Pope To Resign Citing Advanced Age

Hugh Pickens writes writes "BBC reports that Pope Benedict XVI is to resign at the end of this month in an unexpected development, saying he is too old to continue at the age of 85. In a statement, the pontiff said: 'After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.' Resignations from the papacy are not unknown, but this is the first in the modern era, which has been marked by pontiffs dying while in office."

Comments

Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[eldavojohn]

It became apparent when he was supposed to move a priest who had been indulging in altar boys to the Diocese of Ogdensburg in New York where they would have a trial and could pay off the families but instead he moved him to the Diocese of Owensboro in Kentucky where, upon discovery, he was lynched and killed without a trial. At that point, every God Fearin' Holy Roman Catholic altar-boy-molesting priest in the world feared the Pope could no longer shield them from mortal justice and so it was clear he had to resign his post. It's been long rumored that Cardinal Vincent "Big Vinnie the Silencer" Mastrantonio will be the successor and be able to invoke the Holy Spirit to "keep those quiet who don't want their kneecaps busted in over here over there."

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's not a conspiracy when it's actually true.

Actually, it *is* a conspiracy *iff* it is actually true, otherwise it's called paranoia.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[Barsteward]

They are going to make him the Patron Saint of Pedophiles for his unstinting devotion to hiding the issue

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[jellomizer]

Agreed, It isn't funny.
* I AM NOT EXCUSING THESE GROUPS FOR THEIR HORRIBLE ACTS However I am explaining that their actions in a less emotional reaction.

The problem lies in the fact not in problems with the church's beliefs, or even its policies. Except for the fact that it is an old institution, Just like the Boy Scouts of America. The issue of this cover-up is based on issues that have happened in the past where is was more common to cover it up, and quietly move the offending person away from the problem. This happened with families during the past too. Their Kid gets assaulted by their Uncle, the parents will just make sure the Uncle is never alone with the child, and not invited to as much events as they can.

What compounds the issue is the Church, Boy Scouts, and other similar groups is that they are groups that stand for high moral values. And when there is a lapse it is that much harder for such groups to admit to past mistakes, and compound the problem. In many ways these continuing jokes and jabs validate their concerns about releasing the information. In America although about 1/3 of the population is Catholic about 2/3, are not. And many Christian groups still hold anger to the Catholic Church for things that have happened hundreds of years ago. So when would be a good time to show they have been hiding the practices. Any time would be bad, because there are so many people who wants to see the Moral Group go down and show how bad they are.

Now we combine the Catholic Churches Key belief on forgiveness and absolution. Which has a gap for people who have mental illnesses, where once you confess to your sins you are good again. So the priests who have had a lapse in their control went and got forgiveness, the Church if following that particular dogma then punished the priest further it would seem like they are not holding on to their ideals.

I am willing to bet there are a lot more organizations who have hid their sexual abuse records, and you will find that most of them are from "Good" Organizations who in general are out there tying to help people. Schools, Social Workers, Youth Groups, Mission Groups.... Anywhere where the adults are suppose to be the good guys that the kid should historically trust.

The solution to this problem, isn't making sarky comments and getting angry at the organization, but to help insure there are new policies in place to help protect children, education to teach children and parents on how to protect themselves and their children. Yes punish the people who continued the cover up and lied about it, but this general public over reaction that makes it seem a Catholic Priest is equal to a Rapist is just overall bad and unproductive.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[sumdumass]

Please point me to some citations on this. All the information I can find says that the rate of molestations are near identical to every other profession in which exposure to children is part of it.

This number is higher then a number for the general population. I think it has to do with those who would harm the children actively seeking out avenues to be exposed to them.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[Jeremi]

The solution to this problem, isn't making sarky comments and getting angry at the organization, but to help insure there are new policies in place to help protect children

Also perhaps the Church needs to allow its priests some kind of legitimate sexual outlet (e.g. marriage). Otherwise the position attracts people who try to bury their sexual urges, only to have them build up and then re-appear in inappropriate ways.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[rmandevi]

While the Church is a church of forgiveness, it is not a Church of forgetfulness. The Church can decide not to punish a molesting priest, but it should realize that it has a problem with that priest and should not let that priest around children again.

For the record, policy in the USA requires any Church members (from bishops down to Religious Education teachers) are required to take a course in child abuse detection and prevention (sexual and otherwise). One of the things that they teach there is if they see signs of abuse from anybody, they are to inform both the Church and the local constabulary.

The reasons that the Catholics have been singled out on the abuse angle are roughly:
1: We are expected to be held to a higher moral standard than even other churches, as well we should be
2: There are an awful lot of priests there. Roughly a third of the US Christian population is Catholic, and no other church has a quarter as many members as the Catholic church does. Again, more reason to keep our noses (and other parts) clean.
3: The ugly reason is that the Catholic Church is organized different from other churches, and thus easier to sue for big money. Because we are an authoritarian church, ownership is by hierarchy. When the scandal started up in Boston (the archidiocese I grew up in), people weren't suing a priest, or that priest's church, but the archdiocese itself, which draws its income from every Catholic church in the Greater Boston area.

None of these should be taken as excusing things that the Church and priests, but I do note that the above reasons may explain why we don't see similar scandals rocking other churches. I highly doubt that the Catholics have cornered the market on molesting clergy.

For my money, the fact that these pedophiles exist in the Church is horrible, but in a way understandable. Any large group will have some bad apples, and it's impossible to weed them all out. The fact that the Church had been protecting these priests [em]as policy[/em] is much worse. I for one would have loved to see Cardinal Law explain himself to a grand jury, and think in retrospect that Pope John Paul II did us all a disservice by getting him out of the country before that could happen.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[Damouze]

The 112th pope was Boniface VI.

Whoever is elected to succeed pope Benedict XI is going to be the 266th pope.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[RabidReindeer]

Please point me to some citations on this. All the information I can find says that the rate of molestations are near identical to every other profession in which exposure to children is part of it.

This number is higher then a number for the general population. I think it has to do with those who would harm the children actively seeking out avenues to be exposed to them.

Whether it is or isn't, the reason for the outrage is that few professions are as monolithic between trade and employer as the Catholic Church and even fewer have a history of covering for offenders in such a wide-spread manner. Likewise, few other professions are dedicated specifically to moral standards. The Catholic Church is one of the world's major definers of moral standards. When it covers up violations and worse, lets the violators go unpunished, this damages their credibility in a significant way.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[xevioso]

Oddly enough, the first of only 4 popes who resigned in the past 1000 years did so in the 11th century at the age of 33 (Benedict IX I think) did so because he wanted to get married.

That marriage then fell through...so he tried to become the pope again.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[xevioso]

Well, when Constantinople fell in 1453, it was primarily because the Pope at the time refused to lend aid. He was still irritated over the split with Rome and the Byzantine empire's unwillingness to come back into the fold, as it were, and so refused to send aid. It was promptly sacked by the Ottomans. So he could call a crusade against Turkey to make things right if he so chose. It would be amusing.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[Mabhatter]

Because it wasn't going on for TWENTY years or more prior to allegations. The Church specifically forbids "attachment" to local parishes for too long and moves priest and nuns around every so often "just because". It's entirely possible priests were transferred to keep allegations from surfacing.

The Church make divorce and remarriage equal to or worse than molesting little kids... The priest probably did his penance and the Church moved him on, they don't feel obligated to follow secular laws. When they make "all sins mortal crimes" then overlooking or accepting confessions always trumps secular laws. Of course that problem is as old as the "Spanish Inquisition" because rooms of old guys imagining all the sins OTHER PEOPLE could commit (using the bible as a guide) go way beyond the sins normal people actually DO commit.... But be lucky they let you off with "early release to heaven".

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[Stormthirst]

For a group who are supposed to hold the moral high ground because of their job, you should expect it to be considerably lower. Much like you would expect the crime rate among judges and police to be lower - because it is their role in society to have the moral high ground. It's also why the law should come down harder on police and judges when they do step out of line

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[mark-t]

It's a fact that molestations occur the most amongst popes and priests.

Cite sources, please. I'm not saying it doesn't happen a lot, but can you show a single study that conclusively shows a higher incidence rate inside of a church than outside? Of all the people that I know well enough to know that they had suffered some sort of sexual abuse while younger, I can only think of *ONE* who was actually abused by a religious leader (which led to him, quite understandably, deeply resenting the entire concept of the church). Most of them were unfortunately abused by either a family member or somebody who their parents knew. It's my own perception that the reason the report rate for such abuse in churches may be so high is because these are people who simply aren't getting away with it as much as it happens elsewhere, on account of the increased visibility that their position of power offers. I'm not saying that's a good thing for the church (it's abhorrent that it happens at all, anywhere).... I'm just suggesting that it might be on account of the fact that between the type of position that such religious leaders hold, and that such behavior is so incredibly hypocritical on their part that it may end up inflating the perception of just how frequently it actually happens.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[mark-t]

I don't personally believe that requiring a legitimate sexual outlet is strictly necessary.... In fact, I might suggest that if or when a priest finds that such desires are interfering with his ability conduct himself professionally then that priest ought to resign his post. The reason for abstinence is based on the notion that they can more fully devote their lives and passion to God. Right or wrong, it's their belief, and although I do not personally share it, I can still respect that value... as long as the objective behind it is maintained.

While certainly not everybody has the kind of willpower it takes to abstain from sex, it's entirely erroneous to think that absolutely nobody can... at least for a while. It's my own belief, in light of this, that such positions which they believe necessitate abstinence should probably not be held for more than perhaps 7 or 8 years, at the most.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[superdave80]

But then priest won't have any more interest in you...

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[toadlife]

For a group who are supposed to hold the moral high ground because of their job, you should expect it to be considerably lower.

With what psychologists have discovered about those with a "moral identity", you should expect it to be considerably higher.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[LordLimecat]

The church is guilty of hiding, downplaying, and generally facilitating this stuff, but lets be clear that responsibility for personal actions rests with the person who commits them-- NOT the church.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[LordLimecat]

None of these should be taken as excusing things that the Church and priests, but I do note that the above reasons may explain why we don't see similar scandals rocking other churches. I highly doubt that the Catholics have cornered the market on molesting clergy.

The episcopal and anglican churches have similar structures to the Catholic church, as does (I believe) the presbyterian church.

Many churches have heirarchies, the problem with the catholic church is that it appears that the problem has been hidden rather than dealt with.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[sumdumass]

You can be as outraged as you like. The GP said it "occur the most amongst popes and priests" which I can not find anything indicating is true.

As for morals, I seriously doubt it has anything to do with it. People who will break the law often conceal themselves. How many times have you seen a cat burglar walking down the street? Probably more then you realize.

So I guess a question might be, does the moral lessons pushed by someone automatically become void should that person turn out to not be moral? I mean if you see a cop stealing money from a cash register when the store keeper is stocking slurpy cups, does it mean it is no longer wrong to steal?

Of course not. But I can agree with you being more pissed that a cop was stealing. I can't agree that it somehow means now all cops or law enforcement in general are thieves (hypothetically)

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[tnk1]

This is not really what happened.

At the time, Emperor Constantine XI had actually formed a union with Rome to gain aid from Western Europe. The Pope was entirely favorable to helping him, with the condition that the Eastern and Western Churches be reunited. This condition was actually met in the Council of Florence and the Emperor's representatives and Patriarch of Constantinople signed the reunification.

Unfortunately for this process, the monks of the East were almost wholly against reunification and caused problems. Nevertheless, given the Emperor's control of the Eastern Church, the reunification was going forward, and if Constantinople had not fallen, it might have completed eventually. As it stands, the end of the Empire pretty much shut the book on the only authority that could have overcome the inclinations of the Eastern clergy.

As for the West, by that time, Western Christendom was well on its way to being a set of modern nation-states that were not inclined to start religious warfare without a direct threat to them and theirs. In short, the Pope no longer could call for a crusade and expect a strong response. The kings of that age were not completely secular, but they had started viewing themselves as being much more independent and unwilling to tolerate the Rome's ability to affect their state business. More to the point, they saw no benefit to gaining something like reunification, which would do nothing for anyone but the Church and the Pope.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[operagost]

Also perhaps the Church needs to allow its priests some kind of legitimate sexual outlet (e.g. marriage).

Nearly all of these pedophiles abused boys. Since the Catholic Church is never going to accept homosexuality, accepting marriage is not going to provide a "legitimate sexual outlet". While boys are more accessible due to the traditional value of priests as role models, they could almost as easily take off their clerical collars and hit a few bars or dating websites. If the scandal were one where priests were spending the parish accounts on hookers and blow, I'd agree with you. I think it's a bit more complex.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[kiddygrinder]

it's about the same, they just don't get they're employer to cover it up for them.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[JustOK]

Wait 'til we get to the 911th Pope, who will be elected during the month of September.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[RabidReindeer]

People who will break the law often conceal themselves. How many times have you seen a cat burglar walking down the street? Probably more then you realize.

The critical difference is that this hypothetical cat burglar is not likely to be an employee of an organization that is dedicated to persuading the world that theft is a sin, thieving is wrong and that you need their help to eliminate the sin of theft. Oh, and then there's the whole business of the fact that we weren't talking about the sinner covering up the sin, but the anti-sin organization covering up the sinner.

People would forgive even that, if the Church were noted for actually dealing with the sin: extracting repentance and penance, healing the wounds of the victims. The Church, after all, historically expected to be a law unto themselves, separate from secular law. But again, recent reports haven't been showing that. Instead, at best, the offender would be transferred somewhere else, at worst, the somewhere else would be yet another opportunity for sin.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[operagost]

Biblically, all sins are mortal crimes to God but indeed, humans are not supposed to treat them as such.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[jellomizer]

I don't think an open outlet will help much.
Some of the People join the priesthood because they are certain about their faith, however uncertain about their sexuality (asexual, homosexual, bi, fetishes that are not socially acceptable). Traditionally is someone isn't interested in getting married and having a family they are looked down on in society. However becoming a Priest is a way out, you can live your life without the social pressure. For most priest this is the escape they need.

So if a priest is a pedophile in all but action, giving him access to a wife or hookers or whatever to relieve the tension isn't going to stop his desire for children.

The Boy Scouts is having a similar problem and there is no chastity requirement there.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[Talderas]

He did become Pope again.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[Darby]

When it covers up violations and worse, lets the violators go unpunished, this damages their credibility in a significant way.

Which sickeningly enough is exactly the reason Ratzo the kiddie fucking nazi pope gave for why they had to cover up the violations and move perverts around to fresh pools of victims.

That disgusting monster actually said they had to do it because if they didn't the truth of their actions would make them look bad.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[ConceptJunkie]

In America although about 1/3 of the population is Catholic

Catholics only make up about 1/5 of the American population... and a lot of those are only nominal Catholics.

So the priests who have had a lapse in their control went and got forgiveness, the Church if following that particular dogma then punished the priest further it would seem like they are not holding on to their ideals.

This couldn't be more wrong. Gaining absolution means that you have shown remorse, etc, for your sin, asked for forgiveness and God has forgiven your sins through his agent the priest. This forgiveness has absolutely nothing to do with temporal consequences for the sinner's behavior (including punishment). If I steal a million dollars and confess the sin to a priest, and receive absolution, I am still culpable for returning the money and facing whatever legal consequences for my crime. This is just as true if the sinner is a priest (or a bishop who covered up an abuser, etc).

The human component of the Church is no different from other human organizations, being made up of flawed people, and subject to abuse, corruption and all the other sorry things people get up to when they work together (and good things, too, but that's not the topic).

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[ConceptJunkie]

Combine that with the fact that many seminaries throughout a good chunk of the 20th century exercised poor judgement in their selection of candidates for ordination and politics being as prevalent in the Church hierarchy as it is in any other large organization and you've got a big problem.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[Phrogger]

This number is higher then a number for the general population. I think it has to do with those who would harm the children actively seeking out avenues to be exposed to them.

I think it has more to do with the future pedophile priest realising his inclinations and joining the priesthood with the hope and expectation that his vow of celibacy to God will prevent him from acting upon his illegal lusts. Thus I expect the priesthood would attract potential pedophiles, not so they could freely exercise their perversion, but so they could renounce sex and live a sin-free life. Of course celibacy is an extremely difficult vow to keep and flesh is weak. leading to priestly perversion upon children

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[luisdom]

More plausible reason is celibacy. People tend to develop strange behaviours when held in such a contra natura position.
Oh wait! ;)

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[LordLucless]

While the Church is a church of forgiveness, it is not a Church of forgetfulness. The Church can decide not to punish a molesting priest, but it should realize that it has a problem with that priest and should not let that priest around children again.

This is a slight segue, but I think it's a point that needs to be made. The Catholic church arrogates to itself the ability to forgive sins on behalf of God. But just because God forgives you doesn't mean the act has been dealt with. When you do something wrong (like molest a child), you're violating a whole host of relationships - between you and the child (sexual abuse), you and the child's parents (abuse of trust), you and the wider community (breaking the law) as well as between you and God (violating His commandments).

Just because you have made your relationship with God right doesn't mean that you have also dealt with the breaches between you and the child, the parents, or the community. You find this all the way through the Bible; when someone repents from their sin, they don't just ask for forgiveness from God but also take action to make amends to their victims. This is where the Catholic church really failed; not that it forgave offenders, but that it also conspired in preventing true restitution being made.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[nblender]

> sexual outlet (e.g. marriage).

you're not married are you?

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[hairyfish]

So I guess a question might be, does the moral lessons pushed by someone automatically become void should that person turn out to not be moral? I mean if you see a cop stealing money from a cash register when the store keeper is stocking slurpy cups, does it mean it is no longer wrong to steal?

No. The question is, does the organisation pushing morals automatically become void should that organisation have a long proven record of poor morals? I mean if you see a thousands cop stealing money from a cash registers, does it mean it you still trust the police to enforce the law effectively?

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[Pseudonym]

It's been long rumored that Cardinal Vincent "Big Vinnie the Silencer" Mastrantonio will be the successor and be able to invoke the Holy Spirit to "keep those quiet who don't want their kneecaps busted in over here over there."

Clearly in the theological tradition of Pope Alexander VI, then.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[AK Marc]

Disbanding the church would fulfill that requirement.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[stenvar]

Please point me to some citations on this. All the information I can find says that the rate of molestations are near identical to every other profession in which exposure to children is part of it.

Yes, but other professions don't proclaim that they they are the keepers of ultimate moral truth, received directly from God, and exercised with special supernatural dispensation from God.

If rates of molestation in the Catholic church are the same as in other professions involving children, that alone tells you that Catholic claims on morality are a sham and a lie.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[heefeneet]

Wait 'til we get to the 911th Pope, who will be elected during the month of September.

Im waiting for the 666th Pope. That would be interesting.

Re:Simply Could Not Fulfill His Duties

[Barsteward]

I would have been the agnostic so i'd be at risk of being burned at the stake. Do you have a clue what you are talking about?

So

[fustakrakich]

What?

Re:So

[anagama]

No kidding.

Alternative entertainment: http://www.zdnet.com/anonymous-reveals-ample-fed-access-fbi-opens-criminal-investigation-7000011073/

Re:So

[drcln]

What?

Yes. Why is this on Slashdot? We could be discussing whether Justin Timberlake brings his sexy self back with Grammys performance?

Re:So

[wonkey_monkey]

Yeah, unless his successor is to be the Papal Mainframe, I'm having a hard time trying to work out why this is on Slashdot.

Re:So

[TwentyCharsIsNotEnou]

If you're a fan of a particular [insert sport here] team, you tend to be interested if a big change of leadership occurs in an opposing team.

If you're an atheist or just an enlightened citizen of the world, I reckon it's newsworthy when the leadership of a 1 billion-strong team is about to change.

Re:So

[SomePgmr]

It's here so people can troll. I'm sure anything that mentions religion gets a billion views and comments.

But it is kinda interesting, I guess. The article says it hasn't happened since 1415.

Re:So

[ravenscar]

Seriously? So what? I'm pretty sure that a change in the religious leadership for over 1 billion people spread across the entire globe fits in the "stuff that matters" category. The guidance of the pope strongly influences the way that a very large number of people think about important topics such as family planning, the role of government, charity, women's issues, the relationship between religions, and more.

I'm an atheist from 'Murica and even I understand the potential significance of such a change. I mean, it probably isn't as important as DRM on video games or complaining about Apple, but it merits a spot in the list.

Re:So

[turkeyfeathers]

The Pope has a Twitter account, you insensitive clod.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

For a site filled with pedants, it's odd how many members forget the "stuff that matters" part of the slogan. The Catholic church has a membership of over 1 billion people, and a change in pope can affect how those people -- and especially their kids -- view certain issues, including scientific issues (albeit, the Catholics are nothing like evangelists).

Re:So

[1u3hr]

For a site filled with pedants, it's odd how many members forget the "stuff that matters" part of the slogan.

I've always parsed it as [News for nerds] LOGICAL AND [stuff that matters].

Any news site on earth has "stuff that matters", to someone. This is supposed to have "news that matters to nerds".

Re:So

[fustakrakich]

Policy is set by the Vatican Bank. The pope, like many other national 'leaders', is a charismatic figurehead, a designated distraction.

Re:So

[Tarlus]

a change in pope can affect how those people -- and especially their kids -- view certain issues, including scientific issues

Can, but won't. All of the Cardinals involved were either appointed by the current or previous pope, and/or they appointed the current pope. How they view certain issues and how the next pope they select also views them will not change. It'll take Vatican III to bring about any real progress, and with the current conservative trend I don't think Vatican III would come anytime soon.

But, that's just how I view it.

Re:So

[sumdumass]

Maybe it is here because without a pope, we can find all kinds of porn online. And everyone knows porn is stuff that matters.

I'm somewhat frightened to what new kinds of porn I will be able to find though.

Re:So

[isorox]

I reckon it's newsworthy when the leadership of a 1 billion-strong team is about to change.

Does it have anything to do with technology at all?

Because we don't get Slashdot articles saying "Happy Easter" or "welcome to Lent" and "Happy Hannukah".

This has nothing to do with Slashdot.

Big stories from slashdot's past
* Kerry Concedes Election To Bush
* Strike on Iraq
* Barack Obama Wins US Presidency
* Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London

And not big enough to be in hof, but essential reading for me on the day -- pretty much the only website which stayed up as I dialed in from work on my 28.8 modem
* World Trade Towers and Pentagon Attacked

This beats the "news" that 1GB != 2^30 bytes in any case

Re:So

[SolitaryMan]

He didn't say he'll retire his twitter account, so no geek should care.

Re:So

[Bigby]

Did the start of the Iraq War. 9/11? Election of Obama? Tsunami of 2004? There are some events that transcend the subject matter of the site.

Also, the Catholic Church is historically linked to a whole lot of scientific history. For good or not for good.

Re:So

[antdude]

So does Justin! https://twitter.com/jtimberlake ;)

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read into it deeper, it gets a lot more interesting. Hell, you could almost write a full book just on why the popes that retired did, and what happened to them.

The 1415 resignation wasn't really by choice. He entered into an agreement such that he would abandon the pope title if the other anti-popes (people calling themselves pope, but weren't actually pope according to the official records) would abandon their titles too. Obviously, the winner writes the history books, so with all of that mess, the 1415 guy stepped down and things got a bit more normal.

Another one, Pope Celestine retired (1294), but the new pope put in place after him hated him so much the retired guy was captured, slammed into a jail cell, and rotted the rest of his life away there until he died.

And messier still, Pope Benedict IX was made pope because his dad gave it to him. He was ridiculously young, is said to have done all kinds of stupid shit. He was kicked out and replaced, came back with his high-up connections and took the popehood back,sold it, and then came back later to claim it yet a third time. The only pope who's been pope more than once (3 times officially), AND the only one to have sold the title for riches.

Isn't the history of the church just so full of love and respect?

A good place to start with having a pile of links and citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_resignation

Re:So

[interkin3tic]

Why is this on Slashdot?

Because someone submitted it and it didn't get rejected in "firehose" or by an editor.

Let me pose my own question: did you do anything to keep it off of slashdot?

Followup question assuming you're in the US: Do you vote in political primaries?

Re:So

[Darinbob]

Now it would be a great Slashdot story if the pope said he was going to spend his retirement years doing open source code development.

Re:So

[alexgieg]

It'll take Vatican III to bring about any real progress, and with the current conservative trend I don't think Vatican III would come anytime soon.

You do know that the retiring pope is one of the progressive guys who brought about Vatican II, right? He's also a philosopher with tons of PhDs (as was the previous one) and in that position explicitly said he doesn't believe Jesus either resurrected or actually is God incarnate. These are a few among the many, many reasons actual conservative Catholics don't like him.

Re:So

[tnk1]

Yes, Benedict IX was a product of a time where Rome was little more than a city run by families that were, in effect, much like organized gangs. Since, at the time, the election of the Popes was not done by the Cardinals, but by the local nobles of the Rome area, the papacy was basically captive to secular rulers.

This period is known as saeculum obscurum (the Dark Age), and due to the influence of related females, was also amusingly known also as the Pornocracy.

Re:So

[tnk1]

You're probably right, but the guy who started Vatican II, John XXIII, was not exactly a flaming liberal himself, and was also thought to be a caretaker pope. Of course, considering that he died in the middle of Vatican II, the idea of him having a short term was obviously accurate, he just chose not to act like he was holding on to the position while someone younger came up.

The interesting thing about the Pope is that he's an absolute monarch of an extreme sort. Once elected, there is hundreds of years of precedent that the Pope does not bind himself to any "campaign promises" when he's elected. The current document for the election of the Pope (written by John Paul II) is very careful to declare ahead of time that any promises made in Conclave are completely invalid and that any candidate is released from any oath taken to bind himself to any pre-election promises.

What this means is, the Pope will do what the Pope feels is the best thing to do and absolutely no one and no group in the Church can check him based on canon law, and unofficially, it would be very, very hard to do.

Why does this matter? It matters because while it is entirely likely he will remain conservative in most ways, it is possible that the future Pope right now is quietly harboring a very strong anger for the state of the Church, for instance, in regard to the abuse scandal. A conservative Pope could easily remain conservative, and yet from those strong moral stances, actually feel that there needs to be a complete house cleaning. As Pope, he would have unlimited authority to achieve this aim, up to and including ordering retirements, penances, and possibly even convening a General Council like Vatican II.

This differs quite a bit from the idea that you elect someone on a platform and you basically get that platform and all the people who come with it. Here, for better or worse, you are getting the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and the curia is his to command, not the other way around. That can make for some startling changes when you least expect them and is probably one reason why the Papacy has survived for 2,000 years.

Re:So

[Threni]

> This has nothing to do with Slashdot.

Perhaps he's going to spend more time being a grammar nazi here?

Re:So

[angelofdarkness]

You do know that the retiring pope is one of the progressive guys who brought about Vatican II, right? He's also a philosopher with tons of PhDs (as was the previous one) and in that position explicitly said he doesn't believe Jesus either resurrected or actually is God incarnate. These are a few among the many, many reasons actual conservative Catholics don't like him.

HAHAHAHAHHA!!! Don't know if you're serious or trolling, but this is the funniest thing I've read in this thread. Seriously, Pope Benny XVI progressive ?!?!

This pope, as the old one, are a bunch of far-right conservative pricks and all the PhDs in the world won't make them less reactionary.
A meddler in the politics of other nations, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (previously known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition) and the puppetteer behind Pope John Paul II is a progressive guy? HEHEHE you're killing me.

This pope is resigning because he is tied to a whole bunch of scandals: the cover-up of child offending priests, the Vatileaks scandal and the Magdalene laundries in Ireland are just some of the controversial issues he is being associated with.
He is resigning because he is beginning to be bad publicity for the vatican.
He doesn't care if actual catholics do not like him, if they don't follow what the pope says (Papal infallibility) they are simply not good catholics and should conform as soon as possible to the status quo (his) or burn in hell. And I can't even say good riddance because they will elect another reactionary, close minded world affair meddler to replace this one.

Re:So

[jrumney]

You do know that the retiring pope is one of the progressive guys who brought about Vatican II, right? He's also a philosopher with tons of PhDs (as was the previous one) and in that position explicitly said he doesn't believe Jesus either resurrected or actually is God incarnate.

Wait, so the guy does not believe in the ressurection or the Holy Trinity, yet he still preaches the "every sperm is sacred" anti-contraception bullshit to his followers in the third world?

Re:So

[RivenAleem]

Because he was our best hope for the creation of a Death Star (considering the US have decided not to run with it)

Re:So

[alexgieg]

Wait, so the guy does not believe in the ressurection or the Holy Trinity, yet he still preaches the "every sperm is sacred" anti-contraception bullshit to his followers in the third world?

Yep. Because there's a distinction of attributions over there. One thing is what the guy in the job thinks or how he personally interprets matters, another is what the church explicitly says and he must do while in an official position. While acting as "Benedict XVI, the Pope", Ratzinger says (said) what he Catholic Church has basically always said with slight to no variation, while as "Ratzinger the theologian, philosopher, PhD etc." he interprets those some sayings in quite non-standard ways. This is somewhat similar to an US President upholding the Constitution while personally thinking: "Gee, that whole 1st amendment thing is annoying. Oh, well, let's go with it anyway, nothing to do about it. *sigh*"

Things have been like this for quite a few centuries, so much so the Church had to officially implement that concept of "infallibility" in the 19th century to clearly distinguish any pope's personal opinions from the very rare instances any one of them would have to stand and say something in the official position of "the Pope", i.e., as the official position of the Church. If I'm not mistaken something has been declared as "infallible" only two or three times since then, most popes going their whole papacies not doing it once.

By the way, although I'm far from Catholic (or Christian) I really fail to see what the anti-Catholic folk find of so objectionably about the whole anti-contraception matter. You know it's valid only for married couples, right? Non-married ones are doing far worse stuff from the Church's perspective for this to be the Church's primary focus. And any actual married Catholic couple willing to obey the Church's instructions on sex are not only not using anti-contraception methods, they also aren't making sex unless they want a new baby. If they are making sex just for fun, well, that's the very first problem right there (again, from the Church's perspective), so the secondary detail of them using contraceptives is at best (worst?) icing on the cake.

Re:So

[alexgieg]

HAHAHAHAHHA!!! Don't know if you're serious or trolling

In regards to knowledge, there are several types of people:

a) Those who know, and know they know;

b) Those who know enough to know that they don't know.

c) Those who don't know, but believe they know.

d) Those who don't know, and don't even know there's something there to be know.

Among them, "c" are the most dangerous. To themselves, to others and even to society as a whole.

Re:So

[AK Marc]

The Vatican Bank "ultimately reports to the pope". And the Pope has complete power. If the Vatican Bank were to make a proclamation and the pope came out and said the opposite, who do you think will be followed?

Re:So

[fustakrakich]

The pope swims in the same ocean of finance as everybody else.

Maybe they'll consult Discordianism...

[TWX]

...they've got plenty of POPEs over there...

Why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this on slashdot?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Dave Whiteside]

probably because he was dealing horsemeat to euro or something ....
that's about as nerdish as I can make it ...

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[zrbyte]

Not just that, but why is this under science.slashdot.org? Maybe idle... maybe.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[negRo_slim]

I'm hoping it's viral marketing for the new iWatch from Apple.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[SirGarlon]

So abrasive atheists can whore for karma by railing against religion.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[nospam007]

"Why is this on slashdot?"

It's about a guy who can talk to the cloud without any computer.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[ACS Solver]

Other than letting people complain about religion, it's a leadership change in the world's largest church that encompasses about a billion people, and the particular office of the Pope has existed for about a thousand years.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking to the cloud without a computer is simple - anyone can do it. It's getting it to listen that's the hard part.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chorus:
The pope smokes dope, God gave him the grass
The pope smokes dope, he likes to smoke in mass
The pope smokes dope, he's a groovy head
The pope smokes dope, the pope smokes dope
(oh yeah! 3x)
God is high on mescaline, Satan's high on smack
Popes in Rome get stoned on grass, Jesus freaks are back
Jesus Christ a super-hippie never shoot up junk
Popes in Rome get stoned alone, priests, in church get drunk
(Chorus)
Now Jack 'n' Jill went up the hill, to fetch a pail of water
Jill forgot to take her pill, now she's got a daughter
Taking pills is not a joke for a groovy Pope
Birth control can be a toke of marijuana smoke
(Chorus)
The pope is getting higher (re: higher! higher! - 4x)
(Chorus)
Cha! Cha! Cha!

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

So abrasive atheists can whore for karma by railing against religion.

I'll bite.

This molester-protecting fuck had the audacity to label transgendered people as 'abominations'.

This is possibly not news for nerds; but certainly, if you've any humanity at all, his departure from his vile office is most definitely 'stuff that matters'.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[tnk1]

Hah. Getting it to listen is easy, getting something useful back from it... now that is the real trick.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[vlm]

Why is this on slashdot?

Last time around we had a irreverent time comparing the current pope to a variety of sci fi figures and tropes based on everything from trivial physical appearance, to behavior. Emperor Palpatine, etc. I'm sure we'll have plenty of fun here when the next political leader wins, doing about the same thing as last time. The tech aspect is keeping the comparisons "sci fi". In comparison, making jokes about Hillary getting selected would not be "sci fi" or "tech".

I'm having serious difficulty thinking of a famous living catholic IN TECH who could theoretically become pope. At least one probably exists? Technically all they need to be is baptized, although for the last couple centuries they've all been cardinals, which kinda cuts down on the possible selections from a billion or so down to about 20. A pity, I'd like to see a Catholic evolutionary biologist get selected, and then watch the teabillies squirm.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[show me altoids]

Exactly, as every Slashdotter no doubt knows, Grandpa Simpson yells at clouds regularly.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[hey!]

So people can make pope jokes. Duh.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[chill]

Crusade against normality? I suggest you familiarize yourself with the standard distribution bell curve.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[tnk1]

If you consider Peter the first pope, it's going on two thousand years, actually. It says something when the last time someone resigned was 600 years ago, which was before Columbus found the New World.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[DeathToBill]

AFAICT, for the same reason US presidential elections are covered on slashdot. It's got nothing to do with "news for nerds" but it matters to a very large number of people.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[hedwards]

So, you've successfully proven that you're a bigot and don't require the Pope to rationalize your bigotry. I'm sure your mother would be so proud of you.

The Pope should have been passed over in favor of somebody a little more aware of the consequences of his words.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[alexander_686]

Simple. The mathematical property of Transitive tells us:

Slashdot likes conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theorist like news on the Catholic Church.
Ergo, Slashdoters would be interested in this.

For example, we all know that the reason why Linux has not succeeded is that the Knights Templar control Microsoft. The only way to break their control over the monetary system is to move to BitCoin.

Or am I missing something here?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[bluefoxlucid]

Also the end of the Catholic Church, since Benedict is the last pope.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[WilyCoder]

That....that was awesome.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[SuricouRaven]

"it's funny how, activities that literally don't help human advancement (procreation)"

Like being a Catholic priest?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[guttentag]

Because Alicia Keys is rumored to have been asked to succeed Benedict.

This could have profound consequences for the future of the Blackberry, which will either lose its creative director or become the official smartphone of God's consigliere. Forget the fact that there has never been a female priest in Catholicism and just think about it. She could do a lot more for turnaround efforts at the Vatican than she ever could at the company formerly known as RIM. She's young, beautiful, popular, already has more fans than Benedict, female, and has already demonstrated a taste for taking on roles that would seeM challenging and completely out of left field. Remember who said it first when you're pirating copies of her celebrating mass at the Superdome.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[clintp]

Possibly as a segue into a history discussion?

This affects a large chunk of the planet's population and hasn't happened in 600 years.

This'll give the history nerds something to talk about. (There are other kinds of nerds than tech nerds.)

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[chilvence]

Meh, count the numbers. Human advancement these days can only rely on reversing procreation if anything....

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[HappyHead]

Considering the current Pope's very public stand against modern medicine in claiming that AIDS and STDs are caused by the use of condoms, getting rid of the delusional old child-abuse enabler is very much news related to Science and Medicine.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[DoofusOfDeath]

"Why is this on slashdot?"

It's about a guy who can talk to the cloud without any computer.

Chuck Norris?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[rossdee]

Except that many people on Slashdot are american citizens, and therefore can vote for the President iwhen there is an election.

The Pope is elected by a small unch of Cardinals,none of whom post on Slashdot.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[sumdumass]

Only if you are against freedom.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Tarlus]

Perhaps it is Catholicism's historic fear of, aversion to, and impedance of scientific progress? While I don't believe it, some people are suggesting that a new pope might more willingly embrace scientific truths rather than outright deny or denounce them. Not that these challenges are even a problem in modern day...

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[sumdumass]

But there is a politics section and those stories are tagged politics not science.

Maybe the politics section gets hidden when a race isn't happening and they had to shoehorn this in?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pope is elected by a small unch of Cardinals,none of whom post on Slashdot.

Well, not logged in, anyway.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[guttentag]

This affects a large chunk of the planet's population and hasn't happened in 600 years.

Exactly. In a nerd world where "achievements" are virtual tasks completed in a virtual environment that has not been accomplished by anyone else in the last 5.2 seconds and "major events" involve hundreds of people around the world converging on a server for a virtual battle that causes a virtual time dilation, an event that has not occurred for 598 years (to be exact) an pd affects a billion people around the world is significant as "stuff that matters."

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Barsteward]

"The Pope should have been passed over in favor of somebody a little more aware of the consequences of his words."

What are the chances of that whilst they still say No to contraception etc etc . They are outdated by 2000 years

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Barsteward]

if there was a god , i'd pray for freedom from religion and religious privileges.

(the religious always whine and bleat about "religious freedom" but what they really mean is keeping religious privileges - they can have the freedom to be religious in their homes and minds but keep it out of schools, law etc)

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Americano]

But mostly, it's ad impressions driven by letting people complain about religion.

Not so much the rest.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Thud457]

MFW the new pope is Peter, from Rome

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[xevioso]

How many Popes does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[sumdumass]

Like I said, against freedom.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[bgarcia]

"Why is this on slashdot?"

It's about a guy who can talk to the cloud without any computer.

Chuck Norris?

No, Jeff Dean

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[CrimsonAvenger]

A pity, I'd like to see a Catholic evolutionary biologist get selected, and then watch the teabillies squirm.

Hate to break it to you, but the "teabillies", as you put it, are totally uninterested in the Papacy, being Protestants....

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Gameless]

Tifa?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[tnk1]

That's exactly the same way, if you were actually looking to go fishing in Russia and didn't somehow didn't know about the rather large country in between the US and Russia.

Just because natives found the Americas, 40,000 years ago doesn't mean Columbus didn't find something that he (and the rest of Eurasia) had no idea existed. Say what you will, he didn't just follow a land bridge over to some other land, he got in a boat and sailed into the Ocean without knowing his destination with any certainty. That was visionary and gutsy, and it changed world history. The fact that there were humans already there takes nothing away from that, since it's not like they knew about Europe either.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just one more and then it ends.

According to Saint Malachy prophecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Malachy), the next pope should be the last one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[ChunderDownunder]

Monkey, great sage, the equal of heaven.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[SirGarlon]

Congratulations on meta-funny post! This is funny from at least three points of view: the programmer's view of the IT cloud, the atheist's view of religion, and the Christian's view of prayer.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[SirGarlon]

Shouldn't we all rail against religion as we would any scam?

Depends on whether you attack the scammer, or the victim.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[maxwell demon]

How many Popes does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Popes don't screw. Not even in a light bulb.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[operagost]

I think the majority of people would find mutilating one's sexual organs and appearance to be out of the mainstream. They have trouble distinguishing transgenders and people like Heidi Montag-- they both seem to have shocking abnormalities with their body image because we're not all shrinks. You act like the guy called for mass executions.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[operagost]

I don't recognize this generation that believes cowering in a hovel, unable to express one's own thoughts for fear of reprisal, constitutes "freedom".

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[vakuona]

Really? Are you one of those people who claims that the Catholic Church impedes science? You are probably one of those people who is truly shocked to discover that guy who first proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe was a Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître).

Copernicus was also a Catholic priest, as were other scientific greats such as Ruer Josip Bokovi, Francesco Maria Grimaldi (the crater Grimaldi on the moon is named after him). There are many more.

The Catholic built universities long before nation states built universities. You can make many charges against the Catholic Church, but impeding scientific progress is not one of them. The Catholic Church is one of the most power forces for education in the developing world. I know this because the first private school for african students in ZImbabwe was built by the Catholic Church. Arguably, the Catholic Church, wherever it has operated, has done more for the education of the disadvantaged than foreign governments (which are always more powerful and wealthier) in many parts of the developing world.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Algae_94]

the audacity to label transgendered people as 'abominations'.

Really, what's so audacious about labeling people that have their bodies modified to try and change their gender as 'abominations'. Where's the line for you? What if somebody gets a dick grafted onto their forehead, because they've always felt that they were a penis unicorn, is that not an 'abomination'?

I have no problem with accepting people that are attracted to the same gender, or if they want to dress and act like the other gender. They are just being who they are. Surgically and hormonally altering your gender is trying to be something you are not. Just learn to accept who you are.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[Algae_94]

That's exactly the same way, if you were actually looking to go fishing in Russia and didn't somehow didn't know about the rather large country in between the US and Russia.

How large a country can you fit in 6 miles of distance?

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[RivenAleem]

I think it's an encryption issue.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[DeathToBill]

And many people on Slashdot are Catholics (statistically it has to be so - more than 1 in 6 people in the world call themselves Catholics) so this matters to a lot of them. The fact you are not one of them, just as the fact I am not an American, doesn't mean it doesn't get posted.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[AK Marc]

Because the pope is at least indirectly linked to most of the other political stories on here nobody is complaining about (evolution/science research usually touches on religion in comments, if not in the article directly). Seems obvious and consistent.

Re:Why is this on slashdot?

[tnk1]

I'm assuming he went the long way over the North Pole after starting in Iowa. Work with me here. ;)

Pope starts using the internet

[hsmith]

and two months later quits his job. Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Pope starts using the internet

[Errol backfiring]

So my prayers to Saint Isidore are fulfilled!

Re:Pope starts using the internet

[bancho]

He got promoted to mod on 4chan.

Re:Pope starts using the internet

[DrXym]

He rage quit.

Re:Pope starts using the internet

[Barsteward]

he just found and read the complete richarddawkins.net

Re:Pope starts using the internet

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Actually, we should be discussing which Papal Candidate has the most Tech Friendly platform.

But just like other political candidates, the Papal Candidates will promise us a tech friendly regime, but fail to deliver after being elected.

Where are the leading candidates' homepages anyway . . . ?

And, do I need ID to register to vote . . . ? This was a bit of a controversy in the last US election.

What a quitter!

[91degrees]

Noah lived to over 900, and he was building Arks into his 7th century.

These modern God-botherers just don't have the stamina.

Re:What a quitter!

[JDevers]

Damn, now it makes perfect sense...Noah was only ~250 years old when he died. Makes the whole bible seem more legit.

Re:What a quitter!

[mkoenecke]

Actually, one theory is that instead of years they were referring to lunar months for the ages, which makes 900 equal to about 75 years. But what I was taught in theology was the numbers, like many numbers in the Bible, were symbolic, intended to symbolize the deteriorating moral state of Man.

Re:What a quitter!

[pswPhD]

Damn, now it makes perfect sense...Noah was only ~250 years old when he died. Makes the whole bible seem more legit.

The whole point of the Bible is to state God existence, and the nature of that God.
So, if we assume an omnipotent God exists and wanted somebody to live for ~900 years, He has the strength and ability to be able to do so.

Re:What a quitter!

[91degrees]

I heard once it was because age implied wisdom. Seems to make sense in the context anyway.

Re:What a quitter!

[ceoyoyo]

That's a pretty theory, but it makes the bit where god declares that men won't live so long a little hard to explain.

Re:What a quitter!

[Kjella]

Actually, one theory is that instead of years they were referring to lunar months for the ages, which makes 900 equal to about 75 years.

Which would badly explain others like Abraham and Isaac, that were supposedly 175 and 180 years. That'd make them 14-15 year old boys instead.

But what I was taught in theology was the numbers, like many numbers in the Bible, were symbolic, intended to symbolize the deteriorating moral state of Man.

The reason for the decline perhaps, but the book is very literal about their ages. Besides, if you think mankind tumbled into the world from a magic garden believing in 900 year olds seems like the lesser issue.

In any case average life span is now going up which should then be an indication our moral state has been improving lately :D

Re:What a quitter!

[JigJag]

Actually, one theory is that instead of years they were referring to lunar months for the ages, which makes 900 equal to about 75 years.

This theory doesn't hold water for the following reasons:
* Gen 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened". If a year is in fact a lunar month, what is this "second month" and even more this "seventeenth day"?
* Gen 8:13,14 "Now in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, it came about that the waters had drained from off the earth; and Noah proceeded to remove the covering of the ark and to look, and here the surface of the ground had drained dry. And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth had dried off". So it took one whole year (plus 10 days) for the flood to come and go completely. It cannot be one lunar month since Gen 8:3,4 "And the waters began receding from off the earth, progressively receding; and at the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters were lacking. And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat". So 150 days is identified to 5 months (7th month - 2nd month), time it took for the water to start receding.
* Gen 5:12 "And Kenan lived on for seventy years. Then he became father to Mahalalel". If a year was in fact a lunar month, that would make him a father at 5 years old!

One conclusion you can take from this account is that a biblical month is 30 days and a biblical year is 360 days.

Re:What a quitter!

[JigJag]

Mu!

Re:What a quitter!

[AmiMoJo]

So tell us, how does it feel to dance on the head of pin?

Re:What a quitter!

[sunderland56]

But what I was taught in theology was the numbers, like many numbers in the Bible, were symbolic

So, the numbers are symbolic, but the rest of the text is the direct word of God and must be interpreted exactly as written?

Re:What a quitter!

[Darinbob]

Noah didn't have to deal with building codes and maritime laws. He only had to deal with a dysfunctional family and lots of animal poop.

Re:What a quitter!

[maxwell demon]

If god is all powerful, could he make a stone so heavy even he couldn't lift it.

Yes. Of course if he actually did that, he no longer would be all powerful. But that's OK, because absolute power includes the power to take your own power away.

Re:What a quitter!

[maharvey]

> If god is all powerful, could he make a stone so heavy even he couldn't lift it.

Of course he could, silly! Lifting a physical stone requires physical force. For the question to be meaningful, God would have to enter the finite universe and take on a finite physical form. Having done so, the answer to the question is painfully obvious.

One could go further and point out that God has already done so, as a matter of historical record, rendering the question disingenious.

Re:What a quitter!

[LordLucless]

Yup. Solomon's love really had a nose like the tower of Lebanon. You think your wife takes a long time putting on her makeup; at least she doesn't have to call a team of masons in to help her.

Re:What a quitter!

[FatLittleMonkey]

If god is all powerful, could he make a stone so heavy even he couldn't lift it.

Yes, moreover he can lift that stone, too.

Re:What a quitter!

[j-beda]

That's a pretty theory, but it makes the bit where god declares that men won't live so long a little hard to explain.

Maybe that was a later edit to try to make sense of things? "What is this crap? Did those guys really live that long? I guess God must have changed things since then, so I'll just insert a verse or two."

In a Vatican Statement.

[Dartz-IRL]

In a statement released by the Vatican Today, it was announced that his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI will step down with immediate effect. When asked for a reason, a spokesman for his former holiness suggested that he would like to spend more time with his wife and children.

Re:In a Vatican Statement.

[mcmonkey]

In a statement released by the Vatican Today, it was announced that his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI will step down with immediate effect. When asked for a reason, a spokesman for his former holiness suggested that he would like to spend more time with his wife and children.

I did nazi that coming.

Re:In a Vatican Statement.

[tnk1]

When asked for a reason, a spokesman for his former holiness suggested that he would like to spend more time with his wife and children.

Funny, but not too far from the truth in the 16th Century. Rodrigo Borgia knew how to party.

The papacy has gotten a lot more boring over the years. And less scandalous, if you can believe it.

Re:In a Vatican Statement.

[spire3661]

Absolutely. Historical popes were outright EVIL, so why anyone listens to that office is beyond me. There are no divine men.

Re:In a Vatican Statement.

[Kidbro]

The modern day ones as well. With the 'condoms are dangerous' lies they're spreading (primarily in Africa), I wouldn't be surprised if they've caused more deaths than any other organization in history. Including the the infamous competition from the WW2 era everybody always name when it comes to speaking about evil people.

Re:In a Vatican Statement.

[wiredlogic]

I did nazi that coming.

Nice Godwin

Re:What now?

[fredrated]

Slow news day. REALLY slow news day. Today could become the icon, the acme of slow news days.

Too bad...

[ilsaloving]

It's a shame that he's leaving. He was the perfect figurehead for the Catholic Church because he clearly and visibly embodied it's principles.

Re:Too bad...

[Slider451]

Actually, by retiring before he dies, he gets a strong voice in selecting his successor. That, along with the fact that he's been carefully selecting like-minded cardinals the last several years, ensures the next pope will by very similar to Benedict.

Re:Too bad...

[RobertNotBob]

Slider,

Actually.....

Recent history shows he doesn't have to resign early to affect his succession. If you were watching in 2005 you would know that Pope John Paul II did exactly that and basically put him (the current Pope) into office as his hand-picked successor. Look at nearly any picture of the previous Pope in the last few years of his life and you're see the the man who became Benidict XVI in the same frame.

Not like this is any big scandal. - It's totally natural to be concerned about who takes over when you leave.

AND, leaders (religious, political or even corporate) selecting others who are like minded is called "Organizational Consistency" and is not a ""bad word"" in most places.

Re:Too bad...

[DoofusOfDeath]

Actually, by retiring before he dies, he gets a strong voice in selecting his successor. That, along with the fact that he's been carefully selecting like-minded cardinals the last several years, ensures the next pope will by very similar to Benedict.

Yes, by striking himself down, he becomes more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Re:Too bad...

[DerekLyons]

Actually, by retiring before he dies, he gets a strong voice in selecting his successor.

Um, no. He might be able to politic beforehand, but once the Conclave begins - the cardinals are sequestered and all ballots are confidential.
 

That, along with the fact that he's been carefully selecting like-minded cardinals the last several years, ensures the next pope will by very similar to Benedict.

In the same way that Pope John Paul II selected the vast majority of the Cardinals that elected his replacement... and they selected one much like him. Except they didn't.
 
No, despite all it's other faults, in modern times political dynasty building seems to be absent from the Papacy.

Re:Too bad...

[cusco]

After John-Paul I died (probably by foul play) the Curia made damn sure that they weren't going to get someone like him in charge again for a long time. In other times John-Paul II would probably have revolutionized the Church, but he owed Cardinal Marcinkus and his corrupt cronies for his selection and only appointed ultraconservative cardinals during his entire reign. (In all fairness, considering the demise of his predecessor he may have been operating partly out of fear as well.) The Curia put pressure on more liberal cardinals to resign early as well, enabling their replacement with someone more in line with their own vision. Thus the selection of the head of the Inquisition as the new Pope after John-Paul II's death.

Re:Too bad...

[FatLittleMonkey]

Look at nearly any picture of the previous Pope in the last few years of his life and you're see the the man who became Benidict XVI in the same frame.

That's sith for you.

Re:Too bad...

[szelus]

And this is modded +4 Informative, because slashdot likes conspiratorial theories I suppose...

Re:Too bad...

[cusco]

The last previous time that a pope had ruled for such a short period was several centuries earlier, and he had been murdered as well. There is an excellent study of the situation called 'In The Name Of God' by David Yallop that I highly recommend. Should be available in your library. It's quite a fascinating period of time in the Church's recent history, with the Vatican Bank laundering money for the Medellin Cartel and Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons program, the exposure of the P2 Masonic lodge with its penetration into the Curia and its participation in Operation Gladio, Michele Sidona and Licio Gelli involved in the bank's operations, and at the head of the whole mess US-born Cardinal Marcinkus.

Re:What now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? This is about a man who never got laid by a woman. Sounds like the typical Slashdot demographic to me. ;-)

Mea Maxima Culpa?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading between the lines, I think HBO's recent "Mea Maxima Culpa" was probably a significant factor. His resignation will stave off the worst of the public outcry and demands for deeper revelations from the church about the matters raised there. Hopefully the Catholic Church will be pressed about the issues raised regardless, but his specific, key role in it all is the point at the moment.

To recap what I read elsewhere: prior to being Pope, he was the head of the modern (renamed) Inquisition, assigned there by the previous pope. In that role, he "took charge" of the recent wave of priest sex abuse scandals since the 90s, ordered all evidence be centralized in his department's archives, and then basically hid it all and did little to actually act on the mountains of evidence they still haven't revealed to prosecutors or the public. It's pretty damning stuff.

Re:Mea Maxima Culpa?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Funny side-note, my captcha for the above was "Lustful")

Links relevant to the above:

http://tinyurl.com/y9wuh4j (wikipedia on Ratzinger's pre-Pope role, long title in URL)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_Maxima_Culpa:_Silence_in_the_House_of_God

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/01/4041509/abuse-victims-silent-no-more.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/13/mea_maxima_culpa_new_doc_exposes

Re:Mea Maxima Culpa?

[Maow]

Reading between the lines, I think HBO's recent "Mea Maxima Culpa" was probably a significant factor. His resignation will stave off the worst of the public outcry and demands for deeper revelations from the church about the matters raised there. Hopefully the Catholic Church will be pressed about the issues raised regardless, but his specific, key role in it all is the point at the moment.

To recap what I read elsewhere: prior to being Pope, he was the head of the modern (renamed) Inquisition, assigned there by the previous pope. In that role, he "took charge" of the recent wave of priest sex abuse scandals since the 90s, ordered all evidence be centralized in his department's archives, and then basically hid it all and did little to actually act on the mountains of evidence they still haven't revealed to prosecutors or the public. It's pretty damning stuff.

The late, lamented Christopher Hitchens had possibly the ultimate take on the cover-up at Slate.com.

To quote the appropriately entitled "The Great Catholic Cover-Up: The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it":

Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)

Re:Mea Maxima Culpa?

[cusco]

Rather doubt that HBO was a "significant factor", or even an insignificant one. He's the fucking pope, he doesn't have to give a shit what anyone thinks or says about him, especially about his actions before his assent to the throne of Peter. It's not like he pays attention to the 80+ percent of US and European Catholics who think that the Church's stance on birth control is wrong for instance, the Church is a dictatorship not a democracy.

Re:Mea Maxima Culpa?

[rahvin112]

I think there is a connection as well. You've got a bunch of deaf guys that were molested and have been public about it for more than 30 years. You have Benedict who under his authority basically covered up the entire thing worldwide. As the Documentary exposes, this was not just an American problem, this has occurred all over Europe too.

I personally believe this is directly tied to the HBO documentary, it's not coincidence that is started airing a little over a week ago.

Re:Mea Maxima Culpa?

[coolsnowmen]

I think that this is the opposite of true. Unlike the democracy of the United states, leaving is not really an easy option for most people who are upset with it's rulers, while the capitalism of choice is alive and well in religion. I can go down the street and give my money to a completely different denomination or religion entirely. The pope might not care what people think of him, but the Catholic Church sure does. Finally, Unlike a country, the church HAS to care about it's PR. Its income (tithes) is basically voluntary.

Re:Mea Maxima Culpa?

[cusco]

The Holy See (the Vatican) doesn't worry about donations much (no one tithes to the Catholic church, that's a Protestant thing). Most of its income is from it's enormous investments and huge property holdings (in Latin America it's second only to the Brazilian government in property owned). Donations only matter at the local level and diocese (bishop) level. At the level of archbishop and above they're mostly operating on the Holy See's budget. If you think the congresscritters are far removed from the concerns of their constituents you have no idea how truly distant the apparatchiks of the Curia (the Vatican bureaucracy) are from normal parishioners.

I've seen

[etash]

people using the "is this news for nerds?" quote in many semi-relative-to-slashdot articles. This is not such an article, this quote is *designed* for such articles.

Re:I've seen

[0xdeadbeef]

Galileo! Religion is superstitious nonsense, and will never be compatible with science! Tim Minchin: fuck the mother-fucking pope!

There, I made it relevant to Slashdot.

Re:I've seen

[vlm]

"is this news for nerds?"

There do exist religion nerds, just like sports nerds, tv nerds, drama (theatrical) nerds, music nerds. I've already seen them coming out of the woodwork in MSM articles about how this crisis was handled in 1084 and the biography of his previous namesake and what amounts to jailhouse lawyering about the election process, blah blah blah.

Re:I've seen

[etash]

the last thing those religion nerds would like to see is such an article on /. !

Retirement plan not updated for hundreds of years.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

So, does he get a pension? Full medical? How about dental? There's probably nothing in place. I vote for creative taxidermy, but that's just me.

tags

[schneidafunk]

Tagged medicine & science?

Malachy prophesy? Next one the last?

[Aguazul2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

Re:Infallible?

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Two wrongs don't make a right, or do they?

Re:Infallible?

[WillAdams]

Infallibility is only when speaking _ex cathedra_, ``that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority.''

If one has stepped down from the office, it no longer applies.

Will the new pope run Linux?

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'm guessing the old one was on Windows XP; probably time to retire him anyway.

Re:Will the new pope run Linux?

[tnk1]

You better hope the new one doesn't run Windows 8, or you might be begging for the old one back.

Re:Will the new pope run Linux?

[gestalt_n_pepper]

I'd suggest a change to OS X Mountain Lion, but that would be equivalent to a religious conversion and probably violate his terms of service agreement. Much more user friendly, though.

Re:Will the new pope run Linux?

[bluefoxlucid]

OSX Cougar?

Re:Will the new pope run Linux?

[CheeseTroll]

He'll never switch to Linux - I hear he's far more "Cathedral" than "Bazaar".

Re:Infallible?

[zerobeat]

Two infallible people at the same time would have to agree on everything. What I don't understand is is he infallible now? I mean, he admits he can't continue - surely a sign he is not infallible. Or does he only project into the future that one day he will no longer be infallible so he better get out now. But even then this is a sign that he is not infallible. This is the sort of thing that can keep you up at night until you realize what a load of horse shit this all is and you wonder why some people still bother with it. BTW why is he referred to as the "Pope". Other religious groups have popes too. Can we at least always refer to him as the "Catholic Pope".

Re:Infallible?

[Sique]

No, the infallibility is coupled with the office. The idea behind this dogma is that it's the Holy Chair, represented by its current occupier, who is infallible, not the person actually sitting there.

News for Nerds ?!

[Thud457]

What is RMS's position on this?!!

Re:News for Nerds ?!

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Well, much of Catholicism is free and open source, but still suffers binary compatibility problems with Protestantism and barely runs in Middle Eastern environments.

Re:News for Nerds ?!

[tnk1]

Going by the beard, I'd say that RMS cares more about the Orthodox Church. After all, they are the ones who are experts on the proper use of facial hair in non-profit organizations.

Re:News for Nerds ?!

[CheeseTroll]

Martin Luther & John Calvin were fairly successful in forking it. One could say Luther published the source code by translating the Bible into German. (OK - better stop before I start doing car analogies!)

Re:News for Nerds ?!

[maxwell demon]

While they were ultimately successful, the Catholic church did fight against the fork. Literally.

Re:What now?

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Maybe TFA has some critical detail about him being replaced by an iPope.

Re:Infallible?

[kevkingofthesea]

Yeah, and there have been very few instances where the Church says the pope spoke infallibly.

Re:Infallible?

[SternisheFan]

A lot of politics goes on at the Vatican, a lot, just like in large government. That HBO piece is part of it, and the Catholic Church is scrambling to stay alive in a time of freely available information. As a former Roman Catholic altar boy, I remember mass was really just a smoke and mirrors show, the priests came to life afterwards when it came to seeing what was in the collection plates. So, like George Carlin said, I was Roman Catholic until I reached the age of reason.

Get out while you can...

[Valentttine]

I get the feeling that since the flow of incriminating information from the Vatican has slowed it's building up to something big, and he might want to be finished there and live out his last days in comfort rather than dealing with the backlash from this big story that I'm only assuming exists with no evidence supporting the claim, just a feeling I get from it.

Re:Get out while you can...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

The Mars metal thing ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/09/mysterious_metal_mars_object ) will turn out to be an intelligent Buddhist plant. Would you really want to be the guy sifting through the theological implications of that?

Forgot one...

[0xdeadbeef]

He looks like Emperor Palpatine!

Here comes THE END

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

Re:Here comes THE END

[Rolgar]

I've heard the reign will last 40 years, so either the prophecy will end up being false, or we'll all be fairly old before the actual end.

Re:Infallible?

[wonkey_monkey]

What I don't understand is is he infallible now?

Since religious dogma does not equate to (and is often diametrically opposed to) actual truth, no.

Re:So it was written

[tnk1]

He will be the first black pope and they will be just as Hip and Cool as America.

Transubstantiation We Can All Believe In?

Not surprised really

[Greymist]

With the new Star Wars movie coming out, he probably didn't want all the references to him being the Sith Lord popping up again.

Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[eldavojohn]

People are still making references to the mythical Great Catholic Altar Boy Molestation Conspiracy Project?

Oh the "mythical conspiracy project"? Hmmm, let's see from the laundry list of cases we find:

In July 2010, the Vatican doubled the length of time after the 18th birthday of the victim that clergymen can be tried in a church court and streamlined the processes for removing "pedophile priests."

So they streamlined a process to cater to a "mythical conspiracy project?"

People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist. The people that run the Vatican and those in the past that have stood up and protected that power structure at all costs are fallible mortals. Shut up and deal with it or I'll throw you in with Scientology.

And all those cases have dried up, right? Right? If you give money to the Roman Catholic church, that's what you're paying for, in part.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[Apathist]

People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist. The people that run the Vatican and those in the past that have stood up and protected that power structure at all costs are fallible mortals. Shut up and deal with it or I'll throw you in with Scientology.

I dunno about you, but I'm an atheist because there simply aren't any gods... but an anti-theist because of the way faith and religion makes people behave. Small difference, perhaps, but I wouldn't want people to believe that my objective interpretation of reality is merely a response to the way those pricks behave.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[ClippyHater]

People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist. Really? Strange, I would've thought a disbelief in the concept of a God would've made you an atheist. If you have a reason OTHER than that, then you need to seriously rethink your convictions (hint: belief in a God doesn't require believing in the "holy" organizations that claim to know what's "right.")

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[tibit]

The people that run the Vatican and those in the past that have stood up and protected that power structure at all costs are fallible mortals.

Even without the sexual molestation issues the organization is still rotten. The conclave to elect the new pope will be interesting this time because there's no mourning period and thus no time for the usual political positioning power plays. Yeah, it's a good thing, but you'd have thought those people know better :(

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[Damouze]

I dunno about you, but I'm an atheist because there simply aren't any gods... but an anti-theist because of the way faith and religion makes people behave. Small difference, perhaps, but I wouldn't want people to believe that my objective interpretation of reality is merely a response to the way those pricks behave.

The very fact that you call it your interpretation of realitity makes it subjective by definition (nothing wrong with that by the way).

We are all coloured by our experiences from the past. Our look at life is subjective at the core, because our brain interprets the data coming in through our senses whether we are aware of it or not. The best we can do is to strive for an as objective view of life as we possibly can. But even then our view of life is by definition, not objective, because of that little possessive pronoun preceding 'view of life'.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[kryliss]

That's pretty much where I fall into. I believe that there is some supreme $DIETY. But I believe that he/she/it doesn't care about me or anyone here the same way that I don't care about an individual blood cell or a single strand of hair.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[rocket rancher]

People are still making references to the mythical Great Catholic Altar Boy Molestation Conspiracy Project?

Oh the "mythical conspiracy project"? Hmmm, let's see from the laundry list of cases we find:

In July 2010, the Vatican doubled the length of time after the 18th birthday of the victim that clergymen can be tried in a church court and streamlined the processes for removing "pedophile priests."

So they streamlined a process to cater to a "mythical conspiracy project?" People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist. The people that run the Vatican and those in the past that have stood up and protected that power structure at all costs are fallible mortals. Shut up and deal with it or I'll throw you in with Scientology. And all those cases have dried up, right? Right? If you give money to the Roman Catholic church, that's what you're paying for, in part.

Dude -- The "a" in "atheist"means without or lacking. I'm an atheist the same way I'm amoral. IMHO, morals are way too multi-valued to be a useful guide to modulating my behavior. I'm not anti-moral, or even immoral (how can I be immoral if I don't use any morals?) I'm just amoral, without morals. Ditto atheism -- since I know there is no way to demonstrate the existence of a god, I am, by definition, without a god -- an atheist. I am also without all the associated baggage that theists have to trundle around, which seems to be your point of friction, here. You should seriously consider rebranding yourself, if what's wrong with religion is one of your primary reasons for calling yourself an atheist. Try anti-theist for starts. You don't like the way theists behave, so the label you choose for yourself should reflect that dislike. You can label yourself an atheist when you realize that there were no gods, are no gods and never can be gods. Incidentally, being honest and transparent in this manner allows you to cooperate with theists when their goals happen to align with yours (and to dispatch them without remorse when they don't.)

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[CODiNE]

There was this guy who wanted to debate me when I was volunteering at a religious function. He starts off with telling me he's an atheist and then proceeds to rant about why does God allow volcanos to go off and kill innocent children and whatnot...

I try to be polite and reason with him but he's got serious anger issues with the idea of God and he's starting to make a scene. So I say to him "You know I read that true atheists are not angry at God, if he doesn't exist why are you mad at him?" He started laughing and then calmed down a bit. After that he identified as agnostic and I found out he grew up religious but basically couldn't reconcile the existence of evil and suffering in the world with his understanding of God. He ended up bitter and resentful. It's too bad he had all that emotional baggage and wasn't able to discuss it rationally, I much prefer an educated atheist over an angry pretender.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[interkin3tic]

Perhaps eldavojohn meant that such people were the cause of a transition to atheism but not the basis for his continued atheism. "I don't know if God exists, but the people who claim to be speaking on his behalf are clearly wrong or at least insane" is probably a common thought that leads one to initially reject a theology, or never take one up in the first place.

Either that or Eldavojohn was making a minor hyperbole. Or eldavojohn's beliefs aren't purely logical, like most of us.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[LordLimecat]

People like you are what's wrong with organized religion

Right, cause things like this are rampant in every other religion, right?

and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist.

If the 20th century has taught us anything, its that all religions are messed up and all atheists are cuddly kittens.
--This message has been approved by Pol Pot and Stalin

The RCC has a fair share of troubles, but that's largely a function of it abandoning any authority other than "what we say" all of those centuries ago. What do you suppose made up a huge portion of the grievances in Luther's 95 theses? Heres a hint, it starts "cor" and ends "ruption".

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[LordLimecat]

but an anti-theist because of the way faith and religion makes people behave.

Anyone who has studied any sort of history knows that people need no excuse or justification to "misbehave"; its just that if excuses or justifications are available they will use them.

Do you really think that the IRA bombings are purely religious? That the Holocaust wouldnt have happened without a religious target? That the people in the Westboro church would be cuddly kittens if only it werent for religion?

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[isorox]

I dunno about you, but I'm an atheist because there simply aren't any gods... but an anti-theist because of the way faith and religion makes people behave.

Absolutely, I'm an anti-theist too.

Am I an atheist? Well that's a tough question, first one would have to define what an atheist is, which is someone that is sure there "is no god", rather than "I lack any evidence either way"

One then has to define what "god" is. That's the tricky bit. If one were to postulate that "god" is a force that was in existence and caused or shaped the big bang, created laws of nature, and in undetectable from our space-time, then I can't be an atheist. If something caused the universe to be the way it is, quantum fluctuations in space time or what have you, then does that fit a definition of "god"?

I'm afraid I can't answer on the subject of atheism without broaching the question of free will, start points of the universe, if there are patterns to seemingly random events like cosmic rays etc. It's entirely possible that some force is behind physics that I have no hope of ever comprehending.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[maxwell demon]

Actually the Holocaust wasn't against a religious target. It was against a "race" (because Hitler considered Jews to be a race). It didn't help you if you had never been of Jewish religion. All what counted was if you had Jewish ancestors. It was pure racism, only tangentially related to religion.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[maxwell demon]

What do you suppose made up a huge portion of the grievances in Luther's 95 theses? Heres a hint, it starts "cor" and ends "ruption".

Hmmm ... "correlated eruption"? ;-)

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[xevioso]

I'm this guy. I'm angry at the idea of God put forward by many religious people. There's a whole lot of evil in the world today, and generally religious people have no response to why it exists other than "It's part of God's plan."

Why did God not give Hitler the flu? I've met so many religious folks who believe in Intercessory prayer, that is, the idea that by praying to God, you can effect change, for God will answer you, not always in the affirmative, but will occasionally intercede in human affairs. The number of people who prayed for Hitler to be taken out during or before WWII was surely imense, yet God apparently could not intervene and off Hitler with a nasty illness, thus probably preserving the lives of millions of people.

So yes, I'm pretty angry with your version of God.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[frosty_tsm]

I know this is going to kill my mod points, but I'll throw it out anyway...

What if WWII wasn't the worst thing in the web of possible 20th century events? What if there was no WWII and the Cold War started pre or early-nuke with a (mostly) demilitarized Europe and America had minimal troops and arms factories setup (as is the case in almost every "somebody went back in time and killed Hitler" story)? What if the European powers continued pointless and frequent war, treating it as a sport as they did in the 19th century and before?

If you look at WWII as the almost-inevitable epilogue to WWI due to the terms put on Germany, WWI/WWII were sort of the "War to end all wars [in Europe]" (ignoring smaller, regional conflicts). No one has invaded London, Paris, Berlin (although it was divided), Brussels, or Rome in almost 70 years.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[mattack2]

since I know there is no way to demonstrate the existence of a god, I am, by definition, without a god -- an atheist

Umm, no. By that definition, you are an agnostic.

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I am an atheist because I *believe* there is no god, I am also an agnostic because I realize you can't *prove* there is no god.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[xevioso]

The counterpoint to this argument is the following:
Assume that you are a lawyer for a criminal who is at a trial for murder. Your client admitted it, people saw him do it, there's video of him doing it, audio, 300 witnesses, etc. In short, there's no doubt he did it. But you stand up and tell the jury that, despite all this evidence, they should not convict because there is some possibility that some unspecified evidence at some point in the future may come to light that will exonerate your client.

As a jury person, I'd laugh at you. We have to judge based on the evidence we have, and the best evidence is that if Hitler had died or was killed, WWII would not have gone on as long, and there would have been many less casualties of the war. WHile it's possible something worse could have occurred, most historians agree that WWII would have ended much quicker if Hitler was not in charge, and it likely would not have occurred at all. He drove that war. So yes, maybe God knows that something worse would have happened, but I have to make my choice about the evil or goodness of the Christian God directly in front of me, and I choose to believe that a good God would not have allowed WWII to go on...and would have given Hitler the flu or something similar.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[xevioso]

coriander interruption? Corsican abruption?

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[shutdown -p now]

The Nazi definition of Jewish ancestors hinged on religion, though. The definition was recursive - you were Jewish if your parents were Jewish - but they had to stop it somewhere. So, for people for whom there were no race registered in the Nazi lists (generally grandparents), they applied the religious test - whether the person in question was enrolled in a "Jewish religious congregation" before 1935. Also, some Nazi allies applied a religious test in addition to the blood test - e.g. in Vichy France, a person was legally a Jew if they had Jewish parents or practiced Judaism. And in the Reich itself, mere practice of Judaism could affect the status of someone with mixed heritage - e.g. a person that would normally be classified as Mischling could become a Jew by practicing Judaism.

You're right, though, that Nazis were focused on the race. They just viewed religion as a good marker for determining the race in questions where they didn't have more accurate data on ancestry etc. Plus, they believed that race defines behavior, and so someone drawn to Judaism must therefore necessary have some Jewish blood in him.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[narcc]

I'm sure atheists would prefer to debate with logical, educated religious people, but unfortunately they don't exist...

Really? I can think of quite a few. From Alfred North Whitehead to John Shelby Spong. In fact, you'll find religious people in virtually every branch of science from the social sciences to physical sciences.

Even among the Catholics, you'll find that many priests, in addition to the normal graduate-level education requirements, often also hold secular masters or doctoral degrees.

In short, being religious isn't a reflection on a persons education or on their ability to think logically or rationally. Equally, being an Atheist says absolutely nothing about a persons education, intelligence, or ability to thing logically or rationally. It's not too difficult to find a below-average atheist -- even among high-profile atheists. Matt Dillahunty is a great example of high-profile yet disturbingly below-average atheist.

You're also a great example of an atheist who seems to lack basic critical thinking skills.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[narcc]

Umm, no. By that definition, you are an agnostic.

Umm, no. That's not what those words mean.

Atheism is a belief statement. To be atheist means that you lack a belief in any god or gods.

Agnosticism is a knowledge statement. To be agnostic, in this context, means that you don't know if any god or gods exist.

You can be an atheist (lacking belief) and also be agnostic (lacking knowledge). An agnostic atheist would not believe in any gods, but also would not claim to know that no gods exist. A gnostic atheist both lacks the belief and claims knowledge that no gods exist.

I am also an agnostic because I realize you can't *prove* there is no god.

You make the exact same mistake the parent makes: Proof or the ability to prove need not enter in to it at all. We're dealing with "that" not "why", after all.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[LordLucless]

Ok, let's see how many Calvinists we have on Slashdot...

God interceding constantly in human affairs is contrary to free will. What would you rather, a god who lets humans make their own choices, and then suffer the consequences, or a god who makes choices for humanity for their own good? Alternatively, a god who lets human makes their own choices, and then takes the consequences away? Even God's ultimate plan involved human choice - people aren't compelled to accept Jesus' sacrifice. Evil happens because people make the wrong choice*. Being able to make the wrong choice is part and parcel of free will.

Also, I'd be reluctant at saying a god whose standard is absolute perfection should be killing people who aren't up to snuff.

There's also the case of perspective; in Christian theology, God's plan for humanity involves eternal life. A lifetime of suffering seems terrible now, but if you're going to live for an eternity after, it'll probably seem insignificant then.

*Some cases (like your example) are obvious. According to Christian theology, "natural" evil (earthquakes, tornadoes, etc) are due to the fall, which basically caused the world to suck - and the fall was also a case of human free will.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[frosty_tsm]

The counterpoint to this argument is the following: Assume that you are a lawyer for a criminal who is at a trial for murder. Your client admitted it, people saw him do it, there's video of him doing it, audio, 300 witnesses, etc. In short, there's no doubt he did it. But you stand up and tell the jury that, despite all this evidence, they should not convict because there is some possibility that some unspecified evidence at some point in the future may come to light that will exonerate your client.

Correct. It's basically the John Conner defense (except not the savior in the future) and holds no merit in court.

Regardless of what your theological view is, we can't know all of the future effects of events today (some are obvious, many aren't) or know all the possible outcomes if things happened differently in days gone by. I posed a question that has no true, provable answer; only theoretical ones.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[LordLimecat]

It also didnt matter if you werent Jewish at all and were just a Romani.

The Jews were just a convenient group to hate, all the more convenient because of historical animosity towards them.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[sd4f]

What about the slavs? The nazi's wanted to sterilise all of them and take over the vast lands in the east for lebensraum. Jews were the first ones to be dealt with by the nazi regime, but their plans were so much worse.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[Algae_94]

People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist.

This is definitely a valid opinion, but It's not necessary to be an atheist to have issues with organized religion. A group of people taking advantage of people's faith does not necessarily mean that that faith is wrong. I'm not trying to support theism or atheism, just trying to point out that organized religion is not necessarily representative of the religious beliefs of that faith.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[sd4f]

The theological/philosophical response I've heard is, that evil doesn't exist, just like cold doesn't actually exist; cold is relative, less heat than what it is being compared to, the actual opposite of heat is absence of heat (or more correctly, absence of energy, i think), this follows on with religion. Evil is an absence of good, and since God is good, therefore evil is an absence of God.

I think that it's disingenuous though, to say that a volcano is evil, it may cause suffering, but when you couple choice with it, a volcano has no choice, whereas people do have a choice! Free will is something which is believed by catholics, and ultimately that is why God doesn't intervene; if God were to intervene with Hitler, then why would we live? We wouldn't really have much purpose except live our lives according to a script.

I think it's bad to get bogged in the definition of ones beliefs, most of them play little role in the morality of a religion. What is important is to recognise ones choices, and figure out what consequences your own actions have on other people. Some people can't accept a belief structure, and as a result, throw out the baby with the bath water.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[sd4f]

The cold war was the epilogue to WW2, it in fact was the continuation, because without WW2, the UK and USA wouldn't have equipped the USSR with a lot of technology (a lot of it was given directly, but then more decisive tech was appropriated through espionage, such as nuclear weapons). If Germany didn't have an expansionist agenda, then I think that what would have happened was that the USSR would have attempted to invade west, like they attempted in 1919-1920 immediately after their own "revolution".

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[CODiNE]

You already have responses from others and there's plenty of different beliefs on the subject. My personal belief is based on what is in the bible which touches on that.

A lot of people think the Bible says God rules the world and that everything that happens on it is predetermined by him. Scripturally however it's quite different from that. 1 John 5:19 says that "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." Also Jesus spoke at John 13:30 "the ruler of the world is coming. And he has no hold on me"

Maybe you're familiar with the story of the temptations of Christ, where after he was baptized the devil confronted him and tried to make him sin. One of those was to offer all the kingdoms of the world to Jesus if he would worship the devil just once.

So it's pretty clear scripturally that the ruler of this world is not actually God. Further bible study shows that this period of time is like a court case, where each side gets to make their argument. Right now it's in the "We're better off without you" phase of the trial, during which time God has to in a certain extent allow things to run their course. This means that people both for and against God suffer in an unjust world. Once that time period runs out, it's God's turn to run things. When the earth is managed the way he intended people will see what a world without sickness and death looks like. In that world the devil and his influence will be held back as he's essentially in prison during this time. Rev 20:1-3

That is 1,000 years of peace on the earth. This time is spoken of at John 5:28,29 and Acts 24:15 when it speaks of a resurrection of all those who have died. At that time people will have a second chance at life and make their own decision if they want to stay in that world.

Is that fair? I think it is. Those who want a world without God's interference get to try it out and give it their best shot. This is what we end up with, some like it this way. On the other hand those who want God's guidance in mans affairs will get their chance to see that when the time comes and everyone will choose which one suits them best.

After all, if God immediately destroyed Adam and Eve and started over... wouldn't that make people suspect he was wrong and hiding his flaws? By allowing the question to be answered he's showing that it's in mans benefit to have him in control.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[CODiNE]

You would think that the tree implied a choice.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[Saffaya]

IIRC, Hitler ordered his troops to stop their march on Moscow when they were about to reach it (something like 20km ?), and divert south to take hold of oil minefields. This, of course, to the shock of all his generals.
Had he not made this gigantic mistake, the Russian command would have been decapitated.

Also, when presented with the first jet-powered aircraft, Hitler said it was the bomber he had been waiting for. NOT an air-superiority fighter.

And let's not forget his view of electromagnetism as "Jew science", and thus lack of research in this field (no radar for them).

In a nutshell, just wanted to point out that an hypothetical death of Hitler isn't a clear-cut case as to its consequence on history.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[MurukeshM]

I would've thought that everyone agrees that the concept of gods exists.

For some definitions of god(s).

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[Xest]

You're right that there's a common root to it all that is not inherently religious in nature- tribalism.

The problem is that religion actively encourages, preaches, and exacerbates the problem of tribalism- it has the inherent requirement that followers believe that their religion and belief is right, and everyone elses is wrong.

In contrast, whilst atheists may well resort to other forms of tribalism to justify their actions - racism, football hooliganism, whatever, there is also the possibility that atheists can rise above such petty, problematic, primal traits.

That is why atheists can claim the moral high ground on this, because following a religion ultimately requires that you succumb to tribalism and accept that your tribe's (religion's) way is the only correct way - the root of just about all of humanity's problems with each other, whereas atheism does not. It is that difference in possibility between the ability to rise up above tribalism and not that creates the moral difference between atheism and religion, even if not every atheist is able to do so in practice.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[Damouze]

That may go well for empirical data or with math, but as soon as something cannot be explained in absolute terms, things become much more complicated.

But let's look at a concrete example. People with trichromatic vision will perceive grass to be 'green'. Provided there were no lapses in their education and provided that did not suffer physical or psychological trauma that would cause them to do otherwise, they will also call grass 'green'.

A person with dichromatic vision, however, may perceive grass to be 'purple', because his eyes cannot actually distinguish between those two colours. He will still call grass 'green', because that is what he was taught. Perception - or rather in this case a defect in it - literally colours his world view. His brain - in this pasrticular case a conscious effort - modifies that perception by altering his interpretation of the world. He 'knows' grass is green, because everyone in his life has always told him so. The truth, in this case, has become a matter of convention. Had he grown up to be the one person with trichromatic vision in a society of people with dichromatic vision, the circumstances would have been reversed. He would perceive the grass to be 'green', while the rest of the world would perceive it to be 'purple'. He would still call the grass 'purple' though, because in that society, that is the established convention.

Is grass green or purple? Of course it is. It is all in the eye of the beholder, after all.

The objective truth is what remains when the human factor is eliminated. That is impossible, because someone still has to tell it. Even a camera has to be operated, as has the equipment to playback what was recorded. The interesting part is to determine to what extent the human factor can be eliminated and to determine to what extent the recorder and/or editor of the footage have influence over what was recorded and ultimately to what extent the person who operates the machinery to playback the footage has influence over it. And even then, just the acts of measuring and determining those things may also influence that.

In other words, there is no such thing as the objective truth when it comes to matters of perception and how we deal with it. A person who was bullied by people from a certain ethnic background in his youth will always hold a bias against those people, and the other way around (that doesn't make either of it right though, but that's a different story).

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[Damouze]

Yes you can.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[tehcyder]

The nazis hated different people for different reasons. Jews, Romanis and Slavs were hated on a racist basis. Trades unionists, socialists and communists were hated on a political basis. Gays and artists were hated on a moral basis.

One definition of fascism is that it is built on hatred of the other.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[tehcyder]

I'm an atheist the same way I'm amoral. IMHO, morals are way too multi-valued to be a useful guide to modulating my behavior. I'm not anti-moral, or even immoral (how can I be immoral if I don't use any morals?) I'm just amoral, without morals.

I'm not sure if this is a sublte Jesuitical troll, or whether you're a bit thick.

Being an atheist is orthoganol to being a good or bad (moral or immoral) person. Only psychopaths and animals are truly amoral. It is not a good thing in a rational human being.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[LordLimecat]

it has the inherent requirement that followers believe that their religion and belief is right, and everyone elses is wrong.

Every system of belief that one believes has this. Including atheism. Or do you deny that Philip Pulman, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins think every other non-atheistic form of belief is wrong?

The problem is that religion actively encourages, preaches, and exacerbates the problem of tribalism-

I know at the least that in Christianity, divisiveness and factionalism are seen as serious enough problems to put someone out of the church for causing them; See 1 Corinthians 3 where Paul basically chides the Corinthians for being "petty, problematic, and tribal".

accept that your tribe's (religion's) way is the only correct way - the root of just about all of humanity's problems with each other, whereas atheism does not.

Maybe some atheists do not care, but there are sufficient numbers of high-profile atheists who's motto is "atheism or bust" to give the lie to your words.
Ah, you say, but atheists dont worry about the particulars as long as you agree with the general premise! Aside from the problem of making vague generalizations like this, I can make the same claim about christianity: I have friends who are presbyterian, and who disagree with calvinism, and I myself am calvinist, reformed, and baptist. We disagree with each other on many issues, but we still get along and I would have no problem going to their churches (just would not join).

At the end of the day the best you could come up with to prove your point is some wars about a thousand years ago, the inquisition about half a thousand years ago, and regional instability in the middle east. On the plate of "atheism" I could heap basically the entire 20th century and its conflicts with communism. You tell me which was worse, and then try to explain why atheism has the high ground here.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[AK Marc]

You missed the memo. Hundreds of years ago, "atheist" and "agnostic" were changed so that both are forms of atheism, with a split designed to fragment the atheists to make it easier to dismiss them. "atheist" now means "violent killer of Christians (or other religions)" (note, the goodwin of atheism is Hitler or Stalin, but any discussion of the wrongs of religion will have a religious person bring one or the other or both up). "agnostic" means confused person, or closet [theist/atheist], whatever the theist thinks is easiest to attack.

That was set by the church. The original agnostics were Christians. "You can believe without proof" is the original philosophy of agnostics. note, like a-theist is non-theist, a-gnostic is a non-gnostic. I'd say that most Christians are agnostic, and all modern agnostics are atheist.

I'm agnostic, so most people consider me atheist.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[pckl300]

Do you really think that the IRA bombings are purely religious? That the Holocaust wouldnt have happened without a religious target? That the people in the Westboro church would be cuddly kittens if only it werent for religion?

(emphasis mine) It's difficult to say with certainty, but I'd like to think so. The idea of having a deity on your side is an intoxicating one.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[descubes]

I choose to believe that a good God would not have allowed WWII to go on...and would have given Hitler the flu or something similar

Wow, is that really your ideal god? Some entity punishing people who don't do what he wants? "Do no evil or you'll get the flu"? How do you envision free-will and true love in your North Korean universe? Would you rather have a god who is "Word" and shares his will as knowledge, or a god who is "Sword" and shares his will with brute force?

This issue of free will is addressed as early as Genesis in the Bible. The story of Adam and Eve explains that we are truly free to reject God (something that according to the scripture is not true for all of God's creatures), but also that this freedom has consequences. This was true for Hitler and those who followed us. This was also true for the positive consequences of all WWII soldiers who offered their lives (and too often lost them) for others that they didn't even know.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[mattack2]

Agnosticism is a knowledge statement. To be agnostic, in this context, means that you don't know if any god or gods exist.

No, it's not, at least not by a dictionary definition. The same dictionary definition of agnosticism I quoted before:

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

It has a derivation of "belief" there in the definition, and also "or can be known" means more than knowledge, or rather, it means you *can't* know.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[narcc]

Sigh... Why is this so hard for some people? The knowledge claim "I don't know" is a consequence of the claim "it's unknown" or "it's unknowable". They're still separate claims, of course, though only one is relevant to the discussion here.

This is absurdly simple stuff.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[rocket rancher]

I'm an atheist the same way I'm amoral. IMHO, morals are way too multi-valued to be a useful guide to modulating my behavior. I'm not anti-moral, or even immoral (how can I be immoral if I don't use any morals?) I'm just amoral, without morals.

I'm not sure if this is a sublte Jesuitical troll, or whether you're a bit thick.

Being an atheist is orthoganol to being a good or bad (moral or immoral) person. Only psychopaths and animals are truly amoral. It is not a good thing in a rational human being.

heh. probably a bit thick. It was a bad analogy. Thanks for the correction.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[rocket rancher]

interesting history. One can certainly believe without proof (this is faith in a bucket, and why all religions are, by definition, irrational) but -- agnosticism implies that there is something to know (or not know.) There isn't. I'll stick with atheist as a label. Seems to capture the non-existence of gods in a more rigorous way. :)

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[AK Marc]

Atheist as a label is offensive (as in some people take offense). That's a reason why many atheists I know identify as agnostic to avoid confrontation.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[Xest]

I think you need to re-read my post. Your response makes absolutely zero sense in the context of it, perhaps you responded to the wrong person?

I made it quite clear that there are some atheists who still have tribalistic tendencies, but simply that it was not inherent in the nature of atheism as it is in religion.

I'm not sure why you brought up the inquisition, I didn't even make any reference to it, nor did I even begin to go down the route of trying to fathom what religions were involved in what wars, though you do seem oblivious of the fact that American Christianity was a driving force in it's battle against "godless" communists which implies you're not exactly coming at this with any objectivity - Vietnam et. al. was as much about trying to instill and spread Western Christian values as it was Communism vs. Democracy.

Don't respond to that though, I'm not interested in what you have to say about it, hence why I didn't raise that point in the first place.

Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass

[chiefmojorising]

Perhaps. If Hitler had died early enough his replacement might have not have decided to turn on the Soviet Union, causing the war in Europe to go on on longer than it did. Opening up the eastern front was the biggest cause of Germany's defeat -- it diverted way too many resources from France and Italy and just ground them down. Of course, come August 1945 the whole thing probably would've still ended, but I do wonder where the bombs would've been dropped. Of course, not-Hitler also might not have been so keen on exterminating "undesirables". That's not an insignificant number of lives. Who knows?

-1 off topic

[1u3hr]

News for nerds?

Re:Infallible?

[tnk1]

The Infallibility doctrine does not apply to everything he says, just specific items of dogma that are specified, and those are usually fairly non-controversial items to believing Catholics.

In other words, he's not expected to be perfect as a person, but after having duly deliberated on a matter of doctrine, that doctrine could be designated infallible. It's an authority that only the Pope gets to use, and he won't be Pope after he resigns.

Re:Retirement plan not updated for hundreds of yea

[dkleinsc]

I vote for creative taxidermy, but that's just me.

Wait, how could you tell the difference?

I don't know about you

[93 Escort Wagon]

But I'm rooting for Cardinal Sicola.

Re:Infallible?

[vlm]

I'm no religion nerd, but my understanding is the infallibility is vested in the job position not the person.

There's a lot of BS and propaganda about the whole papal infallibility thing... you have to realize the cardinals and pope have spent centuries fighting over who's really in charge, and by fighting I mean literally to the death by sword and poison. So "recently" a strongman (relatively...) gets in power and as a weapon he declares he's the boss and everyone else aka his opponents (the cardinals) are his underlings. Frankly not all that exciting. When even a guy like me sees it as a pretty simple political play as opposed to religious mythology, using the political play to make fun of the catholics just isn't funny anymore. I would not be surprised if when the cardinals gain supremacy they put a guy in who reverses that declaration and makes the college of cardinals infallible as the leaders and declares the bishop of rome as merely first among equals... Its politics not theology. Or at most, theological politics.

news for nerds

[nozzo]

pope resigns, so?

Re:Infallible?

[characterZer0]

BTW why is he referred to as the "Pope". Other religious groups have popes too. Can we at least always refer to him as the "Catholic Pope".

Because everybody knows to whom you are referring when you say "The Pope".

How about an analogy:

Why is he referred to as RMS? Other people have the initials RMS too. Can we at least always refer to him as "GNU/RMS"?

Re:Malachy prophesy? Next one the last?

[Sulphur]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

So his father was Joseph, his mother was Mary, and his successor is Peter?

Pope Resigns?

[Big Hairy Ian]

Does this mean he's Ex Benedict?

Next Pope to be elected...

[PortHaven]

Via online CNN.com poll.

Everyone welcome Pope Ron Paul the I... ;-)

Re:Malachy prophesy? Next one the last?

[vlm]

Because its pretty vague astrological type stuff, it can apply to anyone because it means almost nothing. You could map the lines to /. UID numbers almost as effectively.

You can have fun with that list by "correcting" it. For example I think the "burning fire" would be WAY better for pius 12 aka the WWII pope. You got trinity, hiroshima, nagasaki, a zillion conventional firebombings... but no, its applied to a guy who's mostly known for codifying canon law, and not that cannon either. Boring.

Or how about "Light in the sky" for sputnik / Apollo 11, instead you've got a guy who's era is mostly known WRT lights and sky for... well, nothing really.

I've probably already put more work into it that it deserves...

How Will This Affect Vatican Stock?

[stoicio]

This is kind of leaving Vatican shareholders in the lurch.

Is there a new CEO picked to run the place already?
Seems like a bit of a publicity stunt to me....

This can only result in loss of market share for the Roman Church.

Re:Infallible?

[TwentyCharsIsNotEnou]

Two infallible people at the same time would have to agree on everything.

Is that really true?

How about two "infallible" coders who write the same function (let's say, in Perl) in two different ways - both of which produce the exact same result, processor usage, and runtime.

Could they not disagree on coding style yet remain infallible?

Re:Advanced age?

[tnk1]

He might have thought he was going to die before he needed to resign. He was probably doing the job for a few years before he was elected anyway, given the last pope's health issues. Then he realized that there was a high chance he'd be a vegetable in a pope hat, instead of dying, and decided to get out.

No

[Murdoch5]

Actually if you read what he said you would know that he's giving up office because of his declining health and not because of his age.

Health reasons

[PPH]

He is retiring for health reasons. His radiologist found a gorilla on his x-ray.

Some here say it's not relevant, but it is

[bjdevil66]

I don't know how many of the "nerds" here are Catholic, but with a possible membership of almost a billion people (active or not), that's a lot of people this could affect personally here on this site.

Also, this particular pope is quite conservative in his views. What happens when the next pope comes in and has a more reformist idea set and says that God's told him to reveal something like, "Gay priests are acceptable - don't ask, don't tell," "Priests can marry if they want," etc., that's a major social shift that will have ripples across society.

Even more importantly, imagine if the new pope suddenly said, "Birth control is ok..." That simple utterance from Vatican City could slow starvation and tame resource usage in poorer, more uneducated countries where millions devout Catholics take the Pope's word as law. All of a sudden technologies like GMO crops are viewed a little differently as food demand dips and the spreading of HIV or other STDs drop precipitously over time.

Bottom line: This just may be big news for nerds - even those who could care less about the Catholic church, or any organized religion.

(Disclosure: I'm not a Catholic.)

Re:Some here say it's not relevant, but it is

[TeknoHog]

imagine if the new pope suddenly said, "Birth control is ok..."

Peter Turkson is the most likely candidate according to a couple of notable gambling companies, and he is not against the use of condoms. Oh, and he's black; omg, what next, a black President of the US?

Re:Some here say it's not relevant, but it is

[vandamme]

I teach Natural family Planning, which has been shown in several peer-reviewed large trials to be just as effective as contraceptive pills [http://www.cclgb.org.uk/effectiveness.html].

Bottom line: there is a lot you don't know about the Catholic Church.

wondering at the use of the "medicine" icon

[circletimessquare]

then i remembered:

right, the original meaning of that cross symbol

Re:wondering at the use of the "medicine" icon

[tragedy]

Good point. The symbol seems to be more or less a color swap of the red cross logo, which is just a color inversion of the Swiss flag, which is, itself, just a variation on the war pennant of the Holy Roman Empire, of which the pope is the commander in chief. So, it could be a very clever reference on the part of the editor. Or it could just be a flimsy excuse to post something that really isn't relevant to Slashdot, but that's sure to stir up all kinds of argument (and therefore, the theory goes, page hits).

Re:Why? Self-affirmation and trolling.

[kenaaker]

Sorry, the pity party is 3 doors down, on the left. Next to the crocodile pit.

Something in the name?

[Coisiche]

Popes have resigned before, admittedly not always by choice, but a surprising number seem to have taken the name Benedict. Benedict V, IX and now XVI. That's half of the popes who have stood down named on the BBC site, so that 50% number is a bit dependent on how good their researcher is.

Top marks to Celestine V who in 1294 issued a solemn decree that it was permissible for a pope to resign and then promptly did so.

Re:Why? Self-affirmation and trolling.

[Barsteward]

let me fix that for you...

Only as a vehicle for self-affirmation of religious bigots who cloak themselves in "faith" to promote their bigotry

Re:What now?

[dskoll]

Diebold machines are infallible, you insensitive clod.

So is this CNN

[aepervius]

If we are reporting on "stuff who matters" then you may drop all pretense and rename slashotNN. Slashdot has always been about stuff that matter on the technological news , geek, and other similarly cultural references. Now it is all sort of news ? Non sense.

Re:So is this CNN

[AK Marc]

But the pope/religion is brought up in many news for nerds articles. Evolution in Texas schools? Yup, religion a focus of the discussion on that. Porn filters or people put in jail for cartoon sex? Yup, more discussion that addresses religion.

You can't separate religion from much of the things that people here think important, so it seems news for nerds (And everyone else).

News for WHO, exactly?

[Runaway1956]

WTF? I read "pope resigns" early this morning, before I fell into bed. I read more "pope resigns citing advancing age" after I got out of bed. I look at slashdot, and see more "pope resigns" crap? WTF? I mean, really, WTF? Did I miss the fact that the pope created a new file system for Linux? Maybe he made kernel contributions? Did he even create any apps with which to observe religious holidays? WTF?

Headlines should read, "Some old dotard feels that he is so weak that he can no longer mumble the mumbo jumbo to keep the masses happy, more youthful dotard sought for position." And, it should be filed in the classifieds, not on slashdot.

I'll be reading about that pervert freak who was arrested at his "ranch" south of Texarkana here next. Yeah, he's newsworthy too, but slashdot? WTF? Somewhere between half and three quarters of slashdotters possess no soul that they'll admit to, and the rest aren't at all sure - so we have articles about people sheparding our souls?

Come on, people, give me something at least passingly nerdy. Has this pope ever even APPROVED of a papal app? Does he own an iPhone, or a Blackberry? Dig deep, find some reason to report this guy's senility on slashdot.

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[Synerg1y]

This is news because he is quite possibly the first religious figure to resign short of death, or a war in which thousands die.

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[xevioso]

The Pope recently twatted from the twooter his twits: https://twitter.com/Pontifex

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[Runaway1956]

Ahhhhh - that makes it all okay then. The old guy tweets. In fact, he's tweeting the deck cards of daily inspirational thoughts that my granny kept on her kitchen table. Is he allowed to take those sayings that were published by the Sisters of Inane Sayings like that? Yeah - he probably pays royalties on them, so that's probably cool too!

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[CrimsonAvenger]

This is news because he is quite possibly the first religious figure to resign short of death, or a war in which thousands die.

Umm, no.

He's not even the first Pope to resign. Just the first in "nearly 600 years"....

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[xevioso]

No, as as has been pointed out, there have been other Popes who have resigned short of death, but just not for health reasons, in at least a 1000 years. Before AD 1000 I am not sure how often Popes resigned, but after AD 1000 4 have, including the current one.

The first one after AD 1000, Benedict IX, resigned either because he A) Sold the office or )B wanted to get married, depending on the sources you believe.

Interestingly, he was also supposed have been the first gay Pope, and he held orgies in the Lateran palace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX

I really wish the next pope would be more like this one.

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[Redmancometh]

Maybe it's on here because it's a big deal? No one made you click it. Your post, using your logic, is a waste of time. Why post it? You've got a lot of anger towards something fairly benign...The event and post...not religion.

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[Talderas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_resignation

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[Zordak]

The first one after AD 1000, Benedict IX, resigned either because he A) Sold the office or )B wanted to get married, depending on the sources you believe.

Interestingly, he was also supposed have been the first gay Pope[.]

So, he was gay, but he gave up one of the most politically powerful posts in the world because he wanted to get married?

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[xevioso]

Oftentimes histories of popes are written by other popes, and later popes apparently did not like this guy for some reason, accusing him of murders, rapes and being gay. So there's no way to know if he was or was not, except that apparently he did not act like a proper pope while in his 20s. He spent most of his time at nightclubs and hanging out with the ladies (or the men, depending on the papal history you read).

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[JustOK]

He's on twitter

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[mariox19]

Please... this is news for nerds because the guy speaks Latin. How geeky is that!

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Well, he was the first Pope to have a Twitter account. But that's not saying much, given what his predecessor was going through medically when Twitter was created.

Re:News for WHO, exactly?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Pope Celestine V, 800 years ago, resigned for *exactly* the same reasons. Ok, he was less than 10 months short of death, but something tells me Pope Benedict isn't likely to live to see his 87th birthday either.

Hail Minchin

[chilvence]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB958pxquj0

relevancy?

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Newsworthy, yes. Slashdot newsworthy, no

a tasty change

[elliott666]

Goodbye Benedict, hello Florentine.

Did it take him that long to figure out

[kanweg]

that his employer is a figment of human imagination?

Bert

Maybe its because..

[houbou]

He finished those 'Jesus of Nazareth' books he wrote, so now he wants to spend quality time with J.K. Rolling and compare notes... :)

Re:Malachy prophesy? Next one the last?

[Aguazul2]

I've probably already put more work into it that it deserves...

I can tell you find it offensive, but all the same whilst dismissing all the re-interpretable stuff, you missed one very specific prediction -- that the next pope would be the last! It's a meme, don't underestimate the power of a meme!

Here in Peru in Dec-1999, people with almost no dependency on modern infrastructure were living in terror of airplanes falling out of the sky, of the entire modern technological world failing -- all because of the hype over Y2K.

If the meme gets about that the next pope is the last, it could become self-fulfilling. Anyone want to try this Social Engineering hack on a global scale?

Re:Infallible?

[tibit]

The politics in the Catholic Church exist because people are still people, and there is a negative selection bias for the good, the charitable and the kind to get into positions of presumed power. The Church is basically in a continuous state of destroying itself from within.

Re:Infallible?

[Rolgar]

First, the infallibility isn't something that's be stowed on him like some feat in D&D. It's tied to the office, and only the current pope can teach as the pope. You know, kind of like how Bush couldn't go over Obama's head and sign laws passed by Congress if Obama had vetoed it.

Second, infallibility means that when the pope talk about official church dogma and morality, and he speaks as the head of the Church, then a teaching is infallible. Specifically, there are only a few that I am aware of since infallibility was defined at the end of the first Vatican Council (1870-71). The are the Assumption of Mary in 1950, the continued reaffirmation of various sexual teaching, like Humane Vitae's reaffirmation of no contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization, etc., and the document that John Paul put out in the 1990s saying the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests.

When a Pope assigns bishops to dioceses, makes a Sunday homily, asks the governor of Texas to commute a death penalty, or changing how the pedophilia cases are handled, he does exercise his papal office, but not in an infallible way. Also, John Paul and Benedict have weeded out 90% of the dissident bishops and Cardinals who would have considering weakening Church teaching, and the hierarchy of is much more conservative than it was in the 1960s & 70s, so you are unlikely to see any disagreements between the next pope and 99% of the bishops since they have built into their office a measure of obedience to the one the report to, even in non-infallible matters.

Because if the Pontiff looked good in a bikini...

[Overzeetop]

Because if the Pontiff looked good in a bikini, it would have been on the cover of People.

New For Nerds, Stuff That Ma--ROBOPOPE?

[Cajun Hell]

One team will built RoboCardinal (RoboPope-to-be).

Another team will supply a smokebomb, used to manipulate the chimney output.

And some of us ought to know some "jocks" to use for the actual insertion operation. It's ok if most of the cardinals are killed. Or .. wait .. killed and replaced, since I see no reason that only one RoboCardinal need be constructed. You know the second one will be better than the prototype, but with some extra bugs, the third one filled with dubious bloatware, and the forth should be about right to serve as actual pope.

Next announcement

[greg23s]

I hope his next announcement is that he is gay...

Tim Minchin said it best

[cheesecake23]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0

Click the "show more" button under the video to see the lyrics, you'll need them.

The pope of slashdot...

[fascismforthepeople]

It is likely no coincidence that there is also a front page article today about the top fascist candidate in the US, who has quite a few supporters here on slashdot. While he is undoubtedly a cult leader in his own right, I will have to pop the bubbles of his followers and point out that he would't want to be the primate of catholicism. I say this because while it is (generally) a lifetime appointment, it wields nowhere near the amount of power - and has far too many restrictions - for his tastes.

Hell, he wouldn't even have trouble with the spirit of the requirement for priest chastity, as it is designed to ensure that the church inherits the belongings of the clergy upon their death. However he doesn't need to lead the catholic church when he already has his own army of devoted followers.

Re:The pope of slashdot...

[vakuona]

Priests don't have much in the way of belongings. Of all conspiracy theories, that one is one of the most bizarre. Priests are given a small stipend, and their upkeep is generally the responsibility of the church. No, there are no BIll-Gates-rich priests who the church doesn't want to marry because their wives would run off with everything.

Re:Infallible?

[cusco]

Actually it was the cardinals, in the Vatican I convocation (1890s, IIRC) who finally created the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. My opinion is that they did it to cut down on the infighting, but haven't really spent much time researching it.

Re:Infallible?

[vlm]

why do the politics exist at all?

This goes back to at least ancient greece, regardless of your goals, what's a "better" leadership style, oligopoly or dictator? Nobody was ever come up with better than a temporary local maxima, so there likely is no truly "correct" answer.

Back to the original topic, a fixation on the theological meaning (as if there is any....) behind the moral and ethical equivalent of teabagging your enemies after their (temporary utter) defeat is looking for something overly profound in something overly base.

Re:Infallible?

[SternisheFan]

Yeah, my memories are that of an eleven year old, church seemed like magic, until you see what goes on behind the scenes. Learning that the magician isn't really magic after all is disillusioning, it's only in retrospect as an adult that you fully understand it's basically a business, like sports players learn. I believe in God (and God believes in me), though when realizing the abuses that organized religion (and any institution) allows because the known abuser is able to fill the collection plates, it's turned me suspicious of their true motives.

Religion fills the void when the government is ineffective, or non-existent. But human nature being what it is, it seems that when people are placed in any positions of power over others that power is often abused. Without individual men and women who are brave enough to say out loud, "This is wrong!", the wrong continues unabated, and gets worse. That's why I admire whistle-blowers, it's often scary to stand up for what's right, they're to be applauded for going against the norm. That's the only way change for the better can begin to happen.

Nice try, I guess

[pxc]

Neither ‘news for nerds’ nor ‘stuff that matters’ is a proposition, and they can't serve as logical operands as-is. You'd have to change them into propositions, with the most likely and sensible conversions being ‘Slashdot hosts news for nerds’ and ‘Slashdot hosts stuff that matters’. You AND those propositions together, and then it is clear that articles may qualify for being posted to Slashdot without being both news for nerds and stuff that matters.

Re:Nice try, I guess

[maxwell demon]

The most sensible propositions are "it is news for nerds" and "it is stuff that matters. The logical conjunction therefore is "it is news for nerds and it is stuff that matters." Which clearly is not fulfilled if it is not news for nerds.

Re:Malachy prophesy? Next one the last?

[vlm]

Yeahbut... if the "best match" for 5 popes ago is actually the one liner officially for 20 popes ago (roughly) then the "last pope" is actually about 16 popes in the future. so something like our grandkids get to hack the planet. Kind of like seeing Babbages original difference engine parts live and in person and realizing you're not gonna live to perform a buffer overflow on a 386, but... maybe your grandkids....

Does he get a vote

[schneidafunk]

Does he get a vote in the successor?

Re:Does he get a vote

[maxwell demon]

No. He's too old to be admitted to the conclave.

Emperor Palpatine

[ThatsNotPudding]

"Something something retirement something Dark Side."

Re:Infallible?

[Bigby]

The "Open Championship" is not referred to as the British Open by most people because it was the first open championship. Everyone has to name themselves around it. When some other organization has their own Dalai Lama, should the real Dalai Lama have to rename himself the "Buddist Dalai Lama"?

Re:Good!

[cusco]

Considering how he's stacked the College of Cardinals we can be pretty sure that the next one will be an ideological twin.

Re:Malachy prophesy? Next one the last?

[misterooga]

Wouldn't cardinals pick someone not named Peter just for that purpose? (and of course, the new pope could have changed his or her name...)

Re:Infallible?

[interkin3tic]

Two infallible people at the same time would have to agree on everything.

The Church has a long history of finding their way around such inconsistencies. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John clearly aren't identical, yet somehow they're all said to be true. and Luke appear to contradict each other on Joseph's lineage for example.

What I don't understand is is he infallible now? I mean, he admits he can't continue - surely a sign he is not infallible.

I'm not clear on the theology behind it, but I'm guessing it's something along the lines of he speaks for God, when he does that he's infallible as God is infallible. I know the pope does not always invoke infallibility. In other words, he only maintains that he can't be wrong when he says he can't be wrong.

Yes, it is goofy, but it's not quite as simple as you're suggesting.

Be Now Known As...

[kdogg73]

Ex-Benedict

Re:Good!

[dskoll]

Well, yeah. The entire Catholic church is IMO a corrupt criminal organization no better than the mafia, so it really doesn't matter who's in charge. The system needs dismantling. I think Deliver Us from Evil should be required watching for anyone contemplating becoming a priest.

Real Reason

[SuperKendall]

It turns out that the WiFi and cell reception is, like, REALLY bad at the Vatican.

No way he's going to live with THAT for another decade.

It's a good thing

[ninjagin]

Who wants to watch a pope mumble and groan his way through the last years of ministry? I mean, I'm not catholic, but watching JPII in the last years of his post, it was downright painful to see. If they're only going to elect 70-to-80-year-old guys as pope, they're going to have to get a new pope every five years or so.

Binding of adjectives to nouns in English

[starfishsystems]

Um, calling something an "objective interpretation" qualifies the kind of interpretation that's being attempted. It's like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. It's not intended to mean that the speaker is from Copenhagen.

I predict more scandals. . .

[darth_borehd]

Maybe he just decided to really go spend time with his family.

But after the sexual abuse and Magdalene Laundry slavery scandals, I can see how the smart thing for the head of that organization to do would be to quietly bow out before even more nefarious activities are revealed.

Re:I predict more scandals. . .

[tnk1]

Popes don't resign because they are unpopular, and many have been much more unpopular than he is.

Re:Infallible?

[SternisheFan]

So you deviated from the right path and ended in the shithole that is Slashdot?

As a teenager I grew up in New York City. After that, and other experiences, Slashdot doesn't bother me 'that' much.

(Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger!). :-)

Good riddance!

[Heebie]

Good riddance to bad rubbish. The man is evil.

Next appointment

[fox171171]

Advanced age? Senility a real possibility (soon if not now)? Inability to perform job? Perfect for the Canadian Senate!!

Re:Malachy prophesy? Next one the last?

[crunchygranola]

Lets see - this prophesy from Malachy appeared in 1595, 450 years after the alleged prophet lived, with no evidence prior to that time of the prophesies existence, and with no evidence that the man purporting to present these prophesies had any special access to texts from or about Malachy.

And the prophesies about every Pope up to 1595 is quite explicit - sometimes Malachy knows the family name exactly (not just some vague reference to a common first name).

But for all Popes after 1595 it is vague and difficult to connect. He is unable to produce the family name of a single one.

Note also that with at least one case the prophesy regarding a pre-1595 Pope 'predicts' something about the Pope that was in fact a later folk legend (198/35 John XXII).

Sounds a lot like the "prophesy" was made up in 1595, doesn't it?

Logos and taglines long gone...

[girlinatrainingbra]

I hate to break it to you, but neither "news for nerds" nor "stuff that matters" has been on the headline or newfangled logo for a long time, probably since Dice bought out slashdot. So Dice no longer claims to be running /. to provide either "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters".

Re:Logos and taglines long gone...

[1u3hr]

Yes, I guess it's like the "SyFy " station, that shows "reality" TV and wrestling and hardly any science fiction any more.

Any halfway popular media outlet eventually gets taken over by assholes who only look at the audience numbers and sideline anyone who mentions having a "mission".

Re:Infallible?

[slashmojo]

Can we at least always refer to him as "GNU/RMS"?

Did the GNOLD one resign?

Pope To Resign Citing Advanced Age

[RedHackTea]

Technology is too advanced, so now the pope will be a robot. Good move! C-3POPE.

Re:Infallible?

[tnk1]

You know, the primacy argument may not have happened right after the death of Christ or even Peter, the claims are ancient. It really took off after the Great Schism of 1054 left the Pope as the only major Patriarch in charge of all of Western Europe.

And the Cardinals have always been the Pope's underlings, as the Pope is Bishop of Rome, and the Cardinals began as the priests of the "cardinal churches" of Rome. They were only elevated to their current position because the Pope used these roles as his curia and then started appointing foreigners to those positions as the papacy developed a large court. Eventually, given their somewhat representative nature, and their essential loyalty to the Church, they were selected as the electors of the Pope to replace the problematic election by either the people of Rome, or more usually, its nobles and strongmen.

But yes, there has been politics, and probably more that anyone should be comfortable with, but some of that has been as much due to secular authorities inserting themselves into religious affairs as much as the other way around. It's going to be hard to run an organization like that for millennia and have it come out squeaky clean, despite of it's purported pedigree.

It's Nanni Moretti's fault

[rduke15]

I guess he must have seen Nanni Moretti's "Habemus Papam" ...

Re:Infallible?

[tnk1]

The Church is still here after nearly two thousand years. Despite the fact that it has had low points, I'd say that given the material he's working with, God could be argued to have been doing a reasonably decent job in picking people, assuming that he's been hands-on with the selection.

As I understand it, the Church exists to spread the gospel and to pass along the teachings of Christ. They have more or less completely succeeded in doing this, and even if most people do not follow that faith, they at least know about it all over the world, with few exceptions.

Some of the cruft that you get with an institution so powerful over so long may simply be unavoidable for some values of creation. God may well consider that which has fallen to the wayside or might fall to the wayside, like slavery, infidels, failed astronomical theories, debates about women and homosexuals, or birth control to be ephemeral and irrelevant to the purpose he has designed the institution for.

So, in a world full of evil, it is not actually surprising to see every element tainted by it. The only question that really remains, to my mind, is what the point of evil actually is.

Re:Infallible?

[tnk1]

The doctrine of infallibility was specified in 1870. The last time there were three popes was, I believe in the 15th or 16th Century. So, while interesting, the doctrine never applied when there were three "popes".

However, if it was backdated, there are official designations of who was the proper pope historically. In this case, I believe the Italian pope who resigned was considered the "real" pope and was followed by one Pope ever after.

I imagine that a current pope who wanted to use some formulation that an antipope came up with could just settle the question by reissuing the doctrine himself.

Re:PUSSY!

[tnk1]

'nuff said.

Pope John Paul? Is that you?

Re:Inaccurate

[tnk1]

Theoretically, he could be said to abdicate, in the loosest sense. However, there is nothing particularly more accurate about that word over "resign".

Most times, when you use "abdicate" there is a royal overtone, and there is a successor on deck. The Pope might be said to be a monarch, but he doesn't have a selected successor. So "resign" works as well as any word.

Re:Infallible?

[Your.Master]

What complicates this is an argument made that the original church continues in the non-original location and that the Vatican Pope now is the "new Pope".

Still. There aren't a lot of Popes running around, this Pope is by a wide margin the most famous, and the summary referred to him by name, uniquely identifying this Pope through history. I think that's good enough.

Papal infallibility limited to certain statements

[DragonWriter]

Does he remain infallible after stepping down?

He, personally, is not infallible to start with; the doctrine of Papal infallibility holds that statements of the Pope made ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals are infallible. When he stops being Pope, he can no longer make ex cathedra statements as Pope, and therefore cannot make statements that would be held to be infallible by reason of the doctrine of Papal infallibility.

Re:Infallible?

[scaryjohn]

Because everybody knows to whom you are referring when you say "The Pope".

This is Slashdot! At first, I thought everyone was talking about thepope! Turns out, Kurt moved into academia a while ago.

Fuck the pope.

[UltraZelda64]

This is the guy who should take his place, dismantle their ridiculous cult, and bring some common sense back to the world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Ghost_-_GRF_2012.jpg

Re:Infallible?

[bazmonkey]

How about two "infallible" coders who write the same function (let's say, in Perl) in two different ways - both of which produce the exact same result, processor usage, and runtime. Could they not disagree on coding style yet remain infallible?

No. One of the two did it wrong. If they produce the exact same result, proc usage, runtime, AND effort to create, they'd be the same functions.

Besides, the infallible coder could just name off binary digits, all the while perfectly confident that it will work.

I am not imprerssed - atheist's oppinion

[Evtim]

The previous guy at least got credit (greatly exaggerated, IMO) for rocking the communist boat. This man was....nothing. No charisma, no creativity, no original thinking. Boring, so middle-ages attitude. Every time I read he had visited some state or another the speeches were always summarized as "Pope warns against aggressive secularism" , "Pope warns against diminished believe in god". Stop whining, man, and face the music! You and your organization are a major cause for the people's diminished believe. How can I trust these people, not only because of the kiddie molesting but for all those people have done to the world....He even affronted Elizabeth of Windsor; she replayed in a polite version of "piss off" - "The constitution of UK grants religious freedom including not having a religion".

He is a PR disaster; look no further for the cause of the resignation...

Re:Infallible?

[TwentyCharsIsNotEnou]

No. One of the two did it wrong. If they produce the exact same result, proc usage, runtime, AND effort to create, they'd be the same functions. Besides, the infallible coder could just name off binary digits, all the while perfectly confident that it will work.

Did it wrong?? So a perfectly working function that took slightly more initial effort is wrong? Even though it might be easier for a non-infallible coder colleague to re-use or adapt? There, see - I've just added another metric - reusability - you could keep adding more metrics forever.

My point is that sometimes there is no perfect solution - there are trade-offs. You could argue that one day, eventually, maybe it could be decided that one or the other trade off was the better choice - but that conclusion will still be an opinion, based on a certain set of priorities. I don't see why two infallible beings couldn't have different priorities and opinions.

Slashdot has 10 kinds of people...

[FatLittleMonkey]

...those who think "News For Nerds.Stuff That Matters" means:

(News For Nerds) AND (Stuff That Matters)

xor those who think it means:

(News For Nerds) OR (Stuff That Matters).

As the voice of Reason

[tehcyder]

Can I just point out that the Pope is the Whore of Babylon? Plus, he's the Anti-Christ.

I'm really not sure we should be giving him publicity on slashdot.

Prophecy of the Popes

[RivenAleem]

So in order to keep this going, I'm betting that Peter Turkson gets appointed the next Pope. Then they can start the Armageddon countdown. Thankfully, Bruce Willis is still alive.

Bolt from the blue: Lightning strikes St. Peter's

[frallon]

photo But was that a bolt of approval or condemnation? Its so hard to figure out these sky spirits.

Re:Advanced age?

[vandamme]

I saw him in October at a canonization. He looked beat. He probably looked at World Youth Day coming up this summer, and figured he'd rather put up his feet and write books. He thought he could retire at 79, but instead he got elected pope.

I don't suppose you'll be in your present job when you're 85.

Re:Inaccurate

[vandamme]

What's wrong with "retiring" when you're 85?

Re:Infallible?

[TranquilVoid]

The question is clearly referring to the context of Catholic belief, not wonkey_monkey's.

The Catholic Church is of Advanced Age

[Danilushka]

They still protect pedophiles and shun birth control, so while it's been a long time since they persecuted and killed scientists, held orgies, committed incest, assassinated people, had a standing army and attacked other nations, the Vatican is a superstitious anachronism and the whole church should be retired.