not humble has NOTHING to do with the topic aside from trying to attach a bad label on me so the logic can be ignored. These are textbook examples of ad-hominem attacks.
> Apostles are bishops with a special role due to personally meeting Jesus. Of course since it is only implied in the Bible you are going to reject it.
Of course. It is inductive reasoning. You start with the conclusion that it must be so then try to find reasons it should be true. That's been this entire conversation. Deductive reasoning would lead to the conclusion that I am correct in my assertion, but the Catholic Church says otherwise, so you must fabricate reasons however feeble to justify them.
You haven't even hit on the actual reasoning from that 1139 decision either. Their argument was nothing like what you are trying to push. It was the argument that they otherwise couldn't keep the priesthood from becoming nepotistic with the priest father passing the role to his son.
I'm not going to reply to everything because this conversation is not going anywhere and this will be my final post. There is no point in continuing when you have clearly taken so much out of context.
First, what is this Latin barrier? The New Testament was written in Greek and continued to be available in Greek. I assume you think that the Catholic church was the sole church back then. It wasn't. The Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and the Eastern Orthodox churches all existed. They all agree with what I am saying. They had scrupture in a variety of languages not just Latin.
This was a universal view.
Your are misreading the letter from Ignatius. He did not say they were married he said "and the rest of the apostles, that were married men." That were married would mean not all were in fact married.
Not mandating celibacy is not the same as mandating men were married. How are you making an argument like this? The Bible says what it says, but the Bible also makes it clear you shouldn't interpret the Bible on your own (Acts 8). This is what you and Protestants did to come to this conclusion.
Unless you are willing to submit to what all the Churches that have actual claims of succession from the Apostles, there is no point in continuing. If you are a Christian you aren't following Acts 8. If you aren't a Christian then you are just pushing your secular views onto Bible to push your own narrative.
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?
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.
> This is a widely held belief because it is so frequently true.
How frequently? The issue is them covering up those crimes and protecting the perpetrators. It's like saying that BBC is run by podophiles (when it was "just" aiding and abetting them).
A lot of the church abuse scandal happened during a couple of decades when the church's handling of the cases were the result of following the then scientific consensus on the matter. The church was not alone in this. The scientists told us they could be reformed.
Just look up the history of what was going on in Germany following the same advice.
It's a relatively new thing where we just declare pedophiles unfixable and jail them. In the past, the social scientists told us that it was the result of the environment.
> A lot of the church abuse scandal happened during a couple of decades when the church's handling of the cases were the result of following the then scientific consensus on the matter. The church was not alone in this. The scientists told us they could be reformed.
That is not what happened though. Is there any evidence that the church decided that it would hide and cover up accusations of abuse and move clergy around to avoid them being charged and convicted because that was the "scientific consensus"?
Certainly many within the church believed they could reform the abusers in their midst, but that's a wholly different statement than claiming the coverups, which are what's being discussed here, were due to this belief and not that they were merely protecting their own and putting their own judgement above the legal system in which they lived.
I'd wager that the rates of abuse in public schools are not as high as in Catholic schools. I'd go so far as to say that there isn't necessarily anything about Catholicism that produces more pedophiles than normal, and that there aren't necessarily more pedophiles employed by Catholic schools than by others.
However, it seems likely that there's something about the institution that produces more molesters than normal, and clearly there is something about the institution that causes it to lean towards quieting and covering up accusations rather than rectifying them. It doesn't really have anything to do with the reformability of pedophilia; the church faces the necessity of changing either how it handles molesters, or how the nature of its organization seems to create more molesters. The problem is that the church is an institution that seems loathe to change in general.
Seeing as he's now head of a religion that believes none of us is perfect (Romans 3:23) it's unsurprising to think someone may allege that he is not perfect.
No one, from any religion, should directly or indirectly support crimes against minors. If people really cared about kids, we would protect them from sexual abuse from priests and prosecute priests via the legal system.
Then who should investigate? The church cannot do anything to anyone they investigate other than 'order' them to remain in a monastery (which, they can leave at anytime since this is a free country and church rules are not law).
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.
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.
I believe the church can also do these two things: if a person is a priest, remove their priesthood, and if civilian, excomunicate them.
Not to mention saying things like "we disapprove of this behavior".
Overall, I think your claim that the church cannot do anything except the one thing you named is obviously false. There are in fact many things the church can do. Otherwise nobody would give a damn who is Pope. Just a guy who can not do anything.
the law is better equiped to investigate and unbiased. Thus better let the law figure it out. People have been falsely accused of crimes, so you dare not do much until a poper investigation is complete. Once the investigation is complete you now have better understanding of the truth.
Also christianity has always preached foregiveness. They often shouldn't do anything about past sins without being hypocrytical. If the law takes over they don't need to figure this out.
> if a person is a priest, remove their priesthood, and if civilian, excomunicate them.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of catholic doctrine. One cannot have their priesthood 'removed'. However, they can be banned from the public performance of it, which is usually the punishment doled out.
As for excommunication... excommunication is removeable via confession, which is freely given.
> excommunication is removeable via confession, which is freely given.
Lifting an excommunication has a higher bar than just absolution of sins in confession. It requires permission of the local ordinary (usually the diocesan bishop), and for excommunications for especially bad things like desecrating the Eucharist or violating the seal of confession, it requires permission of the Apostolic See.
That is church law mumbo jumbo. The absolution given in confession is absolute.
You just have to find a priest willing to offer you absolution (which could be an orthodox priest by Catholic doctrine), and either way, if you're on your deathbed, the priest must give you last rites, which will have the same effect.
The whole not-being-able-to-receive-communion thing is just an administrative punishment. While the church can make policies regarding various things, it cannot remove the efficacious power of the sacraments.
> If for any reason the absolution from the censure is invalid, or is not given at all, nevertheless, provided the penitent is rightly disposed, his sins will always be forgiven in the sacrament of confession
Here's a somewhat different description of the situation, which I found useful:
"[A] priest convicted of sexual abuse of minors was allowed to stay at an Augustinian priory near an elementary school and continue functions as a priest until later removed, and then laicized in 2012. However, Prevost is said to have never authorized that particular situation, the priest was not an Augustinian, and it took place before the Dallas Charter."
There is also this discussion of an incident in Peru:
"More recently, questions were raised about Prevost’s knowledge and handling of abuse allegations in his former Diocese of Chiclayo. Two priests were accused of molesting three young girls, with the allegations surfacing in April 2022 during Prevost’s tenure as bishop. The case has been a source of frustration for local Catholics due to its slow progress and unclear resolution.
"Some accusers have claimed Prevost failed to properly investigate the allegations and covered up for the accused priest, but the diocese has firmly denied this, stating that Prevost followed proper procedures. They stated that Prevost personally received and attended to the victims, and reportedly opened an initial canonical investigation. He also encouraged the victims to take the case to the civil authorities. In July 2022, Prevost sent the results of the investigation to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) for review. His supporters stress that he has documents from the DDF and the Papal Nunciature in Peru which also indicate that he was not only attentive to the presumed victims, but that he did all required in Church law in following procedures set out for these cases.4
"However, in May 2025 allegations emerged that the diocese paid $150,000 to the three girls to silence them. Described as “longtime public critics of Prevost,” the girls reportedly blame Prevost for covering up their sexual abuse by the priest.
"The allegations, reported in InfoVaticana, described the Peruvian scandal, which was the subject of a national television report including an interview with the girls last fall, as the “stone in the shoe for Cardinal Prevost.”
It's worth mentioning that defenders of Prevost in Peru are saying that those allegations were manufactured by his political enemies. Prevost was active in the fight against the Sodalitium, a catholic society with ample accusations of brainwashing and sexual abuse. This society was recently supressed by Bergoglio.
He no doubt means the largest Christian church (though from a Catholic perspective, there is only the Church and those who are in schism, heretics, etc.).
No, I think in the US most Christians are Protestant.
I didn't qualify it as Catholic Championship because I thought any "World Championship" would imply a central authority and thus Catholicism would be implicit. But then again it may be organized by a Federation.
There was a horrendous problem with gambling on the election at one point. I believe the most recent episode of "Tasting History with Max Miller" covers this.
It’s not free money, it’s high risk with a net positive expected return. Any significant profit would carry an irresponsible level of risk. Significant profit without significant risk would take many bets, which means sustaining the accuracy advantage over broader subject matter, which means lots of time spent, which means it’s time for money, which is just a job.
Suppose I gave Provost 5% chance of winning the papal election. Then I would have been more accurate than Polymarket. But I wouldn't call betting on what I perceive as 5% chance of winning "making free money"; from my perspective it would still be a wild risk to bet any significant money on that outcome.
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!'
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”
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.
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.
No one would have this loaded tone when counteracting someone's trauma in ANY subject - besides that of religion. It is a subject with a uniquely deep entrenchment of someone's fundamental life experiences and beliefs, and is the only subject where someone would have the gall to do such a thing; out of defense of, what they believe, is their very essence as a person.
There is absolutely no shot that someone would respond to someone sexually abused by their parents with, "On the other hand, I have a loving spouse that makes that same action a very loving and peaceful experience!" It's brazenly distasteful.
When someone shares that their time in the Church was marked by coercion and abuse, responding with “well, my experience was uplifting” can feel dismissive of their trauma. It’s similar to hearing a survivor of sexual assault and replying, “my sexual experiences have all been wonderful.” Both experiences can coexist as true, but leading with your positive story in that moment risks minimizing the other person’s pain. It's distasteful, and is not conducive to a productive dialogue.
> Productive dialogue can only arise when all points of view are fairly considered
You have good intent, but I disagree and believe that "fair for all" does not mean "every viewpoint deserves the same consideration". Specifically, I have spent my entire life encountering Christians who try to tell me I've just had a bad experience and that things are great on their side of the pond, if I'd take a look. But I've read the Bible front to back, I was at the top of every class in my religious studies, I engaged critically with theology during my exposure to it. And my holistic experience revealed the deep hypocrisies, conspiracies and power structures inescapably tied to the Church's past and present.
The Catholic Church, and all Judeo-Christian denominations in general, are simply a vehicle for power and control. It treats its followers well, but those who don't fall in line are often subject to very dark corners upheld by violence.
The truth is that while you think your perspective is more considerate than mine, it's actually more ignorant. I have seen the things you've seen in the faith, but you haven't seen what I have seen. You have an incomplete picture about the realities of the Church.
And yes, it does get tiring and eventually a part of the overall trauma to have well-meaning people completely disregard the truths I share with them and tell me I don't know the Church for what it really is, retreating to their own limited experiences without considering the implications of mine. And while it wasn't your intent, as a group behavior it becomes patronizing. I'm glad you had a good Catholic mother. I had abusive, often homeless drug addicts for parents and was left in the care of a very evil man who used to do horrible things to me in the name of your god, and who was directly empowered and blessed by the Catholic Church to carry out his sick abuse.
P.S.
> who may be willing to improve their dialectic skills
this is also patronizing and snarky especially after beginning your post with "Lv. 0 attack dismissed." That is not what I would call dialectically skillful or considerate. We should always strive to engage with others on Hacker News in good faith.
>The Catholic Church, and all Judeo-Christian denominations in general, are simply a vehicle for power and control.
Source: you.
For many, it is a place where they find community and make friends and build their lives around.
>it's actually more ignorant
This kind of crosses into a personal attack, but I'll let it slide. Just don't do that a lot or you'll get scolded by @dang or @tomhow, and with reason.
>a very evil man who used to do horrible things to me in the name of your god
With empathy, God didn't do that to you, you don't even believe in him so it wouldn't make sense for you to blame him. Reminds of something from a great writer, "He who has not God in himself cannot feel His absence", perhaps you're in for a treat later in life :).
There's another famous quote "To Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s"; if a crime has been committed against you, there are social structures in place to call in for help, and judge and punish the people involved.
>"Lv. 0 attack dismissed." That is not what I would call dialectically skillful or considerate.
Oh yeah, because I should have taken offense at that and throw a tantrum, instead of writing a thoughtful comment. Sure.
My source is nearly two thousand years of well-documented history.
> For many, it is a place where they find community and make friends and build their lives around.
That is completely beside the point that not every person gets to have this positive relationship with their cult community, and that some find themselves in its crosshairs.
> This kind of crosses into a personal attack, but I'll let it slide
No. Lol. Calling your viewpoint ignorant is not a personal attack. It's objectively ignorant, as you have already demonstrated. "Let it slide?" Did Jesus teach you that one? You need to check yourself and tone down the pompousness and patronizing attitude in your posts.
> With empathy, God didn't do that to you, you don't even believe in him so it wouldn't make sense for you to blame him
I don't blame an imaginary patriarch who was whitewashed in order to establish colonial White supremacy.
> perhaps you're in for a treat later in life :)
I'm going to again request that you tone down the patronizing, I-know-better-than-you attitude. Apparently you did not pick up on Jesus' teachings of humility.
> if a crime has been committed against you, there are social structures in place to call in for help, and judge and punish the people involved
More demonstrable ignorance. I had no one. Everyone I told ignored what was happening, and the police who frequently ended up at my home told me to endure my abuse or find myself in a more abusive foster care system. The Church and my Catholic family empowered this man to do whatever he wanted. You can't just disbelieve this away. I know you're used to just deciding on randomly believing or disbelieving things without veritable proof, but that's not how reality works. My experience is real, and cannot be shallowly dismissed without acknowledgement as to the very real, very documented violent history of the Church, including the Vatican's ongoing direct involvement of covering up child abuse within its ranks, which again, is public record, with plenty of court cases you can google at your leisure.
> Oh yeah, because I should have taken offense at that and throw a tantrum, instead of writing a thoughtful comment. Sure.
Now you're just in denial and being sarcastic, presenting a false dichotomy. No, there were more than two choices you could make when replying, and practicing some humility would reveal those options to you.
Man, this needs to stop, this is not the place for that.
I can see this is a topic that gets you very emotional but neither me nor this community can bring justice to you.
If you need help I'll be glad to do what I can, email in profile, or <username>.com.
I won't engage in this conversation further, not because of you, you can write to me as much as you want over there; but because it deviates from the purpose of the site.
> I can see this is a topic that gets you very emotional but neither me nor this community can bring justice to you
More patronization and smuggery. At no point have I displayed an overemotional response.
> If you need help I'll be glad to do what I can
You need help, but I don't think you're ready to see that. Go back and read through the Bible again, both Testaments, ironically it should help you see the error of your ways here.
> because it deviates from the purpose of the site
You know when you've lost a debate, and that's fine. I hope you have learned something, and next time someone shares their real, valid, negative experiences with the Church, you are not so quick to attempt to invalidate and correct them. There is still much for you to learn about the Church, I have learned what I needed to and moved on. Hopefully that happens one day for you, too. I sincerely mean that. The Church is a perverse organization and you can do better.
Thank you for laying it out so plainly. The “let’s gather every perspective” line only works when the people doing the gathering aren't patting survivors on the head. Walking the sun‑lit nave doesn’t qualify anyone to lecture the folks who were locked in the crypt.
Ironically, your patience here feels a lot closer to the humility we’re all supposed to be learning!
Amen to that. My patron saint is Joan of Arc, who was famously burned at the stake at 17 by the English church for wearing pants. She got plenty of lectures in her day and stuck to her principles, even when it cost her life.
Honestly not even sure it's meant to be a counterfactual experience, just more pointing out that the original comment isn't really germane.
"The aesthetics of $THING are really very impressive whether you believe the underlying mythology or not."
"Yeah well I had a bad experience with $THING so I don't get any joy out of it all because it's dark and sinister!"
...ok? What's the response to something like that supposed to be? Is this Reddit where we should fall over each other to apologize to someone we've never met about a thing that theoretically happened decades ago and also presumably happened to hundreds or thousands of other people? It just doesn't make any sense.
I'm not asking for your apology, or even your response. You could have kept reading on to other comments, ignoring those which were not meant for someone like you. I am allowed to add to a discussion, I am sorry that it did not meet your standards.
Surely you aren't claiming that intonation and general tone cannot be established or suggested in a well-written text. There are centuries of literature and academic courses proving otherwise.
My faith in Christ is way stronger than the influence of a small group of crooked and virtueless human beings.
Even if 9 out of 10 of cardinals, priests and worshippers were crooked, my faith in Christ wouldn't move one inch (2.54cm); it might actually become even greater.
I think there is a profound difference on how two different kinds of people approach religion.
On one side, I've never given much care to what the "social opinion" of something is in order to engage with it or not. My choice to follow Christ is rooted on myself, not on what I'm told to be right or wrong.
On the other, I can understand people who choose to associate/dissociate from specific groups/trends based on what they hear on the news/radio/etc... and I think that's completely valid as well. There was a even time in our past where having this trait was a desirable thing!
There is no hypocrisy here. I am in good faith asking what proof you have to justify this unshakeable faith you're proudly declaring.
> You're not a teenager anymore.
Nor are you, I'm assuming, so please answer my question.
> I hope one day you are able to understand this and live in peace with others who do not wish you any bad.
You should not become so defensive when pressed for proof of claims you make about invisible patriarchs living in the sky and turning cities into salt because people had too much anal sex.
I was also raised by a loving catholic mother, who let me go my way, out of the church. I eventually found my way back in, and feel similar to you as you do now.
IMHO, the GP has a right to share his experience here as we do ours. A thread on the election of a pope, with a subthread on the beauty of church, is a fair venue for sharing. There's no need for prejudice, disguised as policing, on either side.
Absolutely, there is nothing wrong with letting others know the other side of the coin. Moreover, I have done that respectfully, I never diminished the other guys' experience or called him fake or anything. He's mocking me in another comment already ... the tolerant ones.
This is a thread about the Pope, why wouldn't people be allowed to say good things about the religion it leads?
But guess what, some invisible hand hid my comments, even though the one where I expressed my opinion has more upvotes than downvotes and is not even flagged (cc @dang, perhaps you know what happened?). Is it breaking a policy? How is it different from the comment from @soulofmischief? Very tricky situation to be in, I can understand why someone would prefer to just hide it all.
I'm honestly tired of all this "I'm catholic and I am involved in the church" being enough to warrant attacks from random strangers.
Good news is the pendulum is swinging back, and it's swinging back hard! Deus vult! :D
> He's mocking me in another comment already ... the tolerant ones
No one is mocking you. You appear to have some sort of persecution complex, and are using it to shield you from having to earnestly engage with my replies. You're literally suggesting there is some kind of conspiracy to be unfair against you. I have not downvoted or flagged any of your comments. Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of the crowd and open yourself to criticism.
> I'm honestly tired of all this "I'm catholic and I am involved in the church" being enough to warrant attacks from random strangers.
You didn't have to reply to my comment with an ignorant, invalidating, dismissive and patronizing take. That was your choice, and the consequence is that people might reply to you in order to point out faults in your attitude and message.
Just because you thought you were well-meaning doesn't mean you were. Your sour approach to discourse has made itself apparent in this thread. Many perpetrators of the Crusades also thought they were doing a good deed.
Ah, I didn't meant to imply you did something wrong. I thought you were right to share.
Rather, I saw the start of a flamewar below (not caused by you) and I figured I'd say my piece. But it came out wrong and you got flagged undeservingly.
That's true of literally everything though. No matter the environment you were raised in, having abusive parents will cause instinctive emotional repulsion to the things they filled their life with.
The reason I bring it up is because of the deep relationship between aesthetics and institutional control. At one time these aesthetics were meant to enforce a classist, autocratic governance rooted in deception, oppression and information asymmetry.
The designs look nice, gold looks nice, the pope has some nice swag, but it's all a symbol of power. It's easy to forget that when you're lost in the sauce. SS uniforms looked slick as hell as far as uniforms go, but I wouldn't debate with a Holocaust survivor about why they should see the good in Nazis. The other people in this thread seem to have forgotten about the Crusades.
Commenting on votes is boring (and violates guidelines) but you probably got downvoted because they're talking about "the Catholic aesthetic" which is 100% a thing, and you started responding to "Catholicism is an aesthetic" which is a statement nobody said.
I did not state Catholicism is an aesthetic. I replied to vFunct's comment "vFunct
The whole Catholic aesthetic is amazing. Really is the tops." "with religion is more than an aesthetic." An aesthetic is using symbols and atmosphere, architecture, to create a beauty. A religion may use these objects, but also has values that do not depend on them.
Also, another person posted: "
echelon
"It truly is. As is the Ancient Roman aesthetic.
There's a reason why Final Fantasy, Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, and many more fantasy series lean heavily into the look and feel."
So people suggesting video games and tv shows, even with lots of violence (particularly GoT) is an "aesthetic", is a lot more shallow than my basic point that religions aren't primarily aesthetic. Maybe you replied to the wrong comment.
"The Catholic aesthetic" refers to the aesthetic aspects of Catholicism.
"Religion is more than an aesthetic" is 100% true but nothing in the vFunct's statement suggests or implies anything to the contrary. So you're replying to something nobody said.
yeah Catholicism is kind of cool. I'm a lapsed Catholic myself (haven't been to church since I was like 12, except for weddings) but for occasions like this I feel a little bit more Catholic.
I might be atheist by now, but credit where it's due. Catholicism is not Evangelicism, where anything goes. Without a central doctrine, many American Evangelics just became... creepy as hell.
Seems like Protestants and people in majority-Protestant countries are struck by the bells-and-smells but I think the Catholic Church isn't especially distinctive in this regard. Catholics favor a pretty muted look to things compared with the Eastern churches.
No it's the opposite. The eastern churches are very thread bare. Catholics have icons statues and every other kind of art whereas the eastern church went through iconoclasm. A lot of the eastern stuff today is due to influence from the west. This is especially true of the eastern Catholics.
For example, the Kerala church was so against statues and images that basically all the art we have from them are crosses. This was characteristic of the church of the east. The eastern Orthodox went through iconoclasms and some even have issues with statues still.
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.
1,121 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 406 ms ] threadEdit: 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?
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.
Being on the street hearing the bells and recognizing what it meant while a huge number of people all around the globe have the same realization at the same time feels somehow incredibly connecting, and not even necessarily at a religious level.
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.
Yes the whole world is somewhat curious who the president is but especially in timezones where it's inconvenient to follow that it's more a "we'll read it in the news later" thing.
The fact that a new pope has been elected is an information is information you don't need to look for because it's announced through one of the oldest public announencement systems ( the church bells )
It was on the news but there were no bells ringing etc. Same as in your football example I suppose.
[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.
So you don't hate "intelligent" websites, at all? :D Then you must love this lang-redirect!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNwgh787umM
[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.)
The whole black smoke/no smoke didn’t start out as a signal but everyone kept trying to interpret them as such in the 19th century. Black smoke meant no election and no smoke was ambiguous so they eventually switched to white smoke to keep the public from going crazy speculating. L
The first reference to non-black smoke I can find is in "Conclave di Leone XIII" by Raffaele De Cesare about the 1878 conclave (Leo XIII’s election):
> "Cardinal Borromeo, tasked with burning the ballots, burned them without straw, and the smoke was barely visible. There were few people in the square. The external steps of St. Peter's were full of onlookers until midday, but after the smoke, it slowly emptied. No one supposed that the Pope had been elected." (translated from Italian)
The 1914 conclave is the commonly accepted date because Pius X decreed in 1904 that all papers relating to the election (not just the ballots themselves) were to be burned after the voting. Since they’d burn all the others papers (without wet straw) only after a successful election, it would produce a lot more white smoke so the Catholic church made an administrative decision to make that into an explicit signal (though I think they use something to “enrich” the color now).
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.
There's no need for "even" in the sentence. Georges Lemaître who was the originator of the big bang theory was a literal catholic priest and theoretical physicist, and funnily enough the theory was originally accused of bringing religious bias into physics.
Likewise prominent Catholics who were Darwin's contemporaries like John Henry Newman had no issue with evolution back then either. The Church fathers never read the bible like a positivist text. (this is a very 20th century fundamentalist invention)
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.
Hint: there's parts about freeing slaves, about repatriating foreigners, and about fallow fields. It's really sort of awe-inspiring how our secular government is implementing Jubilee by fiat.
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong%27s_Concordance
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
No, you're trying to trivialize changing the canon of the Bible. It's a pointless argument if you're not going to adopt the understanding of the Catholic tradition and then argue within it as the subject of this conversation is the Pope.
I was under the impression we were arguing why it's important for the Pope to have an accurate view of the Bible. Instead it seems like you're just wanting to say that it's all man-made anyways so might as well change it which is a completely foreign thought process to a genuine Catholic.
That's fine, it just makes it pointless to make a argument for what the office of Pope should and shouldn't do. It's like going into a Muslim country and telling everyone how stupid their views are because you don't respect their holy texts. Why bother?
That was my point, you're not interested in having an actual conversation. Which is fine. That's why I said I had a misunderstanding of what was going on here. But it's clear now.
Since the time of the canonizing of the book, lots of history has happened where the pope of the time has softened some of what was traditional practices. Again, not sure why it is okay to accept some pope from historical time could canonize the bible, but a future pope would not have similar authority to make further amendments. He is the Vicar after all, and is infallible. Unless you do not believe that about modern popes??
No, you're trying to trivialize changing the canon of the Bible. It's a pointless argument if you're not going to adopt the understanding of the Catholic tradition and then argue within it as the subject of this conversation is the Pope.
I was under the impression we were arguing why it's important for the Pope to have an accurate view of the Bible. Instead it seems like you're just wanting to say that it's all man-made anyways so might as well change it which is a completely thought process to a genuine Catholic.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed
Makes my motivated reasoning detector go off.
It wouldn't matter if 99% of animals and humans were gay.
> Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophical and legal theory that posits the existence of a set of inherent laws derived from nature and universal moral principles, which are discoverable through reason. In ethics, natural law theory[2] asserts that certain rights and moral values are inherent in human nature and can be understood universally, independent of enacted laws or societal norms. In jurisprudence, natural law—sometimes referred to as iusnaturalism[3] or jusnaturalism,[4] but not to be confused with what is called simply naturalism in legal philosophy[5][6]—holds that there are objective legal standards based on morality that underlie and inform the creation, interpretation, and application of human-made laws.
Also, what does your comment have to do with gay penguins that i was responding to? I was just trying to show natural law has nothing to do with gay animals.
We'll call it "natural law", to suggest that it comes from somewhere other than some random human.
Got it.
What differences are you referring to specifically?
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!
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.
I find this to be a very strange reading. I never got that from the creation narrative at all. Looking through it, I only see two places that seem to be about marriage. First there's Genesis 2:22-24:
> 22. And God YHVH fashioned the side that had been taken from the man (adam) into a woman (ishah), bringing her to the man (adam). 23. Then the man (adam) said, “this one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called woman (ishah), for from a man (ish) was she taken.” 24. Hence a man (ish) leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife (ishah), so that they become one flesh.
This doesn't mention procreation at all! It seems to say that men and women come together because they have a common origin, not necessarily because it produces offspring. You could still say that this supports heterosexual marriage, but I don't see any particular reason to read it as prohibiting other types of marriage. And in fact, it seems to work fine with gay marriage – two men or two women are also presumably from the same flesh and bones as Adam and Eve.
Then there's Genesis 3:16:
> And to the woman [God] said, “I will greatly expand your hard labor—and your pregnancies; in hardship shall you bear children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.
This says something about bearing children and about male-female relationships, but it doesn't really draw the line saying that the purpose of marriage is to produce children. It also presents all of this as an unfortunate state of affairs.
I guess there's also 1:28-29:
> 28. And God created man (adam) in the divine image, creating them in the image of God—creating them male and female. 29. God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.”
That talks about reproduction, but it doesn't say anything about marriage.
> I'm purely speaking from an academic sense here (the art of understanding what someone wrote a long time ago).
Right. I think whoever wrote the creation story was trying to provide an explanation for why the world was the way it was: why the world exists, why there are seven days in a week, why there are men and women, why they have dominance over the animals, why there's suffering, why snakes have no legs, and so and so forth. I don't think they meant for the creation story to give instructions at all, except a moral that one should obey God. I don't get the impression that the author was trying to sanctify marriage or procreation at all. If they were, it seems like they would have described Adam and Eve's wedding, they would have spent more than one sentence on the birth of their first child, and they wouldn't have presented pregnancy as a curse.
Later in chapter 2, God is quoted as saying:
> Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
Jesus himself then comes back and quote this exact verse in Genesis in the context of divorce being bad (Matthew 19). It's clearly referencing marriage within the context of creation.
You may not agree it's the central thrust of the text, and perhaps I overstated the position, but marriage between a man and a woman is certainly a major theme in these first two chapters. I'd be impressed if you can find Rabbinical texts that support a different theory.
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).
"Sorry, gay people, your desires for sexual intimacy are actually just temptation from Satan / the corrupt nature you inherited from Adam and Eve. Now be celibate your whole life because you were born broken."
They don't say the last bit in so many words, of course.
That one’s always fun to watch.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephite_marriage
Being a homosexual or feeling attraction to your own sex is not sinful - it's a very difficult temptation that, with God's help, you are supposed not to give into. It's acting on this same-sex attraction that is sinful, in much the same way as acting on attraction to your neigbor's wife would be sinful.
What we have now is just saying "we super duper pinky promise that we've learned our lesson and won't do the exact same thing next time even though we totally are with MAGA."
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.
the commenter is trying to be funny :)
Almost every American public figure was anti-LGBT in 2012. The majority of the Democratic Party including the Obama, Clinton, and Biden families were against it. It sounds ridiculous now but Donald Trump was the most LGBT friendly president in history at the time of his first inauguration.
Wait to see what he does now or find a more recent position.
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 don't think you can (edit: reasonably) call yourself a Catholic if you do not adhere to certain tenets of the Catholic Church.
(This is where I was going with the calls-themselves-Christian-but-aintnosuchthing comment, but it's less clear on re-read...)
> I don't think you can call yourself a Catholic if you do not adhere to certain tenets of the Catholic Church.
If John calls himself a Catholic, and the Catholic Church up to the Pope calls him a Catholic, you are pretty silly saying he is not a Catholic because he doesn't agree with the heirarchy on things on your personal priority list for what makes someone a Catholic.
You, and they, can use whatever labels serve your, or their, purpose.
But at some point it doesn't make much sense, or have much meaning, to do so.
I'm a Catholic.
Does it make sense to call yourself that if you fail to hold to beliefs of the Catholic Church on central issues like “Who is a Catholic”?
I mean, if we are accepting your argument that neither your belief that you are Catholic nor the Church’s beloef that you are Catholic matters and you are not Catholic despite both of those if you disagree on important matters with the teachings of the Church, what is the natural conclusion?
For a Church to place a permanent label on a person who holds Apostate beliefs is simple paternalism. A self-declared Atheist is not a Catholic, no matter what any dude with a pallium or a ferula might have to say about it.
1. Formally a Catholic in the eyes of the church. 2. Calls themselves a Catholic 3. Is Catholic in their beliefs.
The last has a lot of grey areas as its not clear what you need to believe. There is no formal definition. its clear you do not have to agree with the Church on every single thing. On the other hand at some point (e.g. not accepting the trinity) you are seriously at odds with Catholic beliefs.
The first two definitions might sometimes include atheists.
Infallible (i.e. with the authority of a church council) only when speaking ex-cathedra on matters of church doctrine. Its never clear what it applies to and its very rarely generally accepted (maybe once every 200 years or so) that it applies to a particular teaching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Frequency_...
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.
The Pope, like most leaders, is not someone who has absolute power on what others should think and do; but is someone who can exercise a force of attraction in a specific direction. And he is very likely to have a stronger ability to attract and influence Americans because of his origins.
Could you provide some good exemplar backed by scripture please? Preferably not cherry picked lines that tacitly support your earthly ideology, please.
https://christiansforsocialaction.org/resource/false-god-con...
You can find many more online easily, but I won't waste more of my time providing them to you, as I doubt your enquiry was completely honest.
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).
Just as bad is that norteamericanos is the popular term for Americans (in the American sense), despite the existence of Canada and Mexico itself on the continent.
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.
Francis was a smart man, and he knew that in order for his policies to continue he would need to ensure a like-minded successor would be elected.
2. It was only in 1970 that an age-cap was put on Cardinals in the conclave, which significantly increases the power of the previous pope has on his successor; this disqualifies 117 out of 251 Cardinals today.
3. There are certain positions that customarily come along with a cardinality; following this custom diluted the pope's power a bit. Francis did not follow this custom[1]
If you want a discussion of the papal selection, you could do worse than this substack post[2] from a week ago.
1: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/no-more-princes-c...
2: https://decivitate.substack.com/p/de-civitates-very-traditio...
>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.
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.
Of course, if a married Eastern Catholic priest decided to join the Latin Church with the rest of his family, this could happen too.
But generally, a married man will want to discern the diaconate, as the priesthood will simply be out of the question, except in these exceptional circumstances.
Since, IIRC, the 1200s (may be off by a couple centuries), there has been a practice (not a doctrine) prohibiting ordination of married men in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.
Because this is a prohibition but not a doctrinal invalidity, it does not invalidate otherwise-valid ordinations (i.e., by Bishops holding valid apostolic succession), and the prohibition was never applied to the Eastern Churches that were at the time (Inthink the Maronite Church was) or later came into union with Rome. There is also now a special exception allowing (with individual permission, not automatically) married Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and are otherwise eligible for ordination as Catholic priests to be ordained in the Latin Rite despite being married. So it is possible to encounter married priests in the Latin Rite (Western) Catholic Church, but the door is not generally open to married men becoming priests.
> The rules are more strict for Catholics than the others.
You can be a married Catholic man and become a Catholic priest.
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.
None of the Eastern churches allow priests to marry.
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.
But if homosexual men begin to dabble in pederasty and begin to abuse their positions of power against vulnerable and defenseless boys, this is a real scandal, and the Church has been quite embarrassed for people to find out just how prevalent homosexuality is among the ranks of clergy and religious. And the general public and the mainstream media know this, and they have leveraged that embarrassment against the Church in order to discredit her.
And the homosexual aspect of all of this tends to get swept under the rug and sort of ignored, because the general public, in a hypocritical sort of way, doesn't really mind if men are having sex with boys, at least they're not supposed to, but the absence of little girls from the records has been difficult to deny.
The Church can try and correct this by denying entry to homosexual men. But then she will have a profound vocations crisis if she is selecting heterosexual men and hanging the gays out to dry with nothing at all to do. More than a vocations crisis, she will be accused of being "unwelcoming" and "unjust" towards gay men entirely. So she is truly upon the horns of a dilemma.
… Consider Wikipedia's explanation of the situation described upthread. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Leo_XIV&oldi...
> In 2022, alleged victims of abuse in 2007 by priests Ricardo Yesquén and Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzáles said Prevost failed to investigate their case.[58] The Diocese of Chiclayo stated that Prevost followed proper procedures, met with Ana María Quispe and her sisters in April 2022 to personally attend the victims, encouraging civil action while initiating a canonical investigation (which he sent to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith).[59][60] The sisters stated in 2024 that no full penal canonical investigation occurred, and an article from América Televisión agreed the church's investigation was not thorough.[61][62]
Please consider whether you might be prejudiced, and whether the things you believe might be false. Your assertions certainly are.
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.
https://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-2.htm
> Late Latin episcopus in Spanish became obispo, in Italian vescovo, in Welsh esgob. The Germanic forms include Old Saxon biscop, Old High German biscof.
Episkopos literally changed over time into the English transliteration of Bishop.
Yes. Episkopos is where we get “bishop" and presbuteros is where we get “priest”, but their use for distinct positions in the heirarchy of orders are newer than the NT itself, in which they are used more loosely and apparently, at least in some cases interchangeably.
Confusing knowing etymology (either forward or backward) for knowing meaning in context is a common, but potentially very serious, error.
The only reason the word bishop exists in English is because we needed a loan word for episkopos. It has served that purpose and in the religious context has had no significant change in semantics.
As to your assertion that bishop and priest are different, you are wrong even from the Catholic framework (and completely wrong from a Protestant framework). Here's a quote from Thomas Aquinas about 1 Tim 3:1
> But since Dionysius declares that there are three orders, namely, bishops who rule, priests who enlighten, and deacons who cleanse, why does the Apostle make no mention of priests?
> The answer is that priests are included under the term, bishop, not as though the two orders are not really distinct, but only nominally. For priest is the same as elder, and bishop the same as overseer. Hence priests and bishops are indiscriminately called both bishops and priests.
Your quote of Aquinas also appears to disagree with you, and takes "episkopos" more generally than the modern usage of "bishop." It actually seems that the catholic bishops may have adopted a word that was in common use for an overseer of a parish.
More recent translations and scholarly commentaries all turn away from the "episkopos" = "bishop" idea. Again, the literal translation of "episkopos" is "overseer."
Because it is discussing churches, it would be saying that priests must be married. As all bishops are priests, it would apply to them as well.
Even if you took the broader position that it must apply elsewhere, the Catholic Church has only three orders -- deacon, priest, and bishop. These verses MUST be discussing either priest or bishop meaning at least one of those two is not following what Paul wrote.
Kind of, but that's only true in the Latin Rite and not the Eastern Rites, and only since 1972, when the other orders were renamed “ministries”.
Aquinas is writing a narrative more than 1,000 years after the fact rationalizing how it is possible for the biblical narrative to be consistent with the order observed later. He does a very good job of that. It is not, in the slightest, evidence that the three-orders system and the particular roles assigned to each—which has evolved considerably over time since it is first clearly attested within the Catholic Church, without even considering what Protestants and newer movements claiming the title "Christian" have done with it —actually existed at the time of the NT and was being referenced therein.
The clear reference was to the overseer of a church or what would be considered a pastor or priest. All bishops are priests.
Mark 10:8-9 KJV
[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
This shows that even if you considered bishops to be a new creation, they shouldn't abandon their family for the position. And of course, the order of deacons isn't necessary of commentary as it is specifically addressed in the next part of 1 Tim 3.
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).
Like I said, it would mean that Paul was not legitimate which is just nonsense. Nobody believes that.
You should read this: https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-st-paul-say-bishops-must-be-...
"You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance.
If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.
You are not making a good argument. If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that.
> "You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance.
Fine, ignore the scholars. Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position. If it was that clear you should be able to find somebody who agrees with you.
You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation. This is why there are thousands of different churches. Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture. You are trying to prove Christians, or maybe just Catholics, are idiots or whatever you are trying to do. If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility.
> If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.
Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture.
The Catholic Church believes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15
> So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter
There is clearly things outside of scripture they believe.
Anybody who can follow basic logic can come to the Catholic position from the Bible as I have already mentioned.
Premise 1: The apostles are bishops.
Premise 2: Paul was an apostle.
Premise 3: Paul was not married and had no children.
Therefore bishops are not required to be married and have children.
Can you point to a bishop appointed by Jesus' 12 disciples who was not married with children? If not, then you are making a baseless assertion.
> Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position.
Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children. Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible.
> You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation.
You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems. The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation. It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms.
> Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture.
If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole?
> If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility.
Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts. You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable.
> Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture.
Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here.
If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said.
> Premise 1: The apostles are bishops.
What evidence do you have for this? Apostle means "messenger" or "sent forth". This is far different than Bishop which means "overseer". Paul was certainly familiar with both terms (calling himself a "servant of God, called to be a apostle (messenger)").
Ephesians 4:11 (KJV) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Paul sees a clear distinction between the messengers and those who would oversee the churches. This is why he doesn't see his writings as hypocritical and why the other two premises simply do not matter to the conclusion.
First let me say more than just Paul was unmarried. John was also unmarried. There is also debate if Peter's wife was alive. We only hear about his mother in law, not a wife.
In terms of bishops consrecated by the apostles, we do not have a huge amount of evidence for most, but almost everybody believes St Ignatius of Antioch was unmarried.
> Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children.
You can't use the verse we are debating to prove your point.
> Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible.
OK? You did see that I said "Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position". I know Protestants rejected this understanding. My point is that if everybody in the Church disagrees with your understanding for the first 3/4 of the existence of the church then you are in the wrong.
I don't care what they think on the Bible because they reject what all the early Christians believed.
> You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems.
You are literally saying you know what the Bible means better then almost every Christan who has ever lived. Only a minority of modern Christians agree with you. That is a steller example of pride.
> The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation.
Nobody is saying there is a mistake. I am saying you are misunderstanding and your only evidence is your interpretation and some people 1500+ years after it was written.
> It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms.
This is a bad example. They do not deny that Smith taught polygamy. They belive that Woodruff received a revelation telling them it is no longer permissble.
Nobody is claiming there is a new revelation when it comes to the bishop topic.
> If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole
That makes absolutely no sense. If I write the statement "the sunrise was beautiful." Somebody could say I believe the sunrise was ugly. Does that mean that my statement is a farce? No, it just means they don't know what I was saying.
> Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts.
This is not an adhominen. I am literally trying to help you out and give you constructive criticism.
> You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable.
I take issues with your interpretation. You clearly don't understand and context and are saying if the Bible isn't worded in the exact way I want it to be, then it doesn't mean what it says.
> Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here.
You sure love the phrase ad-homenem despite not knowing what it is. Telling somebody they don't understand something isn't an ad homenem. I am not attacking your character or anything like that.
> If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said.
It ...
Can you provide any evidence of this?
> almost everybody believes St Ignatius of Antioch was unmarried.
Speaking of him, read Philadelphians. He makes the assertion that the apostles were married men (including Paul). What he makes of himself, it either implies that he is married or would like to be (to be like those others).
https://www.logoslibrary.org/ignatius/philadelphians1/04.htm...
> You can't use the verse we are debating to prove your point.
I'm asserting that it says what it says. YOU are the one who must prove that Paul didn't mean what he said.
> You are literally saying you know what the Bible means better then almost every Christan who has ever lived.
To the contrary, YOU are making an assertion that everyone believes this, but are then failing to show any proof except clear cases of "nobody knows, but I'll assert that they were unmarried anyway".
> only evidence is your interpretation and some people 1500+ years after it was written.
Even the Catholic Church didn't mandate celibacy until nearly 1200AD. You are making a very fallacious argument both on this count and that an appeal to authority or extra-Bibical tradition isn't an argument to overturn what the book clearly says.
> the Church disagrees with your understanding for the first 3/4 of the existence of the church then you are in the wrong.
This is a very misleading representation of history. Locking the Bible behind a Latin barrier meant that most people couldn't read and question and most who could read Latin had no access to a Bible and it seems that most of those who did had very little inclination to read it. Of those priests or educated laity who did read and question, most were captured and tortured until they died or recanted.
Under such ignorance and extreme pressure to comply, an appeal to tradition is especially weak.
> This is a bad example. They do not deny that Smith taught polygamy. They belive that Woodruff received a revelation telling them it is no longer permissble.
The very core of their beliefs around the requirements for becoming a God are rooted in this claim and having multiple wives is a necessity for this in the afterlife (not to mention that God is believed to have multiple wives). While I disagree that polygamy is good (it seems to always result in misery), I do respect the LDS who stick to their book no matter what.
> Nobody is claiming there is a new revelation when it comes to the bishop topic.
If there's no new revelation, then the old revelation still applies, but is being ignored.
> it just means they don't know what I was saying.
Explain what you mean without then.
> Telling somebody they don't understand something isn't an ad homenem. I am not attacking your character or anything like that.
Telling me that I am prideful or uncharitable or not humble has NOTHING to do with the topic aside from trying to attach a bad label on me so the logic can be ignored. These are textbook examples of ad-hominem attacks.
> Apostles are bishops with a special role due to personally meeting Jesus. Of course since it is only implied in the Bible you are going to reject it.
Of course. It is inductive reasoning. You start with the conclusion that it must be so then try to find reasons it should be true. That's been this entire conversation. Deductive reasoning would lead to the conclusion that I am correct in my assertion, but the Catholic Church says otherwise, so you must fabricate reasons however feeble to justify them.
You haven't even hit on the actual reasoning from that 1139 decision either. Their argument was nothing like what you are trying to push. It was the argument that they otherwise couldn't keep the priesthood from becoming nepotistic with the priest father passing the role to his son.
...
First, what is this Latin barrier? The New Testament was written in Greek and continued to be available in Greek. I assume you think that the Catholic church was the sole church back then. It wasn't. The Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and the Eastern Orthodox churches all existed. They all agree with what I am saying. They had scrupture in a variety of languages not just Latin.
This was a universal view.
Your are misreading the letter from Ignatius. He did not say they were married he said "and the rest of the apostles, that were married men." That were married would mean not all were in fact married.
Not mandating celibacy is not the same as mandating men were married. How are you making an argument like this? The Bible says what it says, but the Bible also makes it clear you shouldn't interpret the Bible on your own (Acts 8). This is what you and Protestants did to come to this conclusion.
Unless you are willing to submit to what all the Churches that have actual claims of succession from the Apostles, there is no point in continuing. If you are a Christian you aren't following Acts 8. If you aren't a Christian then you are just pushing your secular views onto Bible to push your own narrative.
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).
Just look up the history of what was going on in Germany following the same advice.
It's a relatively new thing where we just declare pedophiles unfixable and jail them. In the past, the social scientists told us that it was the result of the environment.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-exp...
That is not what happened though. Is there any evidence that the church decided that it would hide and cover up accusations of abuse and move clergy around to avoid them being charged and convicted because that was the "scientific consensus"?
Certainly many within the church believed they could reform the abusers in their midst, but that's a wholly different statement than claiming the coverups, which are what's being discussed here, were due to this belief and not that they were merely protecting their own and putting their own judgement above the legal system in which they lived.
However, it seems likely that there's something about the institution that produces more molesters than normal, and clearly there is something about the institution that causes it to lean towards quieting and covering up accusations rather than rectifying them. It doesn't really have anything to do with the reformability of pedophilia; the church faces the necessity of changing either how it handles molesters, or how the nature of its organization seems to create more molesters. The problem is that the church is an institution that seems loathe to change in general.
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.
> 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.
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.
Lifting an excommunication has a higher bar than just absolution of sins in confession. It requires permission of the local ordinary (usually the diocesan bishop), and for excommunications for especially bad things like desecrating the Eucharist or violating the seal of confession, it requires permission of the Apostolic See.
You just have to find a priest willing to offer you absolution (which could be an orthodox priest by Catholic doctrine), and either way, if you're on your deathbed, the priest must give you last rites, which will have the same effect.
The whole not-being-able-to-receive-communion thing is just an administrative punishment. While the church can make policies regarding various things, it cannot remove the efficacious power of the sacraments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_in_the_Catholi...
> If for any reason the absolution from the censure is invalid, or is not given at all, nevertheless, provided the penitent is rightly disposed, his sins will always be forgiven in the sacrament of confession
"[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.”
sadly only partly /s. That being said, people in position of power are a high target of such accusations, so I'd wait for something more proofed.
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
Prevost was hovering around 1% on Polymarket, and was <0.5% between white smoke and announcement.
How many non-technical people are on polymarket? That seems like a poor sample size.
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.
You have good intent, but I disagree and believe that "fair for all" does not mean "every viewpoint deserves the same consideration". Specifically, I have spent my entire life encountering Christians who try to tell me I've just had a bad experience and that things are great on their side of the pond, if I'd take a look. But I've read the Bible front to back, I was at the top of every class in my religious studies, I engaged critically with theology during my exposure to it. And my holistic experience revealed the deep hypocrisies, conspiracies and power structures inescapably tied to the Church's past and present.
The Catholic Church, and all Judeo-Christian denominations in general, are simply a vehicle for power and control. It treats its followers well, but those who don't fall in line are often subject to very dark corners upheld by violence.
The truth is that while you think your perspective is more considerate than mine, it's actually more ignorant. I have seen the things you've seen in the faith, but you haven't seen what I have seen. You have an incomplete picture about the realities of the Church.
And yes, it does get tiring and eventually a part of the overall trauma to have well-meaning people completely disregard the truths I share with them and tell me I don't know the Church for what it really is, retreating to their own limited experiences without considering the implications of mine. And while it wasn't your intent, as a group behavior it becomes patronizing. I'm glad you had a good Catholic mother. I had abusive, often homeless drug addicts for parents and was left in the care of a very evil man who used to do horrible things to me in the name of your god, and who was directly empowered and blessed by the Catholic Church to carry out his sick abuse.
P.S.
> who may be willing to improve their dialectic skills
this is also patronizing and snarky especially after beginning your post with "Lv. 0 attack dismissed." That is not what I would call dialectically skillful or considerate. We should always strive to engage with others on Hacker News in good faith.
Source: you.
For many, it is a place where they find community and make friends and build their lives around.
>it's actually more ignorant
This kind of crosses into a personal attack, but I'll let it slide. Just don't do that a lot or you'll get scolded by @dang or @tomhow, and with reason.
>a very evil man who used to do horrible things to me in the name of your god
With empathy, God didn't do that to you, you don't even believe in him so it wouldn't make sense for you to blame him. Reminds of something from a great writer, "He who has not God in himself cannot feel His absence", perhaps you're in for a treat later in life :).
There's another famous quote "To Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s"; if a crime has been committed against you, there are social structures in place to call in for help, and judge and punish the people involved.
>"Lv. 0 attack dismissed." That is not what I would call dialectically skillful or considerate.
Oh yeah, because I should have taken offense at that and throw a tantrum, instead of writing a thoughtful comment. Sure.
My source is nearly two thousand years of well-documented history.
> For many, it is a place where they find community and make friends and build their lives around.
That is completely beside the point that not every person gets to have this positive relationship with their cult community, and that some find themselves in its crosshairs.
> This kind of crosses into a personal attack, but I'll let it slide
No. Lol. Calling your viewpoint ignorant is not a personal attack. It's objectively ignorant, as you have already demonstrated. "Let it slide?" Did Jesus teach you that one? You need to check yourself and tone down the pompousness and patronizing attitude in your posts.
> With empathy, God didn't do that to you, you don't even believe in him so it wouldn't make sense for you to blame him
I don't blame an imaginary patriarch who was whitewashed in order to establish colonial White supremacy.
> perhaps you're in for a treat later in life :)
I'm going to again request that you tone down the patronizing, I-know-better-than-you attitude. Apparently you did not pick up on Jesus' teachings of humility.
> if a crime has been committed against you, there are social structures in place to call in for help, and judge and punish the people involved
More demonstrable ignorance. I had no one. Everyone I told ignored what was happening, and the police who frequently ended up at my home told me to endure my abuse or find myself in a more abusive foster care system. The Church and my Catholic family empowered this man to do whatever he wanted. You can't just disbelieve this away. I know you're used to just deciding on randomly believing or disbelieving things without veritable proof, but that's not how reality works. My experience is real, and cannot be shallowly dismissed without acknowledgement as to the very real, very documented violent history of the Church, including the Vatican's ongoing direct involvement of covering up child abuse within its ranks, which again, is public record, with plenty of court cases you can google at your leisure.
> Oh yeah, because I should have taken offense at that and throw a tantrum, instead of writing a thoughtful comment. Sure.
Now you're just in denial and being sarcastic, presenting a false dichotomy. No, there were more than two choices you could make when replying, and practicing some humility would reveal those options to you.
I can see this is a topic that gets you very emotional but neither me nor this community can bring justice to you.
If you need help I'll be glad to do what I can, email in profile, or <username>.com.
I won't engage in this conversation further, not because of you, you can write to me as much as you want over there; but because it deviates from the purpose of the site.
Peace be with you.
For what? Levying warranted criticism?
> I can see this is a topic that gets you very emotional but neither me nor this community can bring justice to you
More patronization and smuggery. At no point have I displayed an overemotional response.
> If you need help I'll be glad to do what I can
You need help, but I don't think you're ready to see that. Go back and read through the Bible again, both Testaments, ironically it should help you see the error of your ways here.
> because it deviates from the purpose of the site
You know when you've lost a debate, and that's fine. I hope you have learned something, and next time someone shares their real, valid, negative experiences with the Church, you are not so quick to attempt to invalidate and correct them. There is still much for you to learn about the Church, I have learned what I needed to and moved on. Hopefully that happens one day for you, too. I sincerely mean that. The Church is a perverse organization and you can do better.
Ironically, your patience here feels a lot closer to the humility we’re all supposed to be learning!
"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.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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!
But to cater to your question, no, he did not send me an email.
He did not have to do anything, I was the one who approached God.
I hope one day you are able to understand this and live in peace with others who do not wish you any bad. You're not a teenager anymore.
> You're not a teenager anymore.
Nor are you, I'm assuming, so please answer my question.
> I hope one day you are able to understand this and live in peace with others who do not wish you any bad.
You should not become so defensive when pressed for proof of claims you make about invisible patriarchs living in the sky and turning cities into salt because people had too much anal sex.
IMHO, the GP has a right to share his experience here as we do ours. A thread on the election of a pope, with a subthread on the beauty of church, is a fair venue for sharing. There's no need for prejudice, disguised as policing, on either side.
This is a thread about the Pope, why wouldn't people be allowed to say good things about the religion it leads?
But guess what, some invisible hand hid my comments, even though the one where I expressed my opinion has more upvotes than downvotes and is not even flagged (cc @dang, perhaps you know what happened?). Is it breaking a policy? How is it different from the comment from @soulofmischief? Very tricky situation to be in, I can understand why someone would prefer to just hide it all.
I'm honestly tired of all this "I'm catholic and I am involved in the church" being enough to warrant attacks from random strangers.
Good news is the pendulum is swinging back, and it's swinging back hard! Deus vult! :D
No one is mocking you. You appear to have some sort of persecution complex, and are using it to shield you from having to earnestly engage with my replies. You're literally suggesting there is some kind of conspiracy to be unfair against you. I have not downvoted or flagged any of your comments. Perhaps you should consider the wisdom of the crowd and open yourself to criticism.
> I'm honestly tired of all this "I'm catholic and I am involved in the church" being enough to warrant attacks from random strangers.
You didn't have to reply to my comment with an ignorant, invalidating, dismissive and patronizing take. That was your choice, and the consequence is that people might reply to you in order to point out faults in your attitude and message.
Just because you thought you were well-meaning doesn't mean you were. Your sour approach to discourse has made itself apparent in this thread. Many perpetrators of the Crusades also thought they were doing a good deed.
Rather, I saw the start of a flamewar below (not caused by you) and I figured I'd say my piece. But it came out wrong and you got flagged undeservingly.
Sorry about that :\",
The designs look nice, gold looks nice, the pope has some nice swag, but it's all a symbol of power. It's easy to forget that when you're lost in the sauce. SS uniforms looked slick as hell as far as uniforms go, but I wouldn't debate with a Holocaust survivor about why they should see the good in Nazis. The other people in this thread seem to have forgotten about the Crusades.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o81A31hlgEA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_c...
For example, the Kerala church was so against statues and images that basically all the art we have from them are crosses. This was characteristic of the church of the east. The eastern Orthodox went through iconoclasms and some even have issues with statues still.