New Pope Selected

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @07:40AM from the holy-smokes dept.

Freshly Exhumed sends this quote from CBC: "Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina has been selected as Pope of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics. He will be known as Pope Francis. He is the first Pope from the Americas. The 76-year-old was the runner-up to Benedict XVI during the last conclave. He is well-known for his humility and espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception. He has no Vatican experience."

915 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

oh cool.. by kuk_Bone · 2013-03-13 07:42 · Score: 5, Funny

"Goes back to work"
1. Re:oh cool.. by kthreadd · 2013-03-13 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  What is this "work" you're talking about?
2. Re:oh cool.. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-03-13 08:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If the new Pope is not made of chocolate, and filled with marzipan, then I'm not interested.
  Unless he has a jet pack. Or a robot named "Muad'Dib".
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
3. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  well I never saw that comming , All i head was they had elected the hand of God from Argentina.
  But seriously Pope Diego Maradonna the first??
4. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:27 · Score: -1
  
  No, dummy, RTFS. Pope Francis.
5. Re:oh cool.. by krotkruton · 2013-03-13 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  You have no idea who you're dealing with... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rwsTYQ26QDQ#t=100s
6. Re:oh cool.. by 9jack9 · 2013-03-13 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  Okay, I've heard of a moped Jesus, but not a marzipan pope.
  Nice Bowie reference.
7. Re:oh cool.. by tylersoze · 2013-03-13 08:43 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Yeah how is this either "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"?
8. Re:oh cool.. by Valgar · 2013-03-13 08:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  No, dummy, RTFS. Pope Francis.
  Settle down, Francis.
9. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:47 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Each time a non-tech news reach ./ , someone whine that is not "news for nerds". Today it is you! Congratulation your medal is in the mail.
10. Re:oh cool.. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-03-13 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  They called it the Prayer, its answer was law
  Its logic stopped war, gave them food
  How they adored till it cried in its boredom
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
11. Re:oh cool.. by Krishnoid · 2013-03-13 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Those would be cool, or if the new Pope looked like this one.
12. Re:oh cool.. by bigtomrodney · 2013-03-13 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  You mean this Chocolate Pope?
  
  --
  I never get used to these constant resurrections
13. Re:oh cool.. by Sloppy · 2013-03-13 09:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  Don't understate the importance of this. I heard the new pope uses emacs instead of vim (because "my fingers learned that one on the dvorak keyboards in the seminary"). And yet, he prefers python3 over scheme. Runs it all on Mac OS 10.4 and won't upgrade to 10.8, because
  he can't get his Zune to sync with later-than-10.4 anyway
  Driver issues with his Piledriver-APU-based Hackintosh
  10.4 reminds him slightly more of his old Atari ST (and I quote: "fuck you Amigoids, yuor all going to hell 4ever!!!11")
  invisible scrollbars and a wrong default scroll wheel direction, are an abomination before The Lord
  I don't care if you don't see any geeky controversy here; the python3 thing is important. The new pope is saying fallible things on the Internet!
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
14. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  /.
15. Re:oh cool.. by Stormy+Dragon · 2013-03-13 09:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's getting the same coverage that a casting change in Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or any other long running fantasy series would get.
16. Re:oh cool.. by Tator+Tot · 2013-03-13 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well.... he does have a masters degree in Chemistry. That is "science-y" right?
  
  --
  To all you virgins: Thanks for nothing.
17. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:46 · Score: -1
  
  I guess that they ran out of choir boys to bugger.
  But what I really want to know: is the rat still infallible?
18. Re:oh cool.. by Mikkeles · 2013-03-13 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's when they pay you to write software! Yes; pay you! But you generally don't get to pick what the software is to do :(
  
  --
  Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
19. Re:oh cool.. by Cloud+K · 2013-03-13 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  It's "stuff that matters" because he's the leader of a religious group that comprises 1.2 billion people. And I guess it's no huge surprise but it's worth knowing that he's another of those bigoted assholes who will be telling those billions about how all homosexuals are evil and that no-one should be using contraception, and we won't miraculously be getting a nice pope who would modernise religion just yet.
20. Re:oh cool.. by KingSkippus · 2013-03-13 10:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I was really hoping that he would call himself Pope Awesome. A little marketing never hurt. If I were Pope, I'd have to go with either taking the name Mobile, or possibly Oree.
21. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  Lighten up, Francis.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs
  It's not delivery, it's Bergoglio.
22. Re:oh cool.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-03-13 10:14 · Score: 2
  
  Also, he loves programming in assembly language and reputedly said that if he gets the job, he'll insist on being titled POP E.
  Also, I'm sure that a new Vatican encyclical will clear things up in the sense that the Holy Office stipulates infallibility on spiritual matters, math, logic and programming don't count into it, and bishops are therefore not required to use Python 3 and can carry on with their Racket Scheme, which has come to be sort of a centuries-old tradition in the church.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
23. Re:oh cool.. by Mindcontrolled · 2013-03-13 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Every whine about "why is this stuff that matters" should result in a one week insta-ban, increased exponentially for repeat offenders. If the topic does not interest you, how about not clicking on it? To hard for the thing you use in place of a brain?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
24. Re:oh cool.. by LynnwoodRooster · 2013-03-13 10:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hmmm... Electing the spiritual/moral leader of roughly 1 billion people. Yeah, I can't think of ANY WAY that could be "stuff that matters"...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
25. Re:oh cool.. by Master+Moose · 2013-03-13 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  10.4 reminds him slightly more of his old Atari ST (and I quote: "fuck you Amigoids, yuor all going to hell 4ever!!!11")
  Your spiel was almost believable up until this. 10.4 may remind him of his ST, but that reminiscence would stir up the envy he had over his neighbours A500+
  
  --
  . . .gone when the morning comes
26. Re:oh cool.. by Greyfox · 2013-03-13 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yah I guess it's time to stop being evil again. It sure was fun those few days without a Right Hand of God to keep us in line.
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
27. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  How is this news ANYTHING to do with slashdot?
28. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_of_God_goal#.22Hand_of_God.22_goal
29. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  modernize religion? I believe that Pope Benedict XIV officially endorsed the Complete Works of Galileo, in 1741. They finally got everyone on board with that in 1992. It's going to take a bit longer for the homos. Tradition and trendiness don't really go hand in hand.
30. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  speaking ex cathedra...look it up. Then think about it a while. You are just another one of a growing multitude of willfully ignorant assholes that think their neural connections work better than most. We don't bother arguing with your type any more. It's better to make fun of you because you arrive at your conclusions through your own "free will" - or at least by what you think you were taught in that train wreck of an educational system you were dragged through.
31. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  "Goes back to work" isnt that what one does when one's not rich enough to rent seek?
32. Re:oh cool.. by hedwards · 2013-03-13 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps if the previous Pope hadn't opted to make political hay out of the sex scandals that came round every week by trying to pin it on a massive homosexual conspiracy, we'd stop thinking Catholics as being small minded bigots.
  The fact of the matter is that these ideas didn't just get out their on their own, the Church itself went a long ways towards encouraging it by not just cleaning house of the pedophiles and reforming things before they were forced into it. That sort of arrogance really begs for this sort of treatment.
33. Re:oh cool.. by icebike · 2013-03-13 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  It is a natural outlet for nerd rage.
  Que the religion rage posts in 3, 2, 1....
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
34. Re:oh cool.. by drcheap · 2013-03-13 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  He meant that he moved on to the next "article" on /.
35. Re:oh cool.. by Arancaytar · 2013-03-13 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  the python3 thing is important. The new pope is saying fallible things on the Internet!
  Heretic! There is no true scripting language but Python, and Rossum is its prophet.
36. Re:oh cool.. by xenobyte · 2013-03-13 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well...
  "When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." (Robert Pirsig)
  "The majority is always (by definition) sane" (Wonko The Sane - from "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" by Douglas Adams)
  
  --
  "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
37. Re:oh cool.. by michelcolman · 2013-03-13 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  Counting at least half a billion people like me who are officially catholic (baptised as a baby, and later went through most other rituals to please family and/or to get presents) but don't really believe and would find it hilarious for the pope to be considered their "leader".
38. Re:oh cool.. by michelcolman · 2013-03-13 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  In other news for nerds, Paris Hilton has a new outfit! And check back later to find out which star is ditching her boyfriend for a pizza delivery boy!
39. Re:oh cool.. by Digital+Vomit · 2013-03-13 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  I would have chosen the name Pope Satan I, just for the lulz.
  
  --
  Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
40. Re:oh cool.. by RobertLTux · 2013-03-14 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  defines the term "Legacy Client" ,sometimes we need news from The Real World, nonzero number of Catholic Nerds , and a great opportunity for some Good Jokes.
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
41. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Now that wasn't nice. I'm at work. I'm not supposed to laugh alone like hell. They'll think I got crazy (maybe they would be right...)
  Anyway, when you write something like that, please label it "not safe for work".
  "the pope is dead, long live the pope!" And I do care, because it affects my taxes, my relationship with my friends, the weather and the traffic!
42. Re:oh cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  You my friend should sell your old iShit, buy a brand new PC and for all the money that left, go get a few dinners. Then make a trip to the pyramids. When you come back, you'll stil have some money left.
43. Re:oh cool.. by jadv · 2013-03-14 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  Joking aside, I heard that the new Pope has a degree in chemistry, so maybe he is one of us (i.e., a nerd)?
44. Re:oh cool.. by persevero · 2013-03-14 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Difficult to imagine what isn't the stuff of fantasy literature about the Swiss Guard in their stripey clothes carrying curly halberds. And I don't mean Dan Brown.
45. Re:oh cool.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-03-14 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Eight out of ten men are sane
  On is a genius
  The other is crazy.
  I hesitate to call myself a genius
  That leaves only one choice.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
46. Re:oh cool.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-03-14 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  As well they shouldn't. What if homosexuality is a mistake?
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
47. Re:oh cool.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-03-14 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, kind of like the atheists did? Oh yeah, Turing was buggering children long before it became fashionable for Popes to do so, and yet the British Government was evil for removing him from his post.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
48. Re:oh cool.. by Stubbyfingers · 2013-03-22 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Don't make fun of the Swiss Guards.
  In their day, the Swiss Guards were some serious bad asses. Stripey clothes were all the rage then, anyway. And as far as halberds go, the 6 ft combination axe and spears they wield would STILL do a number on anyone who isn't packing a gun or other ranged weapon. They AREN'T just ceremonial--they're SHARP!
  Today, they have both the ceremonial uniform (the stripey one) and they also dress somewhat like American Secret Service when the Pope is milling about his flock. They're fully versed in both the ancient weapon they carry, AND modern handguns and assault weapons. The guys who serve do so for a 2 year period as part of their Swiss Army service. It's a rather prestigious posting and competition within the standing Swiss army is fierce.
POPEMOBILE by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:42 · Score: -1

Cruisin' for Preteens in my Popemobile Cruiser.
So.... by Daetrin · 2013-03-13 07:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception
So nothing important is going to change then? Or am i misreading that?

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
1. Re:So.... by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 07:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception
  So nothing important is going to change then? Or am i misreading that?
  Well people could choose to stop with the religion thing in response.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re:So.... by Trepidity · 2013-03-13 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  In theory he could change those teachings. But it seems unlikely.
  But I mean really, is it news that the person selected Pope agrees with Church teachings? The Cardinals aren't too likely to select someone who disagrees with them.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
3. Re:So.... by ShanghaiBill · 2013-03-13 07:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  So nothing important is going to change then? Or am i misreading that?
  The World will continue to change, but the Catholic Church will not be leading those changes. Here is a car analogy: If the World was a car driving down the freeway of life, the Catholic Church would be a parking brake that was not fully disengaged, thus impeding progress slightly and emitting a bad smell.
4. Re:So.... by bluefoxlucid · 2013-03-13 07:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  That's kind of the point of religion. It's not supposed to be very dynamic. It's supposed to be a set of guiding morals, for example Buddhism's guiding moral of "Don't Be A Giant Dickhead." This hasn't changed to "It's Okay To Be A Giant Dickhead When It Makes You Feel Better" or "Be A Giant Dickhead, But Only To Politicians And Wall Street Bankers." Now times are changing and it's probably not really terrible to be a giant dickhead to Wall Street bankers, but eh. That's not what Buddhism is about.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
5. Re:So.... by v1 · 2013-03-13 08:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In theory he could change those teachings. But it seems unlikely.
  They don't pick a pope that's promising reform, they pick one that will carry on just like the previous popes. Religions appear to prefer stagnation, at least at their upper levels. I wonder if it has anything to do with their age? "Clinging to the past" seems to be a common hobby with most old farts ;)
  I like the "he has no previous experience" thing they mentioned. I don't think "have you ever been a pope before?" was part of the the interview...
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
6. Re:So.... by AndyG314 · 2013-03-13 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception
  So nothing important is going to change then? Or am i misreading that?
  So you honestly thought that they would elect a new pope who would didn't agree with long standing church teachings? What is interesting is that the new pope is a non European. As for what it means, or what will change, that has yet to be seen.
  
  --
  If it's dead, you killed it.
7. Re:So.... by game+kid · 2013-03-13 08:15 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  It's supposed to be a set of guiding morals, for example Buddhism's guiding moral of "Don't Be A Giant Dickhead."
  
  That's funny, I always thought Buddha taught and followed the Noble Eightinch Path.
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
8. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  So nothing important is going to change then? Or am i misreading that?
  The World will continue to change, but the Catholic Church will not be leading those changes. Here is a car analogy: If the World was a car driving down the freeway of life, the Catholic Church would be a parking brake that was not fully disengaged, thus impeding progress slightly and emitting a bad smell.
  To continue the car analogy and to point out the differences, while the Catholic Church may be wearing the parking brake out, the evangelical Christians are trying to throw the car in reverse. And all while they are in a fist fight with the Muslim fundamentalists (who are also looking for reverse) over who's hand will be on the shift lever. Meanwhile, the Quakers are pointing out that one should use the clutch when shifting gears and the Pastafarians are looking for a different car in which to ride.
9. Re:So.... by KeensMustard · 2013-03-13 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  People believe things that other people don't believe. News at 11.
10. Re:So.... by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-13 08:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Pope John Paul 2 effectively picked the specific religious views of his successor by filling the voting pool with people that agreed with him on every major issue. Most of those people are still in the College of Cardinals and I would guess (but did not check) that Pope Benedict only added to it.
  
  So the Catholic Church will remain conservative for a very long time. This should not surprise anyone that has been paying attention - this institution took four centuries to recognize that Galileo was right.
11. Re:So.... by GameboyRMH · 2013-03-13 08:33 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Came here to check this. It's the only thing about the pope worth caring about, is he still going to support bigotry and overpopulation (as in the creation of the very same starving kids he will later cry about) or not?
  Aaaand the answer's yes :-(
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
12. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  It's bureaucracies that prefer stagnation and the status quo, and RCC is nothing but the old Roman curatio or bureaucracy and has been since the 4th century.
13. Re:So.... by bluefoxlucid · 2013-03-13 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  That's funny. You really tell girls that thing is eight inches?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
14. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  In theory he could change those teachings.
  Sort of hard to change teachings when they are written down and come from God.
15. Re:So.... by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-13 08:44 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Also at 11, Archaic Institution Maintains 300 Year Old Rules, Despite Fact None of Followers Believe That Crap Anymore.
  Seriously, go talk to some Catholics sometime. You'll find out they aren't nearly as obtuse and idiotic as the Vatican (and media) makes them out to be.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
16. Re:So.... by buchner.johannes · 2013-03-13 08:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  When have our views on contraception, abortion and homosexuality modernized? In the last 30, 20 and 10 years. Same-sex marriage is still a huge debate. The pope is 76. The pope with a modern view is 20 today, and will become pope in 40-60 years.
  This is not a democracy where you can replace people every 4 years, this is a rigid hierarchical structure of with no balances and 1 billion people. And it is supposed to not change much.
  
  --
  NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
17. Re:So.... by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2013-03-13 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Way ahead of you on that one. :)
  I was brought up Roman Catholic, I was an alter boy, went to Catholic school, and seriously considered becoming a priest.
  Who knows, if I had decided differently I might have become Pope today.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
18. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The problem isn't people believing different things. The problem is the bit where their believes are forced onto others from a moralistic high ground that has no demonstrable basis in reality.
19. Re:So.... by Trepidity · 2013-03-13 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  They do leave themselves some out to change things. Only a handful of things are defined as eternal and non-negotiable; the rest is canon law that's subject to revision by the Church. Unlike the "solo scriptura" protestants, the Catholics (and Orthodox) take a more institutionally oriented view, where the Church is in charge of preserving and guiding the development of Christianity, and has quite a bit of authority to decide on interpretations, and to change them.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
20. Re:So.... by bugs2squash · 2013-03-13 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of things will change. The Vatican will claim sovereignty of the Alps and invade Cyprus.
  
  --
  Nullius in verba
21. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  We just want them to at least have beliefs that doesn't require you to cease all usage of common sense.
22. Re:So.... by SpasticWeasel · 2013-03-13 08:59 · Score: 2
  
  Not spelling altar that way. There's a test you know and that's one of the first questions.
  
  --
  No sooner do I get over one, then you put a better one right next to me. Bastards.
23. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:07 · Score: -1
  
  Contrary to what you might believe some of us are ok with that. The bible teaches that the sanctety of life transcends a woman's convinience. I believe (as many other Christians do) that the right to choose comes before you get knocked up not after. After that a child is involved and it ain't all about you anymore. The bible doesn't really say anything about contraception, and I don't see anything wrong with that, but I'm not the ultimate authority and so that's just my opinion. As far as homosexuality is concerned the bible does definately say something about that. It's a sin. It's forgivable for those that wish to turn from that lifestyle, but I don't see any reason why the church needs to depart from their values to condone sinful behavior. We don't do it for thieves, murderers, prostitutes, adulterers, drunkards, or anyone else. What makes homosexuals think they're so entitled? You disagree with the church? That's fine you've already proven that by your lifestyle, or was the point to bring everyone else around to accept your particular sinful indulgence?
24. Re:So.... by mcmonkey · 2013-03-13 09:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well people could choose to stop with the religion thing in response.
  And people could choose to stop with software with DRM in response.
  But some folks have to have their games, just as some will have their religion.
25. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Sorta like China?
  (I'm grooving on the personal attacks today)
26. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  Regarding your stagnation comment: Maybe you take things apart that are working so you can have a useless pile of pieces, but most intellegent people only fix things when they are broken. Religion isn't meant to be normalized to society. It perseveres in the midst of corruption (or it should). I realize that this is not always the case, particularly when it comes to the Catholic church, but it is what we strive for. For all the darts that people like to throw it's very rare that anyone chooses to focus on all of the good things the church has done over the years.
27. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  You're a horrible horrible person for saying that, and shame on you. In my startlingly tolerant opinion, you should be disparaged and looked down upon, perhaps put in jail, because your beliefs don't agree with what I think. I refuse to tolerate your intolerance, and my intolerance isn't intolerance at all!
  (end sarcasm)
28. Re:So.... by KeensMustard · 2013-03-13 09:18 · Score: 2
  
  I don't make a distinction between their lack of common sense and yours.
29. Re:So.... by KeensMustard · 2013-03-13 09:20 · Score: 2
  
  Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
30. Re:So.... by Krishnoid · 2013-03-13 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  And most of us are trying to figure out who should be shouting, 'If you don't stop this, I'm going to turn this car around RIGHT NOW!', and why they haven't yet.
31. Re:So.... by KeensMustard · 2013-03-13 09:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Again - everybody does that, and atheists not the least of them. That is a description that you could apply to any strawman you choose.
32. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  This is not a democracy where you can replace people every 4 years
  True, Benedict XVI was pope for 8 years.
33. Re:So.... by ebno-10db · 2013-03-13 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  He meant what he wrote and wrote what he meant. I'm sure he's well aware that an alter[ed] boy is not the same as an altar boy.
34. Re:So.... by coniferous · 2013-03-13 09:28 · Score: 2
  
  "this institution took four centuries to recognize that Galileo was right." Or more importantly, that the holocaust actually happened...
35. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  your car analogy lacks the child molesting aspect
36. Re:So.... by trout007 · 2013-03-13 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Please get your facts straight. It took the Church 4 centuries to apologize and clear Galileo of heresy. It always allowed the teaching of Heliocentrism as a theory that the sun is the center of the universe not the earth. Of course we now know that neither is the center of the Universe (only the observable universe). The problem was never scientific in nature but religious and political. The Church was always interested in better methods of time keeping to help maintain the Calendar. You know the one we use today that is accurate. In 1582 the supposedly anti-science Catholic Church jumped forward 10 days to realign the Calendar with astronomical observations and came up with the leap day. It took the scientific British and Americans until 1752 to accept this.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
37. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  I like the "he has no previous experience" thing they mentioned. I don't think "have you ever been a pope before?" was part of the the interview...
  It's not about previous experience as a Pope but about having experience in the Roman Curia, i.e the administrative apparatus of the Holy See and Vatican (Vatican is a state after all).
  There are cardinals who serve in various way the Curia (e.g. Ratzinger or Scola, the actual archbishop of Milan) while the new Pope never had any Curia related appointment.
38. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  No wonder why girls are bad at math...
39. Re:So.... by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-13 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
  Yea, I should have clarified that statement wasn't directed at you. I could tell from your post you're smart enough to realize that a particular label does not, generally, define a person.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
40. Re:So.... by fbjon · 2013-03-13 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Religious teachings don't really affect population growth at all. At least not today. Religions and babies
  
  --
  True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
41. Re:So.... by bruce_the_loon · 2013-03-13 09:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I like the "he has no previous experience" thing they mentioned. I don't think "have you ever been a pope before?" was part of the the interview...
  The no previous experience statement isn't to do with being a pope, but with having been part of the Vatican bureaucracy before the election. One of the areas of reform needed is in an apparently corrupt bureaucracy and the last chap was part of the club, having headed up part of it for a decade or more.
  This chap has been running an archdiocese in Argentina for the last couple of decades and only set foot in Rome once or twice a year. In American terms, it would be like electing a small town mayor to the office of president, and hoping that the fact he doesn't know how Washington should work will let him clean up the place.
  
  --
  Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
42. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Is drumkin bum what RCs call it when your anus has been stretched by repeated buggery?
43. Re:So.... by Threni · 2013-03-13 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, he's not a Nazi. That's a bit of a change. But no, he's just another old white homophobic anti-evidence based faith-head who'll just keep parroting all the same shit all the other fuckers did. I'll bet he'll do nothing about the kiddy fiddling either.
44. Re:So.... by ButchDeLoria · 2013-03-13 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  "Sorry sir, but we're looking for a religious systems administrator with prior experience."
45. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  The expression is "you follow a fat pope with a thin pope." In other words, after X years, people tend to be ready for a change. And usually, they get it. Of course it doesn't always get appreciated. During a last conclave a reporter actually asked if the cardinals were likely to elect a more liberal pope.... More liberal? Than John Paul II? He hosted Native American rain dances for crying out loud! You don't _get_ a more liberal pope. Benedict predictably veered more toward the conservative side. Still, people don't appreciate that church doctrine moves on scales of _centuries_. It's not like American politics where every two years it's out with the old crazy, in with the new crazy.
46. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  The problem was never scientific in nature but religious and political.
  
  You know, I must have heard this defense of the church's actions re Galileo dozens of times and it's never made sense. So you're telling me that they didn't persecute Galileo because of an honest belief that his teaching was hereticial, but instead you're saying that God's infallible representative on earth threatened to torture an innocent old man because he was mildly offended at what might have been a caricature of him in one of Galileo's books?
  How's that better, again?
47. Re:So.... by bugs2squash · 2013-03-13 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  "You all know that the duty of the Conclave was to give a bishop to Rome. It seems that my brother Cardinals have come almost to the ends of the Earth to get him"
  He seems to be a pretty euro-centric non-European judging by the first infallible words from his mouth. Presumably he considers the Earth to be flat too.
  
  --
  Nullius in verba
48. Re:So.... by Cloud+K · 2013-03-13 10:17 · Score: 2
  
  Half true. One such person is a close friend and doesn't shove it down anyone's throats (he will "teach" people if they ask, but never without asking) nor would he go around telling me or anyone else how to live their lives. He doesn't let differences in beliefs stand in the way of friendship (neither do I), which is wonderful. It's how all religious (and non-religious) people should be.
  It doesn't stop him listening to and believing what the pastors say though, and at least being quietly concerned about the future wellbeing of friends who do things they consider sinful.
  But yeah, I don't really mind. I'm all for the Trek-like vision of religion where we just respect each others' beliefs, love them for who they are and get on with life. The only reason I think the Pope is an asshole is because (as is his job) he's trying to shove his views onto everyone else all the time.
49. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  Pope John Paul 2 effectively picked the specific religious views of his successor by filling the voting pool with people that agreed with him on every major issue... So the Catholic Church will remain conservative for a very long time.
  For those who don't know: a cardinal is one who has been adopted into the papal family. It is literally based off of ancient Roman adoption law. That's why they're the ones who get to vote on the next Bishop of Rome. For all intents and purposes here they are the Roman Catholics. It's not a rank. It's not something that is achieved through deliberate effort. It's not even a "merit badge' as so often described. One cannot set out to become a cardinal. The implication cardinals would EVER be chosen without papal input and basic agreement betrays an utterly abhorrent grasp of the subject involved.
  At the same time, "Pope" is not an office of public politics. There is no hat to throw your name into. It is not representing an electorate. It is not meant to change on a scale of year. You can expect church doctrine to remain VERY consistent from decade to decade (and century to century). Decision are not made on a whim. We're talking about an organization that can afford to pay a committee of people to spend ten years meditating on just the morality of contraception. Or AI. Or alien contact. Or any subject that may come up. Decisions of any kind will not be made or overturned trivially.
50. Re:So.... by femtobyte · 2013-03-13 10:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Our views" (depending a lot on who "us" is; assuming the general European populace from which the uppermost Catholic hierarchy is mainly drawn) on contraception modernized in the 1960s, when the pope was (barely) a 20-something. Since that time, there have only been very small ultra-conservative enclaves (the Papacy among them) in which birth control --- even for married couples waiting for a better time to start their family --- is considered an abomination. The Catholic hierarchy lags much farther behind on these issues than your simple chronological estimates (though not the general Catholic population, which statistically employs birth control as frequently as everyone else).
51. Re:So.... by ButchDeLoria · 2013-03-13 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  SubGenii are chilling in the back seat, enjoying the ride.
52. Re:So.... by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-13 10:29 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Good stuff, and good on ya for not feeling compelled to be a dick about it.
  The world really is a much more tolerable place, when people can disagree without the vitriol and anger.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
53. Re:So.... by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  They already did that in the 11th Century.
  And I am only sort of kidding.
54. Re:So.... by istartedi · 2013-03-13 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well people could choose to stop with the religion thing in response.
  That's what Catholics are doing in the US.
  I haven't pulled up charts for other countries. The US is said to be more religious then European countries though, so I wager that the charts for Europe show even less attendance.
  The Catholic church is like Microsoft in this regard. Even if the next 10 revs are worthless, they've got a lot of inertia, a lot of people that are used to it, and a tremendous pile of cash. They won't go away anytime soon; but they have become less relevant.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
55. Re:So.... by istartedi · 2013-03-13 10:40 · Score: 2
  
  Atheists are walking of course, while shamans, mystics and various other new age religions are on the bus
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
56. Re:So.... by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2013-03-13 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I never could spell.
  Thank Dog for spell checkers. :)
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
57. Re:So.... by trout007 · 2013-03-13 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Because it shows that the problem was mixing religion and government.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
58. Re:So.... by GameboyRMH · 2013-03-13 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  I was talking about how they push an anti-contraception agenda in 3rd-world hellholes:
  http://www.globalization101.org/the-battle-over-birth-control-for-developing-nations/#o5
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
59. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  So, you want someone to pay for your healthcare when you're 76? You're contracepting the ones you need to pay for your later years. Does no one see the illogic?
60. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  And twenty-five years of Java programming needed as well.
61. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  Gosh, can't believe all they picked were Catholics for Cardinals. Can you believe that?
62. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  a particular label does not, generally, define a person.
  As true as this is, when someone voluntarily adopts an existing label, they really should not be surprised when they are treated according to what that label means to others, and not what they'd like it to mean.
  
  More power to them if they're looking to change the perception of that label, but they've got an up-hill battle ahead of them.
63. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  So sort of like what people hoped for with Obama.
64. Re:So.... by Darinbob · 2013-03-13 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Did you think any of that stood a chance of changing?
  Instead look at what actually is new and different and possibly interesting.
  From South America, first non-European pope in over a thousand years. A champion of social justice issues. Those are bound to give a new viewpoint on a lot of issues, even non-theological ones. At the very least it gives a big boost to non-European church members.
  Then there's the first Jesuit pope. Probably of little importance to non church members, except to the loony conspiracy theory community, but it's interesting anyway.
  So of question is if he's going to be like John Paul II and do lots and lots of evangelizing trips while not paying too much attention to the church administration bureaucracy, or like Benedict XVI and focus on basic teaching of core principles but no fixups of the administration, or bring something different.
  With over a billion Roman Catholic members world wide, the person who is pope it is more than mere trivia, even if you are not catholic.
65. Re:So.... by femtobyte · 2013-03-13 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Having a next generation is useful. Starting popping out babies when you are freshly married to your high school sweetheart at age 19, before either of you has a job that pays enough for quality food, housing, and healthcare, is not. Nor is having 17 children to feed and raise. Contraception for good family planning is critical for assuring that the next generation is raised healthy, happy, and smart (not in squalid desperation with ill-prepared, over-burdened parents), thus most capable to take up the responsibility of being humankind.
66. Re:So.... by SteveFoerster · 2013-03-13 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Came here to check this. It's the only thing about the pope worth caring about, is he still going to support bigotry and overpopulation (as in the creation of the very same starving kids he will later cry about) or not?
  Aaaand the answer's yes :-(
  Well, big yes on bigotry, but I've read he's slightly less regressive than the more recent guys when it comes to using contrceptive methods to prevent disease transmission.
  
  --
  Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
67. Re:So.... by xaxa · 2013-03-13 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11297461 for the UK.
  Something like 12% of people who claim to be religious go to church (or mosque, temple etc) at least once a week. It's a bit higher for Catholics, about 17%.
  (The statistic at the top, "According to the 2001 census, there were 41 million Christians in Great Britain, making up almost three quarters of the population (72%)", was often argued to be quite inaccurate. IIRC, the census question was pretty loaded -- I think there were tick-boxes for religions, but you had to write in "no religion".)
68. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:44 · Score: 0
  
  Catholic doctrine says that the Will of God doesn't change just because social norms change. And it's their job to interpret and preach that "Will of God" thing as it applies to the modern world.
  In other words: if they "modernized" these teachings, they would be betraying the 1.2 billion people who rely on them to provide that information.
  How many of those 1.2 billion choose to act on the Church's teachings is another question entirely. But it's most emphatically not the church's job to change them, unless and until someone comes up with a new interpretation of their (unchanging) sources that supports such a change.
69. Re:So.... by sd4f · 2013-03-13 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's why girls are so bad at maths!
70. Re:So.... by Carewolf · 2013-03-13 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  (though not the general Catholic population, which statistically employs birth control as frequently as everyone else).
  To be fair. As far as I know Catholic countries also frequentily uses anal and or gay sex as a birth control. You know, the Catholic way.
71. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  I am pretty sure Galileo was paid for and working on a contract from the church almost his entire life, and was only prosecuted in the end over an internal political issue to do with his sponsor.
72. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  To be fair, we have modernized. For instance, we don't stone fuckers like you any more.
73. Re:So.... by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Just because they can change slowly, it doesn't mean they should.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
74. Re:So.... by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  The danger in this is when a modernizer takes on the appearance of a conservative so successfully that he gets promoted to Pope. Then he goes all liberal on them and appoints hippies. It's probably one of the Malcom Gladwell tipping point things.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
75. Re:So.... by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's possible to be wrong for a really long time that way.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
76. Re:So.... by Livius · 2013-03-13 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  My beliefs are different - they're the correct ones!
77. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  What him being non European means is the church is struggling to hold onto relevance, The biggest section of followers is no longer European and like all parasitic organisations they are trying to pander to the largest segment of there audience to ensure the money teat doesn't dry up completely.
78. Re:So.... by dave420 · 2013-03-13 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  So they believe wafers become the body of Christ when some Latin is uttered over them? That doesn't sound like everybody to me at least...
79. Re:So.... by koavf · 2013-03-13 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Poverty? War? Are these the only issues that matter now?
80. Re:So.... by CSMoran · 2013-03-13 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't him, it was his altar ego.
  
  --
  Every end has half a stick.
81. Re:So.... by hedwards · 2013-03-13 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Atheists don't do that. Statistically there are probably a few dozen world wide, but not anywhere near as much so as the Catholic Church does.
  What's more, atheists aren't a religious group and don't have huge sums of money to force their lack of beliefs on other people.
82. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  That would produce a wonderful comic strip.
83. Re:So.... by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-03-13 15:22 · Score: 2
  
  Unlike the "solo scriptura" protestants, the Catholics (and Orthodox) take a more institutionally oriented view, where the Church is in charge of preserving and guiding the development of Christianity, and has quite a bit of authority to decide on interpretations, and to change them.
  There is, however, a considerable difference between Catholics and Orthodox on what the Church is. For Orthodox, on all matters of faith and dogma, only the consensus of the whole Church (i.e. all independent Orthodox churches in full communion) has the power to define it. Organizationally, this is usually arrived through ecumenical councils, and as far as Orthodox are concerned, there hasn't been one since 787. While Orthodox churches do have a well-defined hierarchy and subordination, it concerns solely organizational matters, and not matters of doctrine.
  Catholics, on the other hand, do indeed have a system where the Church as a hierarchical organization, rather than the body of the faithful, can redefine ("clarify") doctrine.
84. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  Respectable religionshas guiding principles. Principles are not supposed to be changing with the times. Constantly changing principles == hypocricy.
85. Re:So.... by spitzig · 2013-03-13 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  Catholics' (and the general population's) views have changed a lot in 30 years. And, even some in 10 years. 30 years ago, few people would have even considered gay marriage, and a LOT more people find it morally acceptable. 10 years ago, not many people had considered gay marriage even. And, I'd bet more people find homosexuality acceptable.
  Contraception, I bet more find it acceptable. Especially Catholics, who probably lagged behind the rest of the population-I'm betting that's the reason my grandparents had 9 kids, and my aunts and uncles have at most 4.
  Abortion, probably generally more morally acceptable. Not sure, and definitely don't know about the shift in Catholic opinion.
86. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, already done. For the first year in my life, I'm proceeding with not believing. Funny enough, the story about the ex-pope and the young boys strengthened my resolve even further: if they think they can get away with shit like that as long as *people* don't know about it, their belief in *god* must be pretty small, as he is supposed to be all-seeing, all-knowing.
87. Re:So.... by AmiMoJo · 2013-03-13 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  It's more like they get brainwashed for their entire childhood and are surrounded by people who will think ill of them if they renounce their religion. When your entire world view and emotional responses are shaped by Catholicism it is rather hard to give it up.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
88. Re:So.... by MZoom · 2013-03-13 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  So nothing important is going to change then? Or am i misreading that?
  The World will continue to change, but the Catholic Church will not be leading those changes. Here is a car analogy: If the World was a car driving down the freeway of life, the Catholic Church would be a parking brake that was not fully disengaged, thus impeding progress slightly and emitting a bad smell.
  To continue the car analogy and to point out the differences, while the Catholic Church may be wearing the parking brake out, the evangelical Christians are trying to throw the car in reverse. And all while they are in a fist fight with the Muslim fundamentalists (who are also looking for reverse) over who's hand will be on the shift lever. Meanwhile, the Quakers are pointing out that one should use the clutch when shifting gears and the Pastafarians are looking for a different car in which to ride.
  Meanwhile the Agnostics remind us that no one really knows for sure, or can know for sure, where the damn car keys are!
  
  --
  Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
89. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 17:38 · Score: 0
  
  ding ding ding we have a winner. It's a religious organisation with religious principles, the leader of which, should teach those principles, not pander to political groups.
90. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  It says he has no Vatican experience. It's like saying the new king has no experience at the old king's court. Thus, he's likely to step on toes, and change old internal politics.
91. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 17:53 · Score: 0
  
  The church measures time in centuries and millennia. Stop griping about generation level, blink of an eye decisions. Some ideas take time to mature. Give it time, the church doesn't excommunicate married gay couples or people using contraceptives. There's no reason to get huffy about it. Religious matters take generations to resolve. Mr. Miyagi said something about patience. I think the Karate Kid was excercising childhood patience. Religion requires Miyagi patience.
92. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 18:17 · Score: 0
  
  You could at least read the Wikipedia page on Galileo. The catholic church supported his heliocentric model. During that time there were many doubting the geocentric view even if it was still common. Galileo was critical of the pope, and it was because of that that he was charged by the church, not due to heliocentrism.
93. Re:So.... by rohan972 · 2013-03-13 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  So nothing important is going to change then?
  Why should the church ever change if their instruction comes from god? In catholicism matrimony is one of seven sacraments, that makes their teaching on in foundational to the practice of the religion. If they admit to getting it wrong on the sacraments they may as well declare themselves to be obsolete and their religion to be false. That would be fine with me but you can see how the pope might try to avoid it since his job would be on the line. I don't think it makes sense to change a religion, if the teaching isn't true abandon it.
  
  --
  http://marriedmansexlife.com/
94. Re:So.... by xenobyte · 2013-03-13 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
  The same... except they're catholics.
  If you let religion define you or control your life, you got it all wrong. It's your religion and you define it. The other way around seems like one of those bad Soviet Russia jokes, except they frowned upon religion.
  Yes, I know a lot of people get a kick (or something?) out of following some often misunderstood and misinterpreted teachings. That of course makes as little sense as the teachings or rules themselves. Any proper religion should help its followers get more out of their lives or live better lives, but most rules seems bent on setting harsh limits and impose akward or obstructive routines that hamper life instead of improving it. This plays close to the self-flagellation practiced by certain religions or sects within a religion, like Opus Dei - a catholic sect.
  
  --
  "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
95. Re:So.... by xenobyte · 2013-03-13 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11297461 for the UK.
  Something like 12% of people who claim to be religious go to church (or mosque, temple etc) at least once a week. It's a bit higher for Catholics, about 17%.
  (The statistic at the top, "According to the 2001 census, there were 41 million Christians in Great Britain, making up almost three quarters of the population (72%)", was often argued to be quite inaccurate. IIRC, the census question was pretty loaded -- I think there were tick-boxes for religions, but you had to write in "no religion".)
  That a 2001 census! - 12 years ago! - Things have changed a lot since then. The immigration from Muslim countries have been so intense, and the birthrate of Muslims been so high, that Christians now are just above 50% and still dropping. All the lost percentages have been lost to the Muslim groups.
  
  --
  "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
96. Re:So.... by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Again - everybody does that, and atheists not the least of them. That is a description that you could apply to any strawman you choose.
  You seem to have missed the phrase "no demonstrable basis in reality."
  All statements are not equally true, or else we might as well give up on logic and communication entirely and go back to being animals.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
97. Re:So.... by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
  I know Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus (and New Agers, Hippies, Communists, Anarchists, Monarchists, Capitalists, Atheists and Agnostics). They can't all be right about everything. But they're all human beings.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
98. Re:So.... by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  The world really is a much more tolerable place, when people can disagree without the vitriol and anger.
  If nothing at all gets fills you with virtiol or joy, or makes you angry or sad, it just means you're either very stupid or indifferent to the point of psychopathy.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
99. Re:So.... by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  I like the "he has no previous experience" thing they mentioned. I don't think "have you ever been a pope before?" was part of the the interview...
  So, whatever its faults, at least the Catholic church isn't run by HR people.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
100. Re:So.... by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Cue the "but the Catholic Church hasn't taught that the world was flat since the 16th Century and they now acknowledge relativity and the Big Bang" posts from anti-contraceptive, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights apologists.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
101. Re:So.... by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  Came here to check this. It's the only thing about the pope worth caring about, is he still going to support bigotry and overpopulation (as in the creation of the very same starving kids he will later cry about) or not?
  Aaaand the answer's yes :-(
  He'll be carrying on the fine work of Mother Theresa.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
102. Re:So.... by KeensMustard · 2013-03-13 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  Again - everybody does that, and atheists not the least of them. That is a description that you could apply to any strawman you choose.
  You seem to have missed the phrase "no demonstrable basis in reality."
  No - I didn't.
  
  All statements are not equally true, or else we might as well give up on logic and communication entirely and go back to being animals.
  But people are not single points on a graph, and their beliefs are a set, not a single assertion. In that set, everybody has some assertions which are true (or will prove to be true) and some that are (or will) not. I do. And so do you. And so do group x, where x is the the particular caricature that we are choosing to despise at any one time - be it jews, blacks, gays, catholics, the irish.
  There's no difference.
103. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 23:13 · Score: 0
  
  > There's no difference.
  Sure, there's no difference between a religious person and an atheist, except that one is a religious person and the other person isn't. The elimination of one set of unsupported/unsupportable beliefs in a significant difference, especially when that set of beliefs is used to influence a wide variety of aspects in a population's society.
  Sorry, but you're talking out of your ass.
104. Re:So.... by KeensMustard · 2013-03-13 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
  The same... except they're catholics.
  Yes - and you are whatever you label is.
  
  If you let religion define you or control your life, you got it all wrong. It's your religion and you define it.
  More likely, everybody is controlled by their beliefs, some unknowingly. Some cannot even accept that they believe things at all - such a notion conflicts with their beliefs.
105. Re:So.... by KeensMustard · 2013-03-13 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I should have clarified that statement wasn't directed at you.
  That's okay, I didn't think it was.
  
  I could tell from your post you're smart enough to realize that a particular label does not, generally, define a person.
  Absolutely not. I have a theory (probably not original) about the way that humans conceptualise complexity or large sizes. That is, we view things as if through a telephoto lens. So, for example, we can accurately visualise the difference between 10km and 100km. But when we visualise the difference between 1000 and 1100 that seems much smaller - even though it is in fact more.
  Similarly when we view (from afar) a group of people we simplify them so that they all appear to be the same - witness for example, the simplification on ./ of chinese people and chinese culture into one conformant mass when in fact they are hugely diverse.
106. Re:So.... by KeensMustard · 2013-03-13 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, there's no difference between a religious person and an atheist, except that one is a religious person and the other person isn't.
  Assuming that non-atheists think of atheism as "not religion". That assumption is incorrect.
  
  The elimination of one set of unsupported/unsupportable beliefs in a significant difference, especially when that set of beliefs is used to influence a wide variety of aspects in a population's society.
  We haven't identified any person or group which could meaningfully be considered to have a smaller set of unsupported/unsupportable beliefs.
107. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  Are hindus are using first gear to move forward?
108. Re:So.... by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  The Church allowed teaching of Heliocentrism as a theory, but Galileo was nevertheless convicted of heresy based on making too strong a case for Heliocentrism: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node52.html
109. Re:So.... by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  I must have read a different wikipedia than you did, "Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions"
110. Re:So.... by ArsenneLupin · 2013-03-14 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think "have you ever been a pope before?" was part of the the interview...
  I wouldn't be so sure about the "never" part...
111. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  400 years ago?
112. Re:So.... by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-14 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Well, sure, there are things out there worth getting really, really pissed over; government agents treating the Constitution like a doormat, for example.
  However, I do not agree that someone else's opinion is worthy of such a reaction. As the old saying goes, opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one, and most of them stink.
  Dude A thinking one way, and Dude B thinking another is just important enough to stress about, man. Not when we (humanity) have got real problems that need solving.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
113. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  "Our views" don't matter. It is the view that the Bible presents that matters in this case (Christianity). If we are just going to go by "our views" then it isn't a biblical based religion, it is just popular culture.
  
  Popular culture works for most other discussions, but not for one about the pope.
114. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Evangelicals are not coherent, e.g. the Lutherans in Germany tend to be much more progressive than the Catholics.
115. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  The Catholic church actually opposed Hitler, unlike the Lutherans who were willing to sell out to save their lives.
116. Re:So.... by Patent+Lover · 2013-03-14 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the car would be sweetly pimped out with gold and precious gems.
117. Re:So.... by Cloud+K · 2013-03-14 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's stretching the GP's comment a little far, I don't think s/he is saying that nobody should ever get angry or sad (or joyful).
  What I was saying is basically that if someone wants to believe in a bearded ghost that I don't believe in, I respect it. It's none of my business. If they believe that said bearded ghost says that those who have sex out of wedlock or are gay or whatever else are sinners who will burn in Hell if they don't accept Jesus before they die, and choose to abstain from sex or suppress their sexuality it's all absolutely fine and none of my business either. So long as they don't make MY beliefs and decisions THEIR business (which is where I'm proud of the religious friend that I do have and the mutual respect we share of each others beliefs), why should it matter to me what they believe in?
  I don't think anyone is saying you can never get angry about anything. I get pissed about work all the time :)
118. Re:So.... by v1 · 2013-03-14 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think that sort of prior work history would work against you in an interview.
  (that wikipedia article needs updating, it lists him as the only pope to resign)
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
119. Re:So.... by phantomfive · 2013-03-14 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  When have our views on contraception, abortion and homosexuality modernized?
  
  It's also worth remembering that 'our' is a very vague term. Yes, in America a lot of people feel certain ways on those topics, but in Latin America the world is different. If the pope said abortion is ok, he would make a lot of parishioners in many places upset. And what do you think is more important to the pope, parishioners all over the world, or a few noisy people who aren't going to join the catholic church any time soon?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
120. Re:So.... by ultranova · 2013-03-14 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Contraception for good family planning is critical for assuring that the next generation is raised healthy, happy, and smart (not in squalid desperation with ill-prepared, over-burdened parents), thus most capable to take up the responsibility of being humankind.
  
  Uneducated masses desperate for opium of religion for their pain are easy to manipulate, and the Catholic Church has certainly proven beyond any shadow of doubt that it places its own interests above the interests or wellbeing of its members, especially children. From that perspective, it's all too easy to see why it would be against birth control.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
121. Re:So.... by xaxa · 2013-03-14 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  That a 2001 census! - 12 years ago! - Things have changed a lot since then. The immigration from Muslim countries have been so intense, and the birthrate of Muslims been so high, that Christians now are just above 50% and still dropping. All the lost percentages have been lost to the Muslim groups.
  I don't like the Daily Mail, but they have the best graph: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246436/Census-2011-religion-data-reveal-4m-fewer-Christians-1-4-atheist.html
  It's fairly obvious that the ex-[identified-as]-Christians are now atheist.
122. Re:So.... by DriedClexler · 2013-03-14 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  So the new pope is like Sarah Palin would have been if she became president?
  
  --
  Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
123. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  Vehemently denying reality is the difference between mine and theirs.
124. Re:So.... by RespekMyAthorati · 2013-03-14 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
  
  So everybody else is Catholic? I didn't know that.
125. Re:So.... by Rakarra · 2013-03-14 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  So you're telling me that they didn't persecute Galileo because of an honest belief that his teaching was hereticial
  Oh, the conviction was for heresy all right, or more accurately, a lesser charge: suspicion of heresy. Even under threat of torture Galileo swore that he did not subscribe to a Heliocentric view as opposed to a Geocentric one. But the reason for the prosecution is that it was Pope Urban VIII who initially protected him from prosecution, and when Galileo offended him, he lost that protection.
  
  instead you're saying that God's infallible representative on earth threatened to torture an innocent old man because he was mildly offended at what might have been a caricature of him in one of Galileo's books?
  "Papal infallibility" was not formalized until 200 years after Galileo's death. It's a strangely recent concept (that had its genesis during Galileo's time). Besides, infallibility is limited to only a small number of circumstances. It doesn't mean everything the pope does is right or that he doesn't make mistakes. Catholic doctrine would hold that there's only one person who never did any wrong.
  The pope at the time was something of Galileo's friend, and was the one who defended him against the cardinals, who definitely didn't like Galileo's writing! Pope Urban invited Galileo to write a defense of heliotropism, and he wrote Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. We might think the pope is the supreme leader of the Catholic Church, but at least back then the church and Rome was filled with.. "court intrigue" is a polite way of putting it. Pope Urban feared for his life, growing more paranoid and was at a particularly low point in his life when the work was published (with a license from the Spanish Inquisition no less!). The pope was not a believer in Heliotropism and asked that his own views be published in the book. Unfortunately, the work was a dialogue between two philosophers, one of whom clearly parroted Galileo's views of Heliotropism, while the other was Simplicio, the defender of the Geocentric view (and whose name was suspiciously similar to "simpleton.") Pope Urban felt he was being mocked, and like all popes of the time, public ridicule was a no-no.
  Pretty much everyone these days believe Galileo did not do anything out of malice and was blind-sided to the negative reaction. He was convicted of "suspicion of heresy."
126. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-15 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  A more accurate analogy would be electing a state governor to be President instead of a US senator. The US senator is already an insider in Washington, whereas the state governor hasn't been to Washington very often.
  Over the years the US electorate has preferred to elect state governors instead of US senators to lead the country (you know...actual leaders). Somehow we changed recently (yes I know, 2008 only had US senators in the top 2 parties, so there wasn't a chance to elect a governor).
127. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-15 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  I'll have to disagree there. What is interesting is that he's a Jesuit (the first Jesuit Pope, in fact). That his parents happened to move to Argentina, where he's lived his life, is less particularly of import as far as I'm concerned. The Jesuits at one time were considered a heretical sect, and on a number of things diverge from the conventional thoughts about Catholicism. While this guy seems a bit more traditionalist than perhaps most Jesuits doesn't negate how interesting this could get.
128. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  If they're the same, how can you tell they're catholics?
  P.S. the ones that go 'Oy vey already', they're not catholics, you dumb nigger.
129. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, we have. Atheists.
New Leader of Ignorance Cult Selected... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:42 · Score: -1, Flamebait

...nothing changes.
Yawn.
MMMMmmmmmm....... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:42 · Score: 0

Delicious science news...
in 4...3..2..1.. expect at least by etash · 2013-03-13 07:43 · Score: 1, Informative

10 interpretations which will try to connect bertoglio with the prophecy of the popes

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

Long live petrus romanus!
1. Re:in 4...3..2..1.. expect at least by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  He has a cat named Peter
2. Re:in 4...3..2..1.. expect at least by bistromath007 · 2013-03-13 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  I honestly expected them to get somebody from Rome named Peter on purpose. The cardinals really don't get marketing.
3. Re:in 4...3..2..1.. expect at least by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Is his cat's last name "File"?
4. Re:in 4...3..2..1.. expect at least by etash · 2013-03-13 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  wouldn't be in their best interest to end the world so fast, the catholic church would then run out of business.
5. Re:in 4...3..2..1.. expect at least by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End.[13] /.
  Peter the Roman = The Pope Francis...
  the = the
  Peter (5 letters) = Papez (pope in czech)
  Roman = Romanos (spanish) = Francis (both are 5 letters) /.
  who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations
  The ongoing investigations on the Catholic church involving its many.. endeavors.. through the recent years /.
  when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed
  Global warming will cause something that will cause something else, and then a terrorist will get a dirty bomb and blow up Rome. Or something. Maybe not a terrorist, but a disgruntled maid? /.
  and the dreadful judge will judge his people.
  This obviously references the Judge in the Prenda patent troll lawsuit (from the perspective of Prenda)... its obvious. /.
  The End.
  The end for Prenda Law.
  It seems that this entire prophecy is about patent trolls!
6. Re:in 4...3..2..1.. expect at least by alexo · 2013-03-13 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Long live petrus romanus!
  Romani ite domum!
7. Re:in 4...3..2..1.. expect at least by nateb · 2013-03-13 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  The Romans they run home?
  
  --
  -- Nate
8. Re:in 4...3..2..1.. expect at least by alexo · 2013-03-14 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI
News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

stuff that matters
1. Re:News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  More like "Stuff we are pretty sure is going to give us traffic... Which is good for business, cause that's what we are."
2. Re:News for nerds by DerekLyons · 2013-03-13 09:03 · Score: 3
  
  Unless you bitched about the articles on which actors were coming back in the new Star Wars, or the random bloviations of some rich guy or pundit at SXSW... you really don't have much of a leg to stand on. Roman Catholics represent about a sixth of the worlds population, and one of the largest (if not the largest) organized religions in the world. The selection of a new Pope is indeed something that matters.
3. Re:News for nerds by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  People need to improve their reading comprehension.
  It's always meant not "news exclusively on nerdy topics that matters" but "news on nerdy topics (and/or) stuff that matters generally".
  Apart from anything else, there is not a simple black and white definition of what a nerd-related topic might be. Despite what some people here seem to think, not every story has to be about Computer Science.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:43 · Score: 5, Funny

What is his favorite distro? views on FOSS?
1. Re:News for nerds? by Seeteufel · 2013-03-13 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  The Vatican supports GNU/Linux.
2. Re:News for nerds? by Guppy06 · 2013-03-13 08:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  With all the forks, how could FOSS be more Protestant?
  The Mother Church clearly prefers a strictly Microsoft shop.
3. Re:News for nerds? by DigiShaman · 2013-03-13 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  Why follow when you can lead? Fork Linux (yet again) and create the Holy distro. Though I'm sure that will fork just as often as the church.
  If you're going to throw gasoline on the fire, do it right.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
4. Re:News for nerds? by Sepultura · 2013-03-13 08:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  He's religious and intolerant, so obviously his favorite OS is Emacs.
5. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  With all the forks, how could FOSS be more Protestant?
  The Mother Church clearly prefers a strictly Microsoft shop.
  The Mother Church is the original old school, you nubcake. They're an IBM shop all the way.
6. Re:News for nerds? by Rude+Turnip · 2013-03-13 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  More importantly, has Netcraft confirmed it, and how naked and petrified is Natalie Portman at the moment?
  
  --
  Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
7. Re:News for nerds? by Kittenman · 2013-03-13 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why follow when you can lead? Fork Linux (yet again) and create the Holy distro. Though I'm sure that will fork just as often as the church.
  If you're going to throw gasoline on the fire, do it right.
  Holy Distro, Batman!
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
8. Re:News for nerds? by funwithBSD · 2013-03-13 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  Yes,
  we know of the Pope's death before anyone else... they order extra punchcards.
  
  --
  Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
9. Re:News for nerds? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-03-13 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  He's religious and intolerant, so obviously his favorite OS is Emacs.
  He's religious and intolerant, so obviously his favorite OS is . . .
  . . . the Spanish Inquisition . . . !
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
10. Re:News for nerds? by macromorgan · 2013-03-13 09:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  He's religious and intolerant, so obviously his favorite OS is Emacs.
  He's religious and intolerant, so obviously his favorite OS is . . .
  . . . the Spanish Inquisition . . . !
  Honestly, I didn't expect it.
11. Re:News for nerds? by idunham · 2013-03-13 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
12. Re:News for nerds? by Guppy06 · 2013-03-13 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  It's the Orthodox Churches that are still running IBM, after the Great OS/2 Schism.
13. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  The Mother Church clearly prefers a strictly Microsoft shop.
  http://www.vatican.va/video/index.html ... Install Microsoft Silverlight!
  I very conservative Microsoft shop.
14. Re:News for nerds? by Cabriel · 2013-03-13 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't the Pope prefer UNIX, then? The Distro from which the many forks of Linux were forked?
15. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, in many senses the Church is most like Apple in its stricture...but in the most important ways, She is most like an OSS project because She espouses a view of solidarity and unity of mind for a particular goal while rejecting the established (and so often stale) status quo.
  Not that anyone who hates her would ever acknowledge or come close to understanding such things. Oh, that's right...it's hip to bash what you don't understand.
  If you hate the Church so much, why do you even part any attention to us?
16. Re: News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 18:55 · Score: 0
  
  Warning. Neanderthal on premises.
17. Re:News for nerds? by Celarent+Darii · 2013-03-13 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well it seems that they at least use it:
  curl -I -L -A 'Mozilla' http://www.vatican.va/ | grep 'Server'
  gives Server: Apache
  The html source uses tons of functions from Lytebox, a CC 3.0 license. So it looks like they use it.
18. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-15 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  nobody does.
Before anyone says it... by cervesaebraciator · 2013-03-13 07:44 · Score: 0, Offtopic

this is News for Nerds, inasmuch as nerds prefer not to be entirely ignorant of events around them that have world-wide significance.
1. Re:Before anyone says it... by Laxori666 · 2013-03-13 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Speak for yourself! I hardly know what's going on in the world. I get most of my news from people telling me about stuff and wondering how I haven't already heard about it.
2. Re:Before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  Nerds only care about anime, comic books and video games. Now you might be on to something if this was News for Geeks.
3. Re:Before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  To quote Hunter S. Thompson, Fuck the Pope. Here's stuff that matters: Billionaire Investors Gobble Up Twinkies: Hostess Snacks Sold For $410 Million. Ding Dong prices on the up OMG!
4. Re:Before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, this is A Website for Advertisers, and one of the easiest ways to get a lot of page views is to post an article where all the angry atheists can come argue about who is the most bitter toward religion.
5. Re:Before anyone says it... by Trepidity · 2013-03-13 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Real Vatican news-for-nerds would give us a more detailed account of the likely impacts on the internal workings of the Roman Curia, though!
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
6. Re:Before anyone says it... by Freddybear · 2013-03-13 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  That covers just about anything that happens anywhere, so "news for nerds" must not really mean anything.
7. Re:Before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  Religious fellows are nerds in their own right too. They are up there with Star * groups, but less fan fiction recently. They do try though.
8. Re:Before anyone says it... by hawkinspeter · 2013-03-13 08:19 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  We wouldn't be such angry atheists if those catholics didn't keep raping children and starting wars.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
9. Re:Before anyone says it... by cervesaebraciator · 2013-03-13 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Note the claim about "world-wide significance." Things that happen to me, for example, are relatively insignificant. But this website often puts up articles when a new U.S. President is elected, if for no other reason than the fact that it will give different nerds an opportunity to discuss the matter and/or troll about it. As often as we discuss matters of science and religion here, one would think the election of the most influential religious leader in the world would be sufficiently newsworthy. This is particularly true when that leader's views will have direct bearing on how some science is funded and conducted. Lest one might wonder how the pope's views has such direct bearing as I claim, I would point to how strong popular opinions can be about matters such as embryonic stem-cell research. This is worth knowing about and talking about.
10. Re:Before anyone says it... by Freddybear · 2013-03-13 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Point taken, but I still think that "news for nerds" is meaningless with all miscellaneous "news" that gets lumped in under the "because I'm a nerd and I'm interested in this sort of stuff" banner.
11. Re:Before anyone says it... by cervesaebraciator · 2013-03-13 08:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Religious fellows are nerds in their own right too. They are up there with Star * groups, but less fan fiction recently. They do try though.
  Sociologically, they operate in similar ways as well. I say this as both a Star * fan and a religious fellow (though not a Catholic). In both groups, identity is tied to adherence ("Are you a Buddhist too?" is not far from "Are you a Trekkie too?"), consumption patterns reflect attachment (one has X-Wing models, the other crucifixes), intense debates occur over canon (the Gnostic gospels and the SW prequels have much in common, except one has better acting), and both groups hold in high regard those who have specialized knowledge about the object of their interest.
12. Re:Before anyone says it... by cervesaebraciator · 2013-03-13 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  I still think that "news for nerds" is meaningless with all miscellaneous "news" that gets lumped in under the "because I'm a nerd and I'm interested in this sort of stuff" banner.
  Fair enough. I think you're quite right about this latter comment. I only made the original comment (which has now been voted into oblivion) because I hoped some productive conversation could come about. I suppose I could have worded it more diplomatically though.
13. Re:Before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  I don't care about comic books, gaming or sci-if and I'm here.
14. Re:Before anyone says it... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  That's right. The atheists don't like the competition and are really bitter that they only got to do that in the 20th Century.
15. Re:Before anyone says it... by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  He's a theological conservative, although I think I read somewhere that he has divergent views on contraception for preventing disease.
  Curia-wise, he's not done a lot of time in the Curia, so he's going to probably shake up the personnel a bit. Still, the Curia is probably the most adept and ancient bureaucracy in the entire world, filled with people with advanced degrees and who speak at least two languages, minimum. Not including Latin. It will take even a Pope a few decades to make a dent in that unless he goes in crucifixes blazing.
16. Re:Before anyone says it... by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  filled with people with advanced degrees and who speak at least two languages
  Most educated people in Europe speak their own language and English. Here in the UK we also follow this rule.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:44 · Score: 0

Huh?
Queue the Bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:44 · Score: -1, Troll

Here they come, Anti-Catholics as only Slashdot can provide.
1. Re:Queue the Bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Aww such a victim.
2. Re:Queue the Bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:51 · Score: -1
  
  ugh friggin' anti-catholics *continues to ignore rampant child sexual abuse*
3. Re:Queue the Bigots by Spottywot · 2013-03-13 07:51 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Here they come, Anti-Catholics as only Slashdot can provide.
  Who would have thought that nerds might not unanimously believe that an old man voted in by some other old men might not be Gods representative on earth?
  
  --
  In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
4. Re:Queue the Bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Anti-Catholics as only Slashdot can provide.
  Said by nobody who's ever been to /r/atheism.
5. Re:Queue the Bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Here they come, Anti-Catholics as only Slashdot can provide.
  That word, it does not mean what you think it means.
  Catholics that no longer think highly of the papacy or the Vatican; are they "Bigots"? Does being bigoted often involve support for womens rights, gay rights and birth control in developing nations whilst condemning the Vatican's long history of covering up child abuse?
  I suggest you find a new adjective!
6. Re:Queue the Bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Cue the idiots who can't spell "Cue."
7. Re:Queue the Bigots by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-13 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Um, I thought we were talking about the Catholic Church, not public school teachers.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
8. Re:Queue the Bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  Even practicing Christians don't unanimously believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth.
9. Re:Queue the Bigots by Seeteufel · 2013-03-13 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  He is the Jesuit and he names himself Francisus. Quite extreme.
10. Re:Queue the Bigots by Dins · 2013-03-13 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Here they come, Anti-Catholics as only Slashdot can provide.
  That word, it does not mean what you think it means.
  What, Slashdot? Who knows what Slashdot really means...
11. Re:Queue the Bigots by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-13 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah? When did the public school teacher pedophiles get a colossal religious organization to devote its efforts to moving them between schools so they could continue to victimize children?
12. Re:Queue the Bigots by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-13 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Catholics do, and there are a billion of those.
13. Re:Queue the Bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Hear, hear! I really should go home and log in to post this. I'm a Christian, but the Pope only matters to Catholics. I don't really care for their religion, there's too much man and not enough God. And it's not like this guy is going to be much if any different than ratzinger.
  Someone earlier had God's honest truth about this is posted -- so the athiests here (and there are an awful lot of them) can all troll Christian nerds with how stupid we are to believe in something we've witnessed personally, because hey, they didn't witness it so it must not exist.
14. Re:Queue the Bigots by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-13 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  They didn't they got two colossal teacher's unions to devote efforts to moving them between schools so they could continue to molest children. If you examine the incidence of child sexual abuse between the Catholic Church in the United States and the public schools in the United States at the time the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church was at its highest the incidents were higher on a per child basis in the public schools involving teachers than in the Catholic Church.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
15. Re:Queue the Bigots by Spottywot · 2013-03-13 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Even practicing Christians don't unanimously believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth.
  A higher % of Christians believe it than slashdoters. No I don't have a citation, but I'd put my house on it, and yours.
  
  --
  In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
16. Re:Queue the Bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  Who would have thought that nerds might not unanimously believe that an old man voted in by some other old men might not be Gods representative on earth?
  Yours is not a unanimous belief among nerds.
  As a thought exercise, how would you imagine God would speak? I am not a Catholic, btw. Your only answer would seem to be that God doesn't exist or doesn't speak. My belief is that God speaks through people. Young and old.
  The Bible says God's creation speaks. The real question is, "Are you listening?"
17. Re:Queue the Bigots by femtobyte · 2013-03-13 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Phew! Another dysfunctional authoritarian institution was doing worse, so everything's O.K.! No need to hate on the Catholic hierarchy for enabling pedophiles, because they weren't America's #1 Child Abuser (#2 or #3 is perfectly alright).
  I guess it's also OK for me to start a rape/murder spree, because There's Always Someone Doing Even Worse Shit (TM).
18. Re:Queue the Bigots by alexo · 2013-03-13 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Cue the idiots who can't spell "Cue."
  The word you're looking for is "illiterates".
19. Re:Queue the Bigots by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-13 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Right, let's just continue to ignore the problem with pedophilia in the schools (where most of us have a say and can actually do something) and continue to yell and holler about pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church (where, not only do few of us have any say, but only a few more are actually connected in any way). Yeah. that's the ticket. If I make fun of the Roman Catholic Church for its failures on this issue I don't have to spend any time thinking that maybe I should do something about it where I can.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
20. Re:Queue the Bigots by xevioso · 2013-03-13 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  But of course, as people continually point out to Catholic apologists, who basically just blissfully ignore this, the Public School system administration does not set itself up as a moral authority on how to obtain eternal life, which the Catholic Church does.
  The school system can't be accused of hypocrisy, because they are not setting themselves up as moral authorities. In short, why should the average human being listen to what church leaders say on morality when they protect those who are clearly immoral on a regular basis?
21. Re:Queue the Bigots by femtobyte · 2013-03-13 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Is there some reason you think people can't handle criticizing/dismantling both? In fact, the Catholic church might be the "easier" place to start, because they have a central authority vulnerable to outrage over obvious moral failings who might, with enough concerted public pressure, actually make sweeping changes to dangerous institutional practices. Abuse in schools is a much more diffuse/localized issue (harder to fix "everywhere" when it's many separate regional groups turning a blind eye); there is no "Edu-Pope" who can enforce systematic changes by decree.
22. Re:Queue the Bigots by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-13 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  I have no idea. Do you listen to what Catholic leaders say? Did you before you knew about the sex scandals?
  Of course, I would also argue that you are wrong about public school administrators. Most of them do set themselves up as moral authorities. They are frequently heard talking about how important it is to be "tolerant" (as they define tolerance). Most public school administrators tell children how they should behave.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
23. Re:Queue the Bigots by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-13 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Is there some reason you think people can't handle criticizing/dismantling both?
  Perhaps the fact that I have seen very little attention paid to the epidemic of sexual abuse in public schools, while there are press articles about the significantly fewer number of priest sex scandals. As an example, I am only aware of one news source which discussed the involvement of Graham Spanier in the cover up of child sex abuse accusations that occurred before the Jerry Sandusky case came up.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
24. Re:Queue the Bigots by femtobyte · 2013-03-13 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Good for you for working to raise attention on this issue --- I don't want to stop that. With many different activists raising attention on many different problems in society, changes can be made on many fronts at once. Only, you seemed to be more interested here in indicating that the Catholic church wasn't so bad compared to this --- so their abuse deserves *less* attention --- more than pushing for other systematic abuses to get *more* attention.
25. Re:Queue the Bigots by hierofalcon · 2013-03-13 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, all Christians are by definition God's representatives on Earth. To bad we don't do a better job.
26. Re:Queue the Bigots by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  When my children's school principal starts telling them that he has an ancient divinely inspired book and 2000 years of sacred tradition that should inform everyone how God wants them to live, then I'll consider his claim to moral authority on par with the Catholic Church. Until then, the Church's claim is effectively infinitely stronger (by claiming authority from divinity instead of just secular appointments) - which makes their involvement in a pedophile problem infinitely worse.
27. Re:Queue the Bigots by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for trying to distract us from the main argument. Do you see anyone here suggesting that pedophiles in public schools should be ignored, or released without prosecution, or are morally acceptable?
  
  The Church doesn't just claim authority granted by secular appointment (like election to a school board or getting hired by a school district), they claim authority from God. It is a terrible evil when someone in a position of authority by secular appointment abuses children, and that person should be prosecuted. But it is a worse evil when someone claiming to be a representative of divinity does the same, and absolutely unconscionable that someone higher in the religious hierarchy would do anything other than report the activities to legal authorities.
28. Re:Queue the Bigots by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-14 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, school administrators routinely claim greater moral authority than anyone else on the basis of, well nothing other than the fact that they are school administrators. They routinely claim that your children should follow their moral guidance because they are school administrators. The Catholic Church at least relies on claiming that their moral authority derives from another source, a source you can go to to compare their moral claims to. Your child's school principal bases his or her claim to moral authority on the fact that they are a school principal. There is no place your child can turn to to see if they are living up to the moral claims that they are making. I would argue that the school principal is making the infinitely stronger claim to moral authority since they are not offering any source to which you can turn to test their pronouncement of moral right and wrong.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
29. Re:Queue the Bigots by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-14 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Right, according to you when someone claims to represent a moral authority that says that abusing children is wrong abuses children (or covers up the abuse of children) that is worse than someone who claims to be looking out for children the interests of children, even against their own parents, abuses children (or covers up the abuse of children) since that latter someone is claiming to be able to make moral determinations on their own authority. I disagree.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
30. Re:Queue the Bigots by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't they got two colossal teacher's unions to devote efforts to moving them between schools so they could continue to molest children. If you examine the incidence of child sexual abuse between the Catholic Church in the United States and the public schools in the United States at the time the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church was at its highest the incidents were higher on a per child basis in the public schools involving teachers than in the Catholic Church.
  Maybe in the US. In countries with a decent state education system, the Catholic priests had a far higher hit rate.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
31. Re:Queue the Bigots by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-14 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  I have no way to determine if that is true, maybe the difference was a more thorough cover up in those countries (since I am not in those countries and you did not specify which countries they were in the first place, I have no way to evaluate your claim).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
32. Re:Queue the Bigots by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  You are seriously making the claim that someone elected or hired to run a school is claiming more moral authority than someone claiming they are teaching rules handed down directly from God according to the will of God?
  
  If you're a Catholic and you don't agree with Catholic teaching, to whom are you supposed to appeal? You can't pick up a phone or write a letter to an Archangel or one of the saints for guidance if you think the Pope is incorrect. With a school principal or other administrator, you can compare what he or she teaches for ethics to other administrators in other schools, including schools in other countries. You can also find, quite easily, respected secular authorities that disagree with each other. But most don't consider themselves the final authority on the topic of ethics or education and none teach students that failing to follow their direction could lead to eternal damnation.
33. Re:Queue the Bigots by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  So "if you tell anyone I'm hurting you, I will kill someone in your family" is worse than "God wants me to do this to you, and if you tell anyone you will all go to hell and suffer for all eternity"? Sorry, I disagree. As bad as the first one is, the second is worse.
34. Re:Queue the Bigots by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-14 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  The pope claims that his moral authority comes from God and that the teachings of the Church are based on the Bible. You can go to the Bible and see if it supports his claims. The school administrator claims that his authority is based on ??? what good does it do you, if your child is attending the school run by a particular school administrator that some other school administrator teaches a different set of moral rules from the one where your child attends?
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
35. Re:Queue the Bigots by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-14 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind. You are convinced that it is more important to attack an organization that you have no connection with than worrying about people who technically work for you.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
36. Re:Queue the Bigots by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-15 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Other Christian Churches, not the Catholic Church, give the Bible ultimate authority. The Catholic Church gives the Bible equal weight with Tradition (capital 'T' intentional), and for Tradition you have to trust... Catholic Church teachings.
  
  Besides, the Bible contradicts itself. Two of the Gospels have incompatible genealogies for Jesus. There are two separate creation stories in Genesis. In one Gospel Judas hanged himself, in another he jumped to his death. In one Gospel Mary Magdalene discovered Jesus' was not present in the tomb on her own, in others she had other women with her. And for example, the most commonly cited Bible passage for condemning homosexuality is in Leviticus, right alongside passages discussing the execution of adulterers and disobedient children and the buying and selling of slaves. Paul also condemned homosexuality, but he was specifically condemning homosexual prostitutes in pagan temples - so some scholars have argued he was in fact railing against the pagan religions and religions with prostitution, not homosexuality.
  
  If you just needed the Bible, the Pope would be superfluous. Try telling that to Catholics.
37. Re:Queue the Bigots by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-15 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  I was raised Catholic, studied for the Catholic priesthood for a year, and had one of my former mentors imprisoned for pedophilia - though I was not among his victims.
  
  I think that's just grounds for both understanding the Catholic Church, and also for attacking it. This institution claims authority from God, the Creator, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, and they claim God is more good than we can possibly understand and God created the Catholic Church to be God's specific instrument in the world. For a neutral observer, evil is evil whether it's carried out by an atheist or a religious fanatic. But as someone raised Catholic, to see my institution that I loved and trusted to carry out acts as despicable as any secular institution... God's institution in the world for the spread of forgiveness has done unforgivable things.
Vatical Wealth by menot · 2013-03-13 07:44 · Score: 1

"Treasures? Nah, the Vatican was already empty when I arrived."
lent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:45 · Score: 2, Funny

First time ive heard that the old pope gave up being the pope for lent. Wonder what the new guy has up his sleeve!
1. Re:lent by bluefoxlucid · 2013-03-13 07:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  KY jelly.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
2. Re:lent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent as wanker.
3. Re:lent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't work quite as well on the choirboys as KY lube.
Don't Blame Me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't blame me, I voted for Father Guido Sarducci. Screw the rest of the conclave.
1. Re:Don't Blame Me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Now THAT would be a hoot... Pope Guido the first...
why by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:45 · Score: 1

"News for nerds, stuff that matters"
1. Re:why by hawguy · 2013-03-13 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  "News for nerds, stuff that matters"
  There is a technology tie-in, the new pope was spotted with the unreleased Galaxy S4, but it was hastily taken from his hands by an aide who was overheard saying "That was not to be taken outside the chapel without His approval".
Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 07:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This - " He is well-known for his humility"
and this - "espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception."
are not compatible.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
1. Re:Humility? by Laxori666 · 2013-03-13 07:48 · Score: -1
  
  He is humble about how much he hates "the gays".
2. Re:Humility? by operagost · 2013-03-13 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm curious to hear YOUR definition of humility. Really, I'd like to know.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
3. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-13 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Please explain how they are not compatible?
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
4. Re:Humility? by roman_mir · 2013-03-13 07:54 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Humility and Pope are not compatible already. The guy is a bloody Pope. Head of state of Vatican, declares what is moral and what is not. Infallible apparently. So clearly, if you open up a dictionary and go to the word 'humility', you'll see a link to Pope there.
  Same as if you open a dictionary for the definition of 'Nobel Peace Prize Winner', you'll see Obama.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
5. Re:Humility? by ranton · 2013-03-13 07:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
6. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  Sure it is - he's humble towards tradition and won't seek to make a name for himself by changing things. He's not some upstart with 20th century ideas or something.
7. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Presuming to know what's good for homosexuals, inadvertently pregnant women and people who want to have sex without getting pregnant and then forcing those views upon them through a large, well organized, well resourced church is not exhibiting humility. An approach imbued with humility would go alone the lines of - I think these things are true, but I might be wrong, so I'll exercise caution and be mindful of contrary opinions. Depending on context, 'pride', 'egotism' or 'arrogance' would serve as opposites to 'humility'. This chap appears to exhibit at least two of the three. I've never met him though, so I'm not sure about the first one.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
8. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  why? he is a Third-World pope!! he has seen really poor people from Argentina and latin america. He probably will point to the Church do more charity work.
9. Re:Humility? by schneidafunk · 2013-03-13 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  "Bergoglio often rode the bus to work, cooked his own meals and regularly visited the slums that ring Argentina's capital. He considers social outreach, rather than doctrinal battles, to be the essential business of the church.
  
  He accused fellow church leaders of hypocrisy and forgetting that Jesus Christ bathed lepers and ate with prostitutes."
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/francis-first-pope-americas-193844474.html
  
  --
  Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
10. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  The usual one.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
11. Re:Humility? by bluefoxlucid · 2013-03-13 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  Indicating that someone's morals may not be the Church's morals and therefor may be wrong means you believe you know better than them. Humility is accepting the ignorant and the possibility that it may be YOU who is ignorant. Like when you give the cashier a $20, and they give you $5 back, and you're like, "Hey I gave you $20" and they're like "You only gave me $10" and you are like, "Oh, maybe you're right" and accept that. Because why would you be so arrogant as to believe you'd know better than the cashier, who handles money all day?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
12. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  This - " He is well-known for his humility"
  and this - "espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception."
  are not compatible.
  And you come across as the typical humble liberal who gets up in arms against anyone expressing a conservative/non-liberal point of view.
  And no I am not a christian would care the least if Christianity survives through the next decade or not.
  Posting as an AC to avoid being hounded by the liberals who find my post offensive.
13. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:05 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Because being a prideful prick damning the world from his ivory tower based on the superstitions from a book emboldening bronze age morality is the opposite of humility?
14. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  I think you mis-represent his position. No one in the Catholic Church hates people who engage in homosexual behavior. They love them so much they don't want them to be eternally damned. If they hated them they wouldn't care what happened to them.
15. Re:Humility? by sycodon · 2013-03-13 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  "Forcing"?
  Sounds like you are talking about some government policy about only having one child, where you are forcibly taken to a Hospital (if you are lucky) and the second child is aborted. Is that what you are talking about when you say "force"?
  No one is forced to be a Catholic. No one is forced to follow their teachings. It's not the Eleventh Century anymore.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
16. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  "As a humble human, it is not my place to pass judgement on others' behaviors, but rather I pray that God will help guide my own life. And as Pope, I ask that you do the same."
  as opposed to:
  "I'm 'humble,' and from a place of 'humility,' I'm going to dictate to you that behavior Y is wrong and gender XX is inferior."
  I'm pretty sure that was the point of the statement of incompatibility. Not voicing agreement or disagreement. Just tossing out my interpretation.
17. Re:Humility? by Belial6 · 2013-03-13 08:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm thinking it might just start with not thinking that you are the single official conduit for the transmission of Gods word to earth.
18. Re:Humility? by dgatwood · 2013-03-13 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, I thought this guy was a Jesuit....
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
19. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  No one in what country? YMMV.
20. Re:Humility? by fascismforthepeople · 2013-03-13 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  The pope is a testament to humility in comparison to your church leader.
21. Re:Humility? by Chris+Mattern · 2013-03-13 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who refuses to see that your opinions are the only morally correct ones is insufferably arrogant? Yes, that is generally the most usual definition.
22. Re:Humility? by Bucc5062 · 2013-03-13 08:29 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  And the current President of the United States use to be a community Organizer and teach Constitutional law. These days his administration uses drones to bomb communities and seems to look the other way when Constitutional rights are stripped from US citizens.
  I guess people can change, or they play a great act.
  In the new Pope's world, being truly humble would be following the examples of Christ without the power of being a Cardinal. Perhaps it may be better to say the Pop was less egotistical then other Cardinals. Mother Teresa was humble, Pope Francis I is a powerful man who's done good deeds.
  
  --
  Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
23. Re:Humility? by ranton · 2013-03-13 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  No one is forced to be a Catholic. No one is forced to follow their teachings. It's not the Eleventh Century anymore.
  The new pope has done everything in his power to force his beliefs on the people of Argentina. He has openly faught against homesexual marriage and even tried to prevent them from being able to adopt children. Just because he has been unsuccessful in many of his attempts does not mean he isn't trying to force his opinions on others.
  You don't have to be catholic to be affected by the beliefs of one of the major religions still practiced today.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
24. Re:Humility? by nedlohs · 2013-03-13 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  What is not compatible about thinking that God thinks that homosexual behavior, abortions, and contraception are wrong while also having a humble opinion of yourself and submitting to God and others?
25. Re:Humility? by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-13 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Which is why they encourage Catholics to vote so that gays can't have legally recognized marriages or adopt children. Whereas, for example, Catholics are not encouraged to vote so that fornicators or non-Catholics can't have marriages or adopt children. Because fornicators and non-Catholics are equally damned, but evidently less fun to target with your special discrimination.
  
  A girl living with her boyfriend and taking their illegitimate children in a Catholic Church won't get a tenth the special preaching as an openly gay couple attending the same Church. Don't pretend it's love for the sinner and hate for the sin.
  
  Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back into my corner of the damned and return to work.
26. Re:Humility? by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-13 08:40 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Which country do you live in? In the United States - and plenty other countries - the Catholics are encouraged to vote for policies that outlaw abortion, outlaw contraception or at least outlaw public funding for contraception, outlaw marriage for homosexuals, and outlaw adoption rights for homosexuals.
  
  If the Catholics just believed that Catholics were not to have abortions, Catholics were not to have homosexual marriage, and Catholic homosexuals were not to adopt children, there would be no problem.
27. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-13 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Funny thing is, most of the Higher level Catholics involved in Politics are Democrats, and they vote against their religion all the time.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
28. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-13 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  You just proved you don't need to be any of those things to be a prideful prick damning people.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
29. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  You are an arrogant douche, knock it off.
30. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-13 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  "As a humble human, it is not my place to pass judgement on others' behaviors"
  "Thou shalt not murder" is passing judgement on other people's behavior. You're not against that ... are you? Or is your selective argument not as broad as you'd like it to be.
  My point is, everyone judges people on their behavior, we're just arguing on where to draw the line ;)
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
31. Re:Humility? by sycodon · 2013-03-13 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  Catholics have just as much right to vote for candidates and policies that they believe to be in the best interest of the country as anyone else.
  Everyone else who advocates for a particular political position is voting based on their beliefs, whether they are derived from religion, philosophy or just plain self interest, are they not?
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
32. Re:Humility? by Bigby · 2013-03-13 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  From what I read, he is fine with others being homosexual. He just doesn't think they should marry or adopt children.
  Not taking sides; just stating that what I read may contradict your view of him
33. Re:Humility? by silanea · 2013-03-13 09:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here in Germany the Catholic and Protestant Churches run many hospitals, kindergartens and other welfare services which are funded not by the churches but entirely by the public, yet they impose rules on their employees based on their respective faith, ie. people have lost their jobs for getting a divorce, remarrying, outing themselves as homosexuals etc. The churches make a shitload of money through this system, and because they can publicly claim that they run soandso many percent of welfare services they get to influence public policy and politics. This all works so well because as religious organisations the churches get preferred treatment with regard to taxation, exemption from labour regulations and union rates etc. so they can undercut the private-sector competition. And since they are so good at it there are areas where the churches have a quasi-monopoly in welfare services, leaving workers dependent on them. And as long as the Conservatives are in office this will not change, since the churches offer them, well, let us call it PR support in exchange for keeping their special status intact.
  So many people in social industries essentially are forced to live by religious rules without actually being a member of those religions just to be able to get a job. And we all get to pay for it.
  
  --
  Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
34. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-13 09:08 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
  I'm against homosexual marriage, because it has nothing to do with equality, and has everything to do with money. I don't care if homosexual live together, love each other or whatever. However, you're extending "rights" to people based on what you THINK is fair, because you think those "rights" are being applied by some sort of homophobia or some sort of discrimination.
  If the point of homosexual marriage is for "love" then I don't have a problem with it. Get married. However if you want additional "benefits" from government, you're going to have to be much clearer that it is ONLY about these things that you care about, and that it isn't about "love" at all. AND if you extend those "rights" to gay people, then you must also allow for other non-traditional marriages like polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriages as well. If not, then you're just as discriminatory as you claim people like me are.
  IF (big if) you want "fairness", I suggest rather than supporting Gay Marriage, marriage being a religious institution, that you be for repealing government benefits based on marital status, citing separation of church (marriage) and state. If you're saying that Marriage is purely secular, you're not being intellectually honest. And this is my position as a libertarian. Repeal all benefits and preferences based on marital status, and all these issues go away. Catholics can forbid gay marriage, and the Atheists of America can perform the religious act of marriage for gay people all they want, everyone is free to do as they please, without forcing anyone else to join their viewpoint. True Liberty.
  That is the most fair place to be. Anything less is not fair to anyone with a different idea of marriage than you or I.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
35. Re:Humility? by femtobyte · 2013-03-13 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  And “humility” is, to a great extent, a measure of how generously that line is drawn to respect others. Perhaps “don't mind me; I have no right to call you wrong for murdering” is humility in excess; taking a stand as the world's leading condemner of others' gender/sexual behaviors moves in the direction away from the extreme of humility --- certainly not in the top ranks of human humility, if not downright below-average.
36. Re:Humility? by vux984 · 2013-03-13 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
  What about being so humble that one doesn't even consider one's own views on how people should live, and simply accepts the long accepted wisdom of the church as being greater than your own.
  Sorry, we can argue that it may be 'stupid' or 'wrong' but its definitely not mutually exclusive with 'humility'.
37. Re:Humility? by denvergeek · 2013-03-13 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  whoosh?
38. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-13 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Marriage is a religious institution, when you redefine it in such a way that it is transforming society into something that has NEVER existed before, you're going to run into opposition. The only reason gay people want marriage, is not for love (they can have that!) , but for "benefits" from the state. Rather than redefine marriage, why not re-define (nullify) the laws that create those benefits? Wouldn't that be better for all involved? No discrimination at all! Polygamy, Polyandry and Incestuous marriages will be all be equal.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
39. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Presuming to know what's good for homosexuals, inadvertently pregnant women and people who want to have sex without getting pregnant and then forcing those views upon them through a large, well organized, well resourced church is not exhibiting humility. An approach imbued with humility would go alone the lines of - I think these things are true, but I might be wrong, so I'll exercise caution and be mindful of contrary opinions. Depending on context, 'pride', 'egotism' or 'arrogance' would serve as opposites to 'humility'. This chap appears to exhibit at least two of the three. I've never met him though, so I'm not sure about the first one.
  Nope. That's being wishy-washy which has been the problem with the Church since Vatican II and look where that got us!
  The views on contraception and abortion are in keeping with valuing life. It sad that most people now consider pregnancy a disease that needs to be prevented or, worse, stopped while in progress. Sex is primarily for procreation. Don't want children, don't have sex. But that's too hard for human animals to understand.
  As for homosexuals, the Church has never said anything to them that hasn't been said to every single person. No sex outside of marriage. Sex is primarily for procreation and is a sacrament between a man and a woman; that God makes it pleasurable is merely a benefit. You see, when fully realized, sex creates a new life. That is amazing and a miracle. Unfortunately, we can't look beyond our own selfish wants to figure this out. Maybe some day we really will "think about all the children."
  If, in your predictable and unimaginative way, you bring up the priests and molestation, remember that almost all of these priest were gay men preying on young men (not the children so many people talk about). Imagine the uproar if the Church had expelled gay priests because of this.
  God bless you all.
40. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-13 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  So, if I oppose homosexual marriage, I am condemning others? But your condemnation of my views is not really condemnation? I'm not sure how that works. Could you explain this further please.
  BTW, I'm supporting the repeal of all government granted "benefits" of marriage, rather than re-define what marriage is. Would you support me in supporting that version of equality?
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
41. Re:Humility? by femtobyte · 2013-03-13 09:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yes, you are condemning others. Yes, I am condemning you for that. I operate from a moral framework with more than a single axis of "condemnation=bad, anticondemnation=good," rather considering the whole network of impacts from who and/or what is being condemned (btw, I am a Christian).
  I would not support you in repealing all government granted benefits of marriage, because that would be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" --- I think there are great societal benefits to government-recognized marriage, but none that specifically require a male+female couple. Likewise, I do not think it would have been a good idea to fix Jim Crow era discriminatory voting laws by revoking everyone's right to vote.
42. Re:Humility? by cgaertner · 2013-03-13 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
  Personally, I suspect exclusive parenthood by biological progenitors might do more harm then good. We're herd animals, and it's best if there's a whole tribe that takes care of our young. That there's a male and female in privileged position is just an artifact of how reproduction used to work, and science has fixed that.
43. Re:Humility? by LordLucless · 2013-03-13 09:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
  So, nobody who supports, say, laws against murder can ever possibly be humble?
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
44. Re:Humility? by sexybomber · 2013-03-13 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a little drunk, so I read that as "the efficient conduit for the transmission of God's word to earth". Which still kind of works.
45. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  the Pope, like any man, is fallible. However, the Church was commissioned by Jesus Himself.
  Only when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, defining the teachings of the Church, is he infallible.
46. Re:Humility? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, it's you who are saying that one. As far as I am aware, the Pope mostly gets his positions from church tradition and the Bible. His job is merely application of those ideas to specific instances. No one believes that the Pope talks to God. Except maybe my grandmother, and I think she says that just to mess with me.
47. Re:Humility? by kaatochacha · 2013-03-13 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  logical fail.
  Whether you agree or disagree, you can be humble and have those beliefs.
48. Re:Humility? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that marriage should probably not have a civil component at this point. The big problem with gay marriage is that everyone is arguing that the government needs to recognize their love for one another. WTF do I need the government to recognize that I am in love? Do I even believe that the government should even get to weigh in on that?
  The state interest in marriage has always been making sure that dumbfuck #1 who screws dumbfuck #2 and who can accidentally produce a kid in the process stays with dumbfuck #2 so that we don't have to deal with your kids being a disaster. They provide certain benefits to make sure that you have an easy time staying together and penalties to make sure you avoid breaking up. As it stands, all being "civilly" married does is make it hard for you to break up, and if you can't have kids anyway, then why bother?
  If the ability to produce children at will is no longer the deciding factor, then the overriding state interest in regulating couples is nigh near pointless. You might as well pass laws creating "child rearing partnerships" and create tax incentives under separate cover. Just stay out of the whole mess.
49. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Murder has a victim, and the rights of the victim outweigh the murderous intents of the perpetrator. Homosexuality, abortion, and contraception don't have victims (unless you make up some imaginary ones).
50. Re:Humility? by Sprouticus · 2013-03-13 11:12 · Score: 2
  
  I would totally be for ending marriage benifits and returning it to a religious institution. But it will never happen.
  Also, you have to consider the problem of shared resources. You cant get rid of civil unions totally because it would create massive issues from child custody and finances all the way down to spousal immunity. So you could in theory call all marriages civil unions and save the word marriage for non civil ceremonies.
  But it won't change anything.
  As for raising children, there is no scientific evidence of children raised by gay couple being better or worse off. I suppose it is possible that some situation could arise, but I am willing to bet a very large amount of money that anything that arose would fall into the normal deviation of child rearing. I am certainly not going to go on your gut instinct.
51. Re:Humility? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  You mean "forced" as in running campaigns to change public policy? What part of what he did is not completely legitimate under the democratic process?
  I don't have to be Catholic to be against abortion or even contraception. Those are simply policy points. In a democracy, you have the ability to get elected and the majority picks your policy. You may well oppose the Church's teachings, but they are hardly forcing it on you by working through the same political process that everyone else does.
  These priests believe that they are right. And you believe you are right. All you have there is a simple difference of opinion. Unless you are arguing that he's using thugs on you, then there's no forcing of anything.
52. Re:Humility? by xevioso · 2013-03-13 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  marriage is not a religious institution in the U.S. It is a purely civil one, even if held in a church.
  But you avoided his point. Being humble and denying other people the rights that you have because you believe your views are correct are not compatible.
53. Re:Humility? by ClioCJS · 2013-03-13 11:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You're a fucking asshole and I hope you die.
  
  --
  -Clio
  Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
  Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
54. Re:Humility? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not precisely.
  If you took away abortion and contraception, the Catholic Church is positively pacifist and even sort of leftist. There's nothing weird about being a Catholic and a Democrat, they just differ on specific policies. The problem is that the issues at hand happen to be life and death ones with abortion so they become hot button issues.
  The Church isn't on one wing or another, it's more of a blue-orange sort of scale. It is moral to give money to the poor. Material wealth is meaningless, but at the same time, it needs to be given freely. You don't get morality points by taxing people who are unwilling and spending their money on charitable causes. Communism was bad because it was forced and atheistic, but the Church has no inherent issue "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need" as long as it is voluntary. The Popes in the past have been as guarded about capitalism as they ever were about Communism.
  The only real saving grace of capitalism for the Church is that it did not presume to tell you how to spend your money, or who you can believe in. That's why the Church seems to align a bit with capitalism, but if you took out the shittier and the anti-clerical aspects of socialism, you wouldn't see them complain at all if it was employed.
  Trust me, ditch one or two points on the Democratic party platform like abortion and forcing the Church to pay for things it doesn't believe in, and you will see the Church much more in favor of Democratic candidates.
55. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  Last I checked, Germany was a democracy. If most of the German people have an issue with how the infrastructure is run, it should be relatively simple for them to alter it if they feel that they are being forced to follow certain rules they don't agree with.
56. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  Catholics are almost universally Democrat, leaders included.
57. Re:Humility? by silanea · 2013-03-13 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Few people are aware of this system. They believe that the churches actually pay for those institutions. The ones in the position to educate the people about the truth are those who benefit from keeping the status quo: conservative politicians.
  
  --
  Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
58. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Really Slashdot? I get the whole Libertarian "take away marriage benefits from everyone" argument, but did you have to mod up the guy that just reduced gay relationships to the "selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile"?
  I know this place has been going downhill for a while, but I didn't think we'd stooped THAT low. How about we make our arguments without implying that LGBT people should just suck it up, stop being "selfish" and be heteronormative for the sake of the children?
59. Re:Humility? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Well the Church is very "act" oriented. Everyone is tempted to do things that are immoral, but the temptation itself doesn't make you immoral. If there is such a thing as a "gay gene" and you have it, you're perfectly 100% okay with the Church unless you start acting on those impulses. And to be fair, they also believe that people who are heterosexual should control themselves too.
  And really, although a lot is made out of it, homosexuality might be a "sin", but so is lying, stealing and fornication. People do that all the time. At worst, carrying out homosexual acts is no worse than that to them, although admittedly, it is no better. Gays are not "extra-evil" by being gay, but it does tend to compound because if you are in a homosexual relationship, you're not just sinning here or there, you're committing to sinning constantly. There is also the idea that gay marriage is seen as a direct counterpoint to a sacramental marriage.
  Point being, the Pope doesn't hate gay people at all. In fact, I think that when people go to those simplistic arguments, they miss the point. The Pope has a set of beliefs from the Bible and the accumulated scholarship of the Church. There is no doubt that he probably knows that one or two of the doctrines are liable to offend, but since they represent the will of God, he has a duty to teach those doctrines. As one person put it, he's not *trying* to offend them, but he thinks living the gay lifestyle is wrong, and he's less concerned with gays' opinion of him than he is of God's opinion of him. That doesn't mean that he thinks that they are more wrong than someone else who may sin in other ways.
60. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Holy shit. The amount of cogitative dissonance required to construct this post is staggering. Do you even read what you write? What kind of person has to construct such elaborate mulch-layered lies to tell /themselves/ just to validate their world view? Do you realize you've attempted to argue against personal freedom, using personal freedom as justification? .. Ah. There. Second to last paragraph. A self-described libertarian and a proud one no less. That explains while this empty drivel has been modded up so much.
  For that matter, there are plenty of legitimate studies showing that adopted children of homosexual couples grow up just fine. (Technically they're much better off, because generally only financially successful homosexual couples have the resources to adopt, but that skew is accounted for in said studies)
  Fuck. Slashdot is dead. Everyone with a clue has left, and all that's left is a bunch of clueless blowhards lusting for an audience that won't laugh at them.
61. Re:Humility? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  And you would be right, if they believed that they are actually making the rules.
  If someone handed me a procedure that told me how to do something, and I need to follow it, I'm not the one who is telling you what to do, the guy who wrote the manual is. At most, I might use my long experience talking to other experts on that procedure to clarify the instructions for you in an edge case, but in the end, I can't make shit up.
  What you don't get is that the priests and the Pope actually *believe* that God said you can't do this or that. In some cases, the rules are not so clear, so they have to clarify. However, they don't think they are allowed to make this stuff up on their own, the rules are merely their best guess at what they think God would want them to do.
  Now, it is certainly possible for priests to be arrogant or overbearing or whatever, but many of these positions come from a sincere attempt to follow the rules as they were laid down. That's not arrogance, it is obedience. I know that the Pope and the Church in general seem like some unaccountable people who make rules, but in the end, they really believe that when they die, they WILL be held accountable now and forever, for the decisions that they make.
62. Re:Humility? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  People have power because things need to be done. There is nothing wrong with being a Cardinal if you use the power for what it is meant for. There is something called "false humility". The now-current Pope did not feel he needed a chauffeur or a palace to do his job, but it would be difficult to argue that he didn't need his authority as Archbishop to teach doctrine and run the maintenance and charity ends of the Archdiocese.
  Additionally, if you refuse a humble man the power of a Cardinal, then how will you ever elect a humble Pope?
63. Re:Humility? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  The Catholic Church considers marriage between non-Catholics to be valid. The sacrament, as it is described, does not require the administration of a priest, it is administered to one another. Therefore, a non Catholic can generate a perfectly valid and moral marriage without being a Catholic. They aren't going to preach against those sorts of people because they don't believe they are wrong.
  And I can't believe you think that fornication doesn't get as much preaching as gays do. What do you think the whole contraception debate is about, in large part? The Church is pretty darn upfront about people being virgins until marriage and all of that.
  I think the focus on gays from an outsider perspective is because of the political battle. I don't recall any time that a priest spent more time on homosexuality than anything else. Yes, they are against it for sure, but no, I don't think that internally it is particularly more covered than anything else. It's a sin, but so is not respecting your parents. They cover pretty much everything.
64. Re:Humility? by Nugoo · 2013-03-13 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
  Do you have any evidence for this, or do you just want to restrict people's freedoms based on what you think?
  
  --
  I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
65. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  First, yes, there marriage implies certain rights and those rights are important. Part of it is that there are a lot of laws about marriages making a $20 marriage certificate give you legal rights like hospital visitation which would require at least on the order of hundreds of dollars of lawyer fees to write up the papers for otherwise.
  The right that I am most aware of is immigration rights. I know a couple same sex couples who can't live together due to one not having permanent resident status in the United States, which is granted to opposite sex married couples. The government has to have some concept of what people they consider part of the same family for granting immigration rights. I don't think you will find much popular support for eliminating green cards for opposite sex partners.
  Some sibling posters already commented on your assertion that children should have both a mother and a father. I think the sexes or genders of the legal guardians of a child are likely to be an extremely poor proxy for the quality of the parenting the child gets. Should genderqueer or trans* people just not be allowed to adopt or is it okay if they have the proper pair of M and F on their IDs?
66. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm against homosexual marriage
  Yes. It's more generally known as being a bigot.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
67. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't mention molestation. Where did you get that from?
  The truth is boring, but the still the truth. Bigotry is bigotry. These things are simple. People's thoughts are muddled by tradition.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
68. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. That's exactly what I meant. People read a lot into things.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
69. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  The pope doesn't think that. Really. That's a massive misunderstanding of his role.
  The Church is the single official conduit for that, and the Pope is its CEO. Which makes him important, and gives him the last word on a lot of things, but he's not supposed to be a one-man embodiment of the whole structure. He solicits advice and views from all kinds of underlings, and the only time he personally weighs in is when those people can't agree among themselves. (And even then, he'll usually just say "Let's go with this for now, and revisit the subject in a few years' time when everyone's calmed down a bit, m'kay?")
70. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  I ride a bicycle to work and cook for both myself and my family. Can I be pope?
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
71. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't get up in arms about anything. It critiqued the semantics of the article.
  What makes you think I'm a liberal?
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
72. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's an existential problem. God doesn't exist.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
73. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  >logical fail.
  >Whether you agree or disagree, you can be humble and have those beliefs.
  But you can't be humble and exercise those beliefs.
  I'm arrogant, but at least I admit it.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
74. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  > I'm thinking it might just start with not thinking that you are the single official conduit for the transmission of Gods word to earth.
  Yeah, it would be bad if he didn't believe in Jesus. Or the prophets. Or....
75. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  There are more single parents than homosexual couples.
  Hetero single parents are a bigger group having kids who "need to be told they don't need a mommy or daddy".
  Just leave people alone.
76. Re:Humility? by Bucc5062 · 2013-03-13 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  There is no thing as a humble Pope. The Pope is a political figure and as such, cannot be humble. A Pope can never be humble, at least in this day and age, for he would be dead. He can do good acts, he can say good thoughts, but humble, leader of 1.1B, nope , not humble.
  
  --
  Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
77. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 13:12 · Score: 0
  
  Clear and well-written hate speech is still hate speech. And a well-spoken bigot is still a bigot.
78. Re:Humility? by nedlohs · 2013-03-13 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  And how does God not existing make those two beliefs incompatible?
79. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  So, in other words, "fuck you, got mine?"
80. Re:Humility? by terpri · 2013-03-13 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  Your opinion on adoption by same-sex couples isn't supported by social science.
  Should infertile heterosexual couples be permitted to marry and adopt children? Their relationships are also "destined to be sterile."
81. Re:Humility? by hairyfish · 2013-03-13 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's nice. In the Garden of Eden every child had precisely one mommy and one daddy and everyone was white.
  Then we let black people vote we knew it was only a matter of time before it meant we had to let people marry cows and fuck their children.
  Cool story bro. How can I subscribe to your newsletter?
82. Re:Humility? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know. He believes in a God who created the Universe. I would have a lot of trouble *not* being humble in that situation. He knows he is dust and knows that he is nothing without the will of his Creator.
  It is his *job* to make decisions, and insofar as he is the chief representative of God as head of the church, he needs to speak with authority so that he carries out the job effectively, but if he realizes that he's just a cog in the scheme of things, I don't see how he could not be humble.
  Every day, I could probably find an anthill and massacre hundreds, maybe thousands of ant at will. Does that mean I don't know that to someone else, I'm just an ant? Sure, I can forget that I am not a speck, but my life and death power over those ants does not preclude me from understanding my true place in the Universe.
83. Re:Humility? by ScentCone · 2013-03-13 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  Why, because he doesn't think government should be in the marriage business, or favoring a guy who's married with special financial treats that a guy who's single has to subsidize?
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
84. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  You're a fucking asshole and I hope you die.
  I hope he dies, then gets fucked in the asshole.
85. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Both beliefs are incompatible with reality. Relativism between two false beliefs is moot.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
86. Re:Humility? by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-03-13 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  Marriage is and always was a civic institution, that incorporated religious components in societies where some religion was official or simply dominant (which is most of them). It had significant religious overtones in Western culture in particular just because of the extremely prominent role of Christianity in it in Middle Ages and beyond.
  And, yes, it would be better to get the government entirely out of the marriage business. However, realistically, it's just not happening anytime soon, as there would be far more opposition from conservatives and moderates alike. So from a pragmatic point of view, people in favor of equality should support the next best thing that is actually achievable (as we've seen last year in WA and CO) - which is the recognition of gay marriage.
87. Re:Humility? by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-03-13 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal.
  
  How do you know? Can you cite any studies to this effect?
88. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 16:00 · Score: 0
  
  typical rich conservative conspiracy.
  too bad there is no oppposing party or philosophy to expose them
89. Re:Humility? by ranton · 2013-03-13 16:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I wasn't sure if I should even respond to such obvious flamebait, but some of what you say is unfortunately believed by quite a few people (even gay rights supporters) so it is still worth debunking.
  
  If you're saying that Marriage is purely secular, you're not being intellectually honest.
  Marriage is a secular institution. First off it is a ceremony that is recognized by almost every culture in history, including athiest societies such as the former USSR. Christmas and barmitzvahs are religious in nature, but marriages certainly are not. A marriage is a legal union that society recognizes as forming a single household from what was once two independent individuals. Marriages are useful for defining laws and traditions that govern how these unions are handled. Things like property rights can turn into difficult matters so it is important to have concrete laws to settle disputes (just look how messy most divorces or some inheritance splits can become).
  Most religions throughout history have also added non-secular meaning to the institution of marriage, but that is a separate matter. Would you want the government to stop you from getting married if the Koran said that all marriages not recognized by Allah were null and void? That is the same argument used by anyone who says someone cannot be married because their religion is against it.
  
  I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal.
  I agree that having homosexual parents is probably not a 100% optimal situation. The "optimal" situation is probably something like two upper middle class well educated parents who don't divorce and live in one of the best school districts in the country. But should lower middle class people not be allowed to adopt because it is not optimal to have kids in a household with money problems? Should parents who never went to college not be allowed to adopt because they are less likely to provide the same enriching educational environment as two parents with post-graduate degrees?
  All studies I have seen conclusively shown that homosexual parents can raise emotionally mature, intelligent, and well rounded adults. I am pretty sure studies show that they do much better than average even. Any opinion that homosexual parents cannot to an adequate job is either very ignorant or very bigoted.
  
  If the point of homosexual marriage is for "love" then I don't have a problem with it. Get married. However if you want additional "benefits" from government, you're going to have to be much clearer that it is ONLY about these things that you care about, and that it isn't about "love" at all.
  Why is it mutually exclusive? This is such an incoherent rambling I am not even sure how to respond. I love my neices and nephews, but if my brother requests a legal document that states I take care of his children if he dies that does not mean I love them less because I asked the government to make it legal. I feel silly even writing something like that, but I think you may actually believe the comments you are making so it is worth pointing out how erroneous these opinions are.
  
  AND if you extend those "rights" to gay people, then you must also allow for other non-traditional marriages like polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriages as well. If not, then you're just as discriminatory as you claim people like me are.
  Society is overwhelming against non-traditional marriages in cases of polygamy and incenteous marriages not because they are just untraditional. It is because of the female oppression that accompanies societies that practice the former, and the medical problems inherent in the latter.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
90. Re:Humility? by nedlohs · 2013-03-13 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ah so you had no point all then. And left of "with reality" in order to make sure you made no sense I guess?
  OK, to each his own.
91. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  I am in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry because it has to do with gender equality. Why should one person be prohibited from entering into a contract with another person based on their gender?
92. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 17:45 · Score: 0
  
  By your own definition: only in the view of the non-humble.
93. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  Polygamy is not only one male with many females you know. Usually it is seen as such, but polygamy is the general term covering polyandry and polygyny etc.
94. Re:Humility? by gd2shoe · 2013-03-13 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  The president is a successful Chicago Politician and lawyer who was able to brand himself as a "community organizer". All kinds of lawyers have various funny ideas about what the constitution means, and what can be gotten away with.
  So... I fail to see the inconsistency, personally.
  (I think he's actually less-bad than I had feared when he was elected. This still doesn't excuse many of his policies. I'm more concerned with the unconscionable leaks from White House staff. I don't believe Obama is really that stupid, but someone working for him is/was.)
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
95. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 18:13 · Score: 0
  
  What tells you that he absolutely must personally believe in this to be Pope?
96. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 18:20 · Score: 0
  
  That's the catch. He believes it's not his views, but that he's supporting God's views.
97. Re:Humility? by HeronBlademaster · 2013-03-13 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  Many organizations have official spokespeople; is it arrogant of the official spokesperson to think he's the single official conduit for communication from that organization, when that is the role the organization has asked him to fill?
  I don't see why a church leader should be viewed any differently.
98. Re:Humility? by silanea · 2013-03-13 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  too bad there is no oppposing party or philosophy to expose them
  Whenever opposing parties try to do anything about it the churches and the conservatives both play the "They hate Christians! They want to destroy the church!" card. There currently is quite a controversy around certain religious figures publicly complaining about an anti-Christian campaign and even pogrom-like persecution when in fact it is the institution and not the faith that is attacked, and rightly so, for their role in the ongoing child molestation scandal.
  
  --
  Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
99. Re:Humility? by FireFury03 · 2013-03-13 20:31 · Score: 2
  
  Marriage is a religious institution
  No...no it isn't - marriage predates that. Religious organisations have _adopted_ marriage, much as they have adopted many other ceremonies that were nothing to do with the organisation in question; but even so, you can have a nonreligious wedding and many (possibly most?) people do these days. Admittedly (in the UK at least) there are lots of legal restrictions on civil ceremonies that were clearly imposed in an attempt to keep the church relevant, but if you want a totally non-religious wedding you can do just that.
  
  The only reason gay people want marriage, is not for love (they can have that!) , but for "benefits" from the state.
  I'm sure _some_ want it for that reason (and hell, why shouldn't they - if a hetrosexual couple is entitled to various state benefits then WTF shouldn't a gay couple be entitiled to the same?), but the idea that that's the general reason why people want to marry is just BS. Marriage isn't love, its a _declaration_ of love, which is completely different and has nothing to do with any state benefits.
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
100. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 22:14 · Score: 0
  
  Presuming to know what's good for homosexuals, inadvertently pregnant women and people who want to have sex without getting pregnant and then forcing those views upon them through a large, well organized, well resourced church is not exhibiting humility.
  He is a cardinal and now a pope. He is supposed to define the boundaries and rules of the church, based on the teachings of Christ and the bible. His job is not "presuming to know what's good for homosexuals etc", his job is to lead a church founded on the scriptures, as a placeholder for Christ. The more seriously he takes his job, the less leeway he has for making his decisions.
  The relation between New and Old Testament is a precarious one, and he is a scholar. If he is taking his job seriously, he is not free to choose his beliefs and what they mean for the church.
  Now his predecessor Ratzinger actually scared me silly. Maybe it is related to him being German, but he made the impression of his belief being focused more on the church than on Christ. More like Christ's accountant rather than his placeholder. On the other hand, I have the feeling that he quit his job because his faith in the church became deflated and he had nothing else to revert to.
101. Re:Humility? by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Look at what the Catholic Church believes, and then what its followers try to get laws passed regarding. The Catholic Church forbids fornication, divorce (only a very small subset of all divorces would qualify for a Catholic anulment), and homosexuality. Catholics routinely try to pass laws impacting the rights of homosexuals. They absolutely do not routinely try to pass laws outlawing fornication or divorce. This is a case where, regardless of what the supposed official theological position is, the Church has made gays a target and other sins less important.
102. Re:Humility? by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  It must vary by region. In my section of Pennsylvania, the predominant political issue for Catholics is abortion, so my colossal Catholic extended family is almost entirely Republican.
103. Re:Humility? by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Aside from "Higher level Catholics" - I wonder which version of Dungeons and Dragons that's from. ;) a lot of Catholics are Republican because of their pro-life position.
104. Re:Humility? by bluefoxlucid · 2013-03-14 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Now, it is certainly possible for priests to be arrogant or overbearing or whatever, but many of these positions come from a sincere attempt to follow the rules as they were laid down. That's not arrogance, it is obedience.
  Yes but he asked for an explanation of how they are not compatible.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
105. Re:Humility? by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Right. And I support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But I am responding to sycodon's comment "No one is forced to be a Catholic. No one is forced to follow their teachings." People aren't forced to be Catholic, but if Catholics help pass laws that, for example, ban gay marriage, then the general population is forced to follow Catholic teachings.
  
  I disagree with the Catholic Church on those key issues - gay rights, contraception, abortion, sexuality in general - and on a number of theological ones but fortunately my theological disputes have no impact on secular law. I think Catholics, at least in the US, have unfairly singled out gays as a target. The Church forbids divorce (except in rare cases where an anulment applies) and fornication, but Catholics in the US do not try to outlaw either thing - just gay marriage and gay adoption rights. That's unequal application of Catholic teachings regarding sexuality.
  
  But more generally, I'm responding to the people who seem annoyed that non-Catholics have strong opinions on the Catholic Church. We have strong opinions because, as you said, religious beliefs are inherently intermingled with political beliefs, so what the Catholic Church teaches impacts our political landscape very heavily.
106. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  You mean "forced" as in running campaigns to change public policy? What part of what he did is not completely legitimate under the democratic process?
  The "claiming humility" part. That's lying and false advertising. Only career politicians are allowed to do that, but then again, humility is the opposite of career politicians, so he still doesn't get to be both.
107. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  And the current President of the United States use to be a community Organizer and teach Constitutional law. These days his administration uses drones to bomb communities and seems to look the other way when Constitutional rights are stripped from US citizens.
  I guess people can change, or they play a great act.
  In the new Pope's world, being truly humble would be following the examples of Christ without the power of being a Cardinal. Perhaps it may be better to say the Pop was less egotistical then other Cardinals. Mother Teresa was humble, Pope Francis I is a powerful man who's done good deeds.
  Used. Your an idiot.
108. Re:Humility? by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
  What about being so humble that one doesn't even consider one's own views on how people should live, and simply accepts the long accepted wisdom of the church as being greater than your own.
  Sorry, we can argue that it may be 'stupid' or 'wrong' but its definitely not mutually exclusive with 'humility'.
  Presumably anyone who believes in God must be humble? The incorrect assumption is that humility is inherently a good thing. I think of it more as a quality like courage: if you're a brave terrorist or Nazi, you're still a terrorist or Nazi.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
109. Re:Humility? by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
  Even ignoring your anti-gay prejudices, this means that you would have to prohibit single parenthood. Also, as soon as someone's husband/wife died or they were divorced, their kids would have to be taken away for adoption. You would have to enforce marriage (or the equivalent legally binding contract) on would-be parents, or else they would just be single parents who happened to live with someone else.
  Even if there were no gay people in the world, your idea is full of problems.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
110. Re:Humility? by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the believers won't allow a fair debate about what they believe in. They fall back on "because the Church/God/Pope/Bible says so and if you disagree you're trying to impinge on my religious freedom", which is pathetically inadequate.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
111. Re:Humility? by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Jeez, I thought that, whatever their faults, the Nazis (a) built good straight roads and (b) destroyed the power of organised religion. So now we're down to just the Autobahns.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
112. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-14 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Some people can't handled a reasoned argument that is counter to their own, and lash out with violent tendencies. And they think they are more "civilized".
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
113. Re:Humility? by VoidCrow · 2013-03-14 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  > What about being so humble that one doesn't even consider one's own views on how people should live, and simply accepts the long accepted wisdom of the church as being greater than your own.
  Spoken like a good member of the flock.
114. Re:Humility? by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  What is not compatible about thinking that God thinks that homosexual behavior, abortions, and contraception are wrong while also having a humble opinion of yourself and submitting to God and others?
  Nothing. Humility is a useful tool for the power elite: "look, it's nothing personal, I'm just following the will of God/our Great Leader while I torture you to death".
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
115. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-14 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  " but did you have to mod up the guy that just reduced gay relationships to the "selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile"?"
  That is not what I said. You have reading comprehension problems, probably because my views differ from your own you have to try to shove me into some category that fits your predisposed paranoia.
  I said that gay relationships are fine, and I don't give a shit about them. I said that gay people adopting kids is probably not the best thing for kids. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, then my views are just opinions and not actually dangerous. I'm not preventing them from doing anything.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
116. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-14 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/12/mark-regnerus-s-gay-parenting-study-starts-a-political-war.html
  Of course, you're free to disagree.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
117. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-14 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  I explained that I don't care if gay people are together. How does my view that marriage being religious institution make me a bigot? Or is it just because it doesn't suit your political agenda?
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
118. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-14 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/12/mark-regnerus-s-gay-parenting-study-starts-a-political-war.html
  Or maybe it is. Depends on which "survey" you view.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
119. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-14 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  "Also, as soon as someone's husband/wife died or they were divorced, their kids would have to be taken away for adoption. "
  I never said anything of the sort. I said that two parent families are optimal. We should strive for optimal, not the opposite. We should as society make it easier to have children raised in optimal situations.
  I know plenty of people raising kids in single parent homes, and a few people who have three kids from four fathers, and I can tell you that it is NOT optimal. In every case, the kids are not well adjusted and have emotional and psychological issues. Parenting is hard. And people have been making light of it, and passing it off onto the state for the last two generations in increasing numbers. Our society is not better because of it.
  I would not want kids to be raise in a single parent home, but sometimes shit happens. The moment it becomes a "choice", rather than crappy circumstances, we've degraded our society. IF you believe that single parent families are equal to two parent families the by all means prove it to me they go ahead, and try it yourself. Parenting is hard.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
120. Re:Humility? by tnk1 · 2013-03-14 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  I think you need to look at history and battles won and lost.
  The Church used to be very much against civil divorce in politics, but that battle was fought and lost between the 18th and 20th Centuries. Trust me, they are still very much against divorce, and they make it a pain in the ass to get annulled, if they even allow it at all. I found this out trying to marry someone who had been divorced once. Don't think for a second that they reserve being strict for homosexual situations.
  As far as "rights" I am not sure what rights you are talking about in terms of laws being passed. I know there are certain benefits that gay individuals want, but I don't think those items are universally agreed to be "rights". If the Church wanted gays to be executed or not allowed to do what they wanted in their own homes via a law, then I might see your point. As far as I know, that's not on the agenda, unless you seriously believe that opposition to gay marriage is going to slippery slope back to executing gays. They just don't think marriage is proper between two people of the same sex, and they don't think children should be raised in that sort of household. Neither of those are rights, that I am aware of, unless you happen to be a natural parent of the children in question, which at least one of the two individuals in a gay relationship is not.
  Again, it seems like it would be more important from an external observer, but I have never seen any particular internal focus on homosexuals inside the church. Gay marriage is just the latest issue de jure, and you could consider that the Church's opposition to those provisions is likely going to mirror the increasing level of focus by gay activists in obtaining those benefits. If one side is trying harder, the other side is going to try harder too, or they have to concede.
121. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-14 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  We are not "herd" animals. We are, if you want to classify it, family pod animals (aka tribal). We have a long history of having extended families (mutually related helpmates). We have no such thing in our current "culture" and make no attempts to keep that kind of structure intact.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
122. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-14 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Please point to any "homosexual marriage" that was accepted (had legal benefits) in any society anywhere in the world, prior to 1960. If you can't then you are redefining marriage to suit your political agenda. Re-defining marriage to suit a political agenda is proof that it isn't about "love" but gaining access to government granted benefits.
  If it is about granting those government granted benefits, then you have to explain to me why it is beneficial to society to re-define marriage to give benefits to people who otherwise don't need them (if it is only about love).
  You see, I'm not condemning others to anything, I want to be clear, I don't support redefining marriage on the sole basis of granting government benefits to gay people. I would rather repeal those benefits from marriage. The fact that you won't support this view makes it clear, it isn't about love or equality or anything else, it is about getting benefits from government.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
123. Re:Humility? by vux984 · 2013-03-14 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably anyone who believes in God must be humble?
  I can't see how that would follow.
  The incorrect assumption is that humility is inherently a good thing.
  You are going to have to make some sort of case for that. Just declaring that all along we were all wrong about humility being a virtue isn't going to cut it.
  I think of it more as a quality like courage: if you're a brave terrorist or Nazi, you're still a terrorist or Nazi.
  Godwinning the thread is not the best way to make your case. And the argument doesn't really work either; wasn't George Washington a brave terrorist?
124. Re:Humility? by vux984 · 2013-03-14 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken like a good member of the flock.
  Or anyone else who can see the truth of the matter. Some Catholics are humble, others are arrogant.
  Belonging to a religion and beleiving its dogma doesn't somehow automatically make one 'arrogant'. That's absurd on the face of it.
125. Re:Humility? by SpanglerIsAGod · 2013-03-14 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Here is a good starting point for learning about historical legal homosexual marragies, http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient.
  
  --
  War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
126. Re:Humility? by terpri · 2013-03-14 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  that study doesn't compare children of two-parent opposite-sex couples to children of two-parent same-sex couples, so it doesn't support your position because it's simply not measuring the relevant information.
127. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-14 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is Slashdot.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
128. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-14 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  If he thunk hard enough, he'd be an atheist.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
129. Re:Humility? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-14 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  You seek to deny homosexuals the option of marriage because they are gay, but don't seek to deny heterosexuals the option of marriage because they are no gay, on the basis of your religious beliefs.
  That is bigoted. It fits the definition exactly.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
130. Re:Humility? by sunsurfandsand · 2013-03-14 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Homosexuality, abortion, and contraception don't have victims (unless you make up some imaginary ones).
  Aborted fetuses are imaginary, in your view? Or is it your position that they are not victims?
131. Re:Humility? by femtobyte · 2013-03-14 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Please point to any "homosexual marriage" that was accepted (had legal benefits) in any society anywhere in the world, prior to 1960.
  Why the artificial limitation to before 1960? More importantly, what does whether or not a preceding society has adopted a practice have to do with whether the practice itself would be beneficial to adopt? Can you point to any examples where the polio vaccine was beneficial before 1950 --- and if you can't, does that mean the polio vaccine was a bad thing?
  So, ignoring the sophistry of the silly 1960 limitation, I'll tell you what I've personally see in same-sex committed unions, that indicate these are a good thing to further uplift and uphold with the benefits of law afforded their opposite-sex counterparts:
  I've seen people who might have faced an angry and isolating world alone instead find the joy of human love and companionship. I've seen children who might have grown up in an orphanage (and later a prison) instead receive parents and a loving family. I've seen the the young flourishing with the passion of new love to serve their community, and the elderly supported in their infirmity with the strength of a lifetime relationship.
  
  If it is about granting those government granted benefits, then you have to explain to me why it is beneficial to society to re-define marriage to give benefits to people who otherwise don't need them (if it is only about love).
  See the above. Aiding to strengthen those institutions that form the "infrastructure" of a flourishing society --- marriage, family, friendship, education, community --- is a noble goal for directing government benefits. Your extreme libertarianism might see no reason for any government functions; but I don't buy that --- I see both bad and good done by governmental structures, and seek to uplift the good while undermining the bad.
132. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-14 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  No legally recognized same sex marriages. Nice try though.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
133. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-14 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  When you're making shit up, it is important to stop the sophistry. Homosexual Marriage is not a "right" never has been, and is a modern invention.
  " I'll tell you what I've personally see in same-sex committed unions," as have I.
  " that indicate these are a good thing to further uplift and uphold with the benefits of law afforded their opposite-sex counterparts:"
  Namely government granted benefits. So, you believe in making up new rights, that never existed before, to grant government benefits to people? How do you feel about polygamy, polyandry and heterosexual incestuous marriages, for the purposes of gaining government benefits?
  Because, I can see how your whole argument doesn't require homosexuality at all.
  As for my libertarian views, they are based on the premise that we need to protect the "rights" of people to believe what they want, as long as it doesn't affect others. You obviously don't care about my beliefs, and thus want to dictate to me what I must accept, even when it doesn't affect anyone else but me what I believe.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
134. Re:Humility? by femtobyte · 2013-03-14 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  When did I say it was a right, and not a modern invention? I just think it's a great modern invention; an excellent way to bring the benefits of a very old invention (two-person lifetime committed heterosexual unions) to even more people in the world.
  
  How do you feel about polygamy, polyandry and heterosexual incestuous marriages, for the purposes of gaining government benefits?
  I've seen little demonstrated evidence of the general benefits of these; however, I'd be willing to change my mind in the presence of actual evidence from the lives of those impacted. More-than-two-person close relationships don't seem to work out stably --- totally loving one person is hard enough (already a high failure rate, but managed very well by some), and adding more generally leads to messy disastrous conflict. Many polygamous practices also occur under conditions of extreme power inequality between male and female participants, which negate marriage as a freely undertaken endeavor of love. Incestuous heterosexual relations have the downside of potential cruelty and suffering from children born with the genetic disadvantages of inbreeding; discouragement of at least this aspect is probably best. Again, however, I will be loving and charitable to my fellow humans, and willing to change my views in response to the cries and struggles of others who lie outside my preconceived sphere of propriety --- if a brother/sister pair truly want to "marry" and start a childless or adoptive family, perhaps I need a change of heart.
135. Re:Humility? by femtobyte · 2013-03-14 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  (oops... duplicate of response to wrong post, re-posted below in correct location)
  When did I say it was a right, and not a modern invention? I just think it's a great modern invention; an excellent way to bring the benefits of a very old invention (two-person lifetime committed heterosexual unions) to even more people in the world.
  How do you feel about polygamy, polyandry and heterosexual incestuous marriages, for the purposes of gaining government benefits?
  I've seen little demonstrated evidence of the general benefits of these; however, I'd be willing to change my mind in the presence of actual evidence from the lives of those impacted. More-than-two-person close relationships don't seem to work out stably --- totally loving one person is hard enough (already a high failure rate, but managed very well by some), and adding more generally leads to messy disastrous conflict. Many polygamous practices also occur under conditions of extreme power inequality between male and female participants, which negate marriage as a freely undertaken endeavor of love. Incestuous heterosexual relations have the downside of potential cruelty and suffering from children born with the genetic disadvantages of inbreeding; discouragement of at least this aspect is probably best. Again, however, I will be loving and charitable to my fellow humans, and willing to change my views in response to the cries and struggles of others who lie outside my preconceived sphere of propriety --- if a brother/sister pair truly want to "marry" and start a childless or adoptive family, perhaps I need a change of heart.
136. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  I said that gay relationships are fine, and I don't give a shit about them. I said that gay people adopting kids is probably not the best thing for kids. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, then my views are just opinions and not actually dangerous. I'm not preventing them from doing anything.
  You've got just as little basis for your belief that homosexual relationships shouldn't have children. Where's your proof?
  Oh, right. You don't have to provide any of that because a True Christian need not do such things in the face of heathens.
137. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  "I don't want to answer the question you've actually posed, so here's a link to keep you busy while I find out how to justify my own bigotry."
  Christ, since when did Slashdot become Trashdot?
138. Re:Humility? by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  Two infertile people that happen to be of opposite sexes are permitted to enter a legal contract, marriage, in the US and receive certain legal benefits - shared medical coverage from employers, automatic visitation privileges if one is hospitalized, shared Social Security benefits, etc... Those same privileges are not afforded if the two people are of the same sex.
  
  Now if you want to be pedantic, you can say that it's not rights taken away from gays, it's just privileges afforded to heterosexual couples that are not extended to homosexual couples. But whether the unfair treatment is rights taken away or privileges extended, either way it's unfair.
  
  Now, I would be quite satisfied with a level playing field - the legal institution of marriage is abolished, and marriage is strictly a religious ceremony. Or make marriage a civil contract between any two people that want to share tax and insurance benefits, whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, or just two siblings (not in an incestuous relationship) that live together. Or make marriage a civil contract that only extends benefits to two people partnering to raise children under the age of 18, and when the children reach age 18 the benefits end. In any of those cases, it's fair. But right now the law gives heterosexuals advantages over homosexuals that have nothing to do with parenting and everything to do with religious beliefs.
  
  In order to argue against raising children in a homosexual household, you need to provide evidence that children raised that way suffer in some respect compared to children raised in a heterosexual household. No such evidence exists - except in the cases when the children are abused solely because their parents are gay, and then the problem is not the parents but the bigoted community.
139. Re:Humility? by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  The Catholic Church has not given up its battle over abortion rights in the US despite the fact that it is lost. I honestly don't believe they've dropped the ball on divorce and fornication because they can't win. I honestly believe they dropped the ball because they consider homosexuality more seriously wrong.
140. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 18:22 · Score: 0
  
  You're a fucking asshole and I hope you die.
  I am just an anonymous coward, but I can not understand why parent post has score 4, and original post, parent of parent, has only score 1. Original post is explained opinion, it is not vulgar or offensive, it is even interesting, you may or may not agree with it, but that's it. On the other hand, reply to original post contains no information, is only very vulgar and offensive, but it has score 4, it is even labeled as interesting. Very sad, indeed.
141. Re:Humility? by Rakarra · 2013-03-14 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  But you avoided his point. Being humble and denying other people the rights that you have because you believe your views are correct are not compatible.
  He's not making that stuff up, though, those are the Bible's views. He's not arrogant enough to go against God's teachings.
142. Re:Humility? by Rakarra · 2013-03-14 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  Why, because he doesn't think government should be in the marriage business, or favoring a guy who's married with special financial treats that a guy who's single has to subsidize?
  I don't think it was that. It was more his implication that if the homosexual couple wants to have the same benefits that married couples get, that their relationship isn't a relationship based on love. Worse, he flat out characterizes gay couples, regardless of marriage views, as "selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile." I'd say that's offensive, yeah.
143. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-15 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  They're not people, if that's what you're implying.
144. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-15 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  So, we're going to give more benefits to more people, because you feel that is government's role? We're doomed. We can't even afford the benefits we currently are giving away. This affects everything, more than most people know.
  I'm going to register me and my sons and daughters as "domestic partners" (polygamy/incestuous/gay) so that I can bypass inheritance and make sure she can be covered on my insurance for ever. I mean, if we're handing out benefits based on random criteria, why not?
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
145. Re:Humility? by ScentCone · 2013-03-15 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  So, I know people who think the same thing about May-December marriages, or people who marry immigrants, etc. Getting the government out of the business of financially favoring one set of people (the married ones) over another, it all goes away.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
146. Re:Humility? by femtobyte · 2013-03-15 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  So, we're going to give more benefits to more people, because you feel that is government's role?
  I'm looking for ways to bring more benefits to more people because, ultimately, benefiting people is a *good* thing. The role of *every* institution --- government, family, markets, etc. --- should be to benefit people. If something beneficial can be done through government, then let it be done! Of course, I'm not a total idiot, and realize that beneficial actions may have associated detriments against which they should be weighed. While you think that all government recognition of marriage should be eliminated, I think that male-female government-recognized marriage is a good thing (provides worthwhile societal benefits compared to its cost), so it would be just as good to expand those benefits to the few percent of humanity not already included. If you're worried about cost, there are plenty of other government "benefits" I think we could cut back on --- like dropping bombs on folks in distant lands, or subsidizing unlimited corn syrup production, or handing out free land to mining corporations, or protecting too-big-to-fail banks.
  
  I'm going to register me and my sons and daughters as "domestic partners" (polygamy/incestuous/gay) so that I can bypass inheritance and make sure she can be covered on my insurance for ever. I mean, if we're handing out benefits based on random criteria, why not?
  In coming up with revised, more inclusive marital institutions, we will need to be careful that self-serving asshole sociopaths like you aren't simply given a free pass to abuse the system at everyone else' expense. You personally seem to be "the reason we can't have nice things" as a society. There certainly are several details to hash out. I'm not personally in favor of more-than-2-person units (which would require a whole different legal can of worms from mediating inheritance/divorce/etc between 2 people) or incest (especially trans-generational). An immediate extension of existing marriage with no change but the male+female restriction (which is itself the "random criteria" here) would not introduce any new problems not already present under the existing system.
147. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-15 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Society is overwhelming against non-traditional marriages in cases of polygamy and incenteous marriages not because they are just untraditional. It is because of the female oppression that accompanies societies that practice the former, and the medical problems inherent in the latter.
  The truth comes out. You are just a different flavor of bigot. Leave people free to settle affairs as they wish.
148. Re:Humility? by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-15 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  " I'm not personally in favor of more-than-2-person units"
  That seems quite arbitrary. Plenty of cultures have plural marriages. So why do you hate so much?
  " An immediate extension of existing marriage with no change but the male+female restriction (which is itself the "random criteria" here) would not introduce any new problems not already present under the existing system."
  But again, you're a hater of people who love more than one other person. Why do you hate them so much?
  You see, the lame arguments used by proponents of Gay marriage, also apply elsewhere, including the "hate" rhetoric. Or do you not see this obvious point yet? You're going to have to do better than "I feel", which is subject to change.
  Trust me, the easier solution is to repeal the benefits granted by government, and it is much fairer to all.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
149. Re:Humility? by femtobyte · 2013-03-15 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  If you had been paying attention to my previous posts, you would have already seen my answers as to why I consider n>2 plural marriages in a separate category (for reasons besides blind hate); I will summarize them again for you in one place:
  1) Applicability of existing legal statutes: many existing statutes for n=2 marriage are simply inapplicable for n>2 marriage, since they rely on the fact that 2-1=1 to assign rights/responsibilities to a single unique party relative to the other party. Example: In n=2 marriage, when one person is unconscious in the hospital, there is a unique answer to who gets to make decisions for them --- for n>2, you'd need a whole new set of laws to decide how decisions are distributed among several spouses. Thus, n>2 marriage would require a new, different set of legal regulations --- while existing law can be trivially modified to allow n=2 cases not consisting of male+female.
  2) Stability of n>2 family units: there is less evidence for long-term stability of n>2 relationships (more likely for destabilizing conflict to erupt between the greater number of participants). An advantage to promoting n=2 pairings is providing reasonably stable family units, who can spend more time going about the business of daily life than tying up courtrooms.
  3) Inequality in existing polygamous arrangements: most existing polygamous units exist in and because of cultures with severe gender inequalities, and do not reflect egalitarian unions between consenting adults. Thus, the existence of polygamous marriages in other cultures is not a "selling point" for extending n=2 egalitarian gender-nondiscriminatory unions.
  Another not previously stated: while there is abundant evidence that people are born with attractions to same or opposite gender individuals (where substituting a partner of the "wrong" gender is not not remotely attractive), there is no evidence that I know of for people who deeply desire a life-long n=3 committed relationship, and yet would be utterly appalled at "settling" for n=2.
  With all these reasons, the I leave my heart open to change from the cries of the oppressed --- where there is actual evidence for benefits outweighing difficulties of n>2 groupings, I'd take that into consideration.
  Repealing all marriage might be "easy" and "fair," but that's irrelevant if it's not *good* for society (especially when it's also "easy" and "fair" to switch to n=2 non-gender-discriminatory marriage). My underlying argument *for* n=2 marriage (which you seem to keep on trying to replace with a multitude of straw-men that I have never mentioned, whether that's "rights" or "anything goes!" or "hater!", etc.) is that existing male+female marriage is a good thing (which doesn't rely in any critical way on the shape of the participants' genitalia), so we should gain a bit more of a good thing by simply striking the arbitrary male+female limitation. If you want to address my arguments instead of straw-men, you need to either explain why male+female marriage is bad, or specifically why identical n=2 except for the male+female restriction (not n=58, or n=man+goat, or n=woman+daughter, or any other irrelevant category) deserves fundamentally different treatment.
150. Re:Humility? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-15 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.nodeju.com/37443/mother-theresa-not-so-holy-after-all.html
  Mother Theresa was a sadistic and twisted fuck who was propped up as a symbol to generate revenue and make Catholics feel better about themselves. Her place was in psychiatric care, where she couldn't do as much damage to people, rather than sainthood.
151. Re:Humility? by LordLucless · 2013-03-19 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Neither are blacks - at least, not to many ethicists in the 1700s. It's always easy to justify your actions when you can just define "human" to suit your own needs.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
152. Re:Humility? by operagost · 2013-03-21 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well, he is now. But before, "espousing" the canonical beliefs of the church instead of your own sounds closer to humility than arrogance.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

The same people who hated Benedict XVI and John Paul II will hate Pope Francis. How dare he believe in 2000 years worth of teachings about the sanctity of life and marriage being between a man and a woman when it's all so unfashionable?
Why did liberal atheist's care so much what the Pope thinks. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to be a Catholic. Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
1. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  I don't feel threatened. I'm just prattling around on Slashdot when I'm supposed to be working. If you want to see me write stuff I care about, start a cryptography discussion.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by hawguy · 2013-03-13 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The same people who hated Benedict XVI and John Paul II will hate Pope Francis. How dare he believe in 2000 years worth of teachings about the sanctity of life and marriage being between a man and a woman when it's all so unfashionable?
  Why did liberal atheist's care so much what the Pope thinks. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to be a Catholic. Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
  Just because something is 2000 years old doesn't make it right. Should we bring back old testament style animal sacrifices as well?
  I have no problem with catholics being anti-gay and excluding gays from their church - if god is not the compassionate and forgiving god that they are always talking about it, well, it's their god and they can believe what they want.
  But where I do have a problem is when the members of the church try to deprive the rights of homosexuals outside of church.
3. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Internetuser1248 · 2013-03-13 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Actually I hate the new pope because I love the bible and believe every word of it. You see the same part of the bible that says homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus) also says:
  
  Leviticus 21:20-23 "or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles...because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary"
  
  Leviticus 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
  
  This new pope wears glasses and is clean shaven, therefore according to the word of god he is just as much an abomination as any gay and he is desecrating the sanctuary of the lord. Stone him to death plz.
4. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  I'll feed the obvious troll. First, liberal and atheist have nothing to do with each other. Second, lots of people care because an army of mindless drones (some of which have positions of power) are going to listen to this guy and then use their power to enforce pope jerk-off's decrees and views on the rest of us. Good enough reason to care?
5. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  324D Q654D FF658 U46D UFD1 WE77
6. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-13 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Because Benedix XVII and John Paul II and Francis are telling their 1.2 billion followers to vote and lobby and donate money for legal changes to outlaw abortions, contraception (or at least public funding for contraception), and gay rights.
  
  I don't care what the Catholics believe. I care that they're trying to make me follow their rules.
7. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by houghi · 2013-03-13 08:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Theologians can persuade themselves of anything. Anyone who can worship a trinity and insists that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything -- just give him time to rationalize it.
  -- Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
8. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Actually the Pope is not Jewish. Jesus basically says to disregard a lot of the Old Testament teachings. So yeah.
  
  Posting anon for obvious reasons.
9. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  But where I do have a problem is when the members of the church try to deprive the rights of homosexuals outside of church.
  How dare they try to implement their views! I want my views to be the rule of law!.
  
  If you're going to let someone "voice" their opinion through voting (as most states put it up to a vote), why would you expect them to go against what they believe? That's ridiculous. If you believe otherwise then it's your job to convince more people of that side of the argument.
10. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by dr_dank · 2013-03-13 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  The New Testament shows that God mellowed out after he had a kid.
  
  --
  Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
11. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Actually I hate the new pope because I love the bible and believe every word of it. You see the same part of the bible that says homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus) also says: Leviticus 21:20-23 "or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles...because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary" Leviticus 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." This new pope wears glasses and is clean shaven, therefore according to the word of god he is just as much an abomination as any gay and he is desecrating the sanctuary of the lord. Stone him to death plz.
  Ahh, there it is. The random, out of context, quote from the Old (and fulfilled) Testament that is no longer applicable. Let me guess, you still pay taxes to the crown of England? Bbbutt it says so right here in this ancient document that's been superseded by numerous laws since then! No, you do not "love the bible", you love to hear yourself talk.
12. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  I always found that part of the Christian bible fascinating.
  My translation reads "shave not the corner of thy beard", which leaves me wondering...
  My head, and consequently my facial hair, has no "corner". My head is roughly spherical, lacking any truly angular features. If I had to guess where the "corner" of my beard would be, I'd have to narrow it down to either the tip of my chin, or the sideburn areas below my ears. Now, for a book of such importance, one which lays down the laws which determine ones salvation or eternal damnation, it sure is vague with the proscriptions for beard grooming.
  To be safe, I just don't shave. When my boss gives me shit, I quote the bible, which gets him off my ass.
  Of course, Leviticus only spells out the rules for clergy, and I'm a developer. But I'm an atheist, and my boss isn't a biblical scholar, so the end result is the same either way.
  *strokes beard*
13. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Hatta · 2013-03-13 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Then he's cool with gay sex now, right? The Catholic Church wants it both ways. Either Leviticus is obsolete, in which case the Pope can wear glasses and christians can have gay sex, or it still applies, and both gay sex and a pope with poor eyesight are abominations.
  What's the official church stance on why one is OK and the other is an abomination? Do they even acknowledge the issue?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
14. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by medcalf · 2013-03-13 09:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Your bigotry is showing. I'm not Christian and even I know the Christian answer to this, which is that the old covenant of Leviticus was replaced by a new covenant from Jesus. What is especially ironic is that the Catholic Church does not have anything against homosexuals per se, so long as they are celibate. Which, by the way, is why there are so many homosexual priests, since priests must also be celibate.
  
  --
  -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
15. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Bigby · 2013-03-13 09:05 · Score: 3
  
  In trinity, it is one person, therefore monotheistic. That one person is just represented by multiple entities. They are not in conflict. In Java, I can do the following and create one entity with 3 references. There is still just a singleton:
  Object god = SingletonClass.getInstance();
  Object jesus = god;
  Object holySpirit = god;
16. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Hatta · 2013-03-13 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  The random, out of context, quote from the Old (and fulfilled) Testament that is no longer applicable
  You mean like this one?
  
  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
  Leviticus 18:22
  Or this one?
  
  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination
  Leviticus 20:13
  If Leviticus 21:20-23 is "no longer applicable", why does the Catholic Church claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are still applicable?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
17. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by LVSlushdat · 2013-03-13 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
  I'm gonna bet its because they think that government is the "supreme being", not God.. None of the Christian churches "hold a gun to your head", but that is not really true with Islam.. Its their way or the highway and you stand a good chance of having your head chopped off as a non-believer/infidel if you aren't on board with their program....
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
18. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Hatta · 2013-03-13 09:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  If the old covenant was replaced by Jesus, why does the Catholic Church care if they are celibate or not?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
19. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  You have, no doubt inadvertently, taken those quotes out of context. Those are some of the rules for Levite priests to make the traditional burnt animal sacrifice in Jerusalem. That's why the book is called "Leviticus". Catholic priests are not Levites, nor do they perform the temple sacrifice. What Catholic priests actually do is to act as chief celebrant of the sacrifice of the mass, in which Jesus Christ is both victim and high priest. In the mass, the church (i.e., the people of God) celebrates the sacrifice of Jesus, made once for all on the cross. The priest leads the people in the celebration. That is all.
20. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by ne0n · 2013-03-13 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty certain this new Argentinian dude isn't a Jew, nor of the lineage of Jewish priests, so these rules for the Jewish priests may not apply.
  
  Disclaimer: I'm neither a jew nor a pederast^wCatholic
  
  --
  $ :(){ :|:& };:
21. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by PlastikMissle · 2013-03-13 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  So what happens when the GC kicks in?
22. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by ThePeices · 2013-03-13 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  If the old covenant was replaced by Jesus, why does the Catholic Church care if they are celibate or not?
  This is a religion thread. Please dont use logic or common sense here, and for the love of all that is Holy in this world, do NOT ask questions, most especially the ones that show the illogic, inconsistencies and downright absurdities in religions.
  Just nod your head and say amen. Thinking is for heretics and non-believers.
23. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by trout007 · 2013-03-13 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  One of the nice things about being a Catholic is there is a nice clear rule book. It's called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you want to know the official Church position on something you can look it up here.
  http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
  So let's see where it says gays are abominations.
  Chastity and homosexuality
  2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
  2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
  2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
  Hmmm. Where is the hate? According to this everything except for sex inside a marriage without artificial contraception is the same sin.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
24. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus is like an inverse Darth Vader. He has altered the covenant somewhat... and if you pray hard enough, maybe he'll alter it further.
25. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Because for the first 1000 years those married priests were leaving their earthly goods to their families and not the church. And that did not please the church.
26. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Master+Moose · 2013-03-13 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  From the Catholic Encyclopaedia, A wordy, if not insightful resource for understanding many Catholic Positions. Shows us that to the Catholic teaching, ALL sexual conduct outside of marriage is immoral. The church also teaches that those who are homosexual should be encouraged to live chaste lives.
  http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm
  
  The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.
  It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control" (5:22) and further (5:24), "You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires."
  ....The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth....
  ...From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously
  ...The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life
  
  --
  . . .gone when the morning comes
27. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  If the covenant of L was replaced by the covenant of J, why is it still in there?
28. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  So there is a new covenant replacing the old one. I take it that the 10 commandments are scrapped and is ok to kill. I am not a believer either, just contemplating the mess coming out of picking stuff of the old testament that is still valid or holds true.
29. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  Because Leviticus isn't the only place you find prohibitions on homosexual acts.
  Paul wrote about it too.
  Homosexual contact is against the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.
30. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:32 · Score: 0
  
  What rights are those? Or are we talking about generic "human rights" that are whatever you want them to be so you can obligate the government to give stuff to you?
  It seems like "natural and unalienable rights" appear to be multiplying these days. Perhaps they are doing something gays cannot and are reproducing on their own.
31. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  I believe there are also a few lines in the New Testament about homosexuality as well. The Old Testament lines are still relevant because they were sustained in the New Testament.
  However, the required temporal punishment for said sin is likely to be removed because Jesus did very specifically come out against the whole stoning concept.
  In other words, it's still a sin, but you don't have to deal with it in an Old Testament way (ie. stoning, castration, generic smiting, etc.).
32. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Because:
  26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.(Romans 1:26-27 NIV)
  Which is the New Testament. People argue about that verse as much as any other, but it's in the New Testament so it carries over.
33. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  Because it has precisely nothing to do with old or new covenant. It's not a dogma, it's an administrative decision which is open for discussion, Catholic Church even allows married priests in eastern rites, it's just that the liturgical tradition of the Latin rite demands celibacy. Celibacy itself was introduced in 12th century in order to prevent church positions from becoming hereditary fiefdoms as was common in the middle ages. And there are good reasons to keep it even now.
34. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  Same reason as they oppose contraception: because sex for pleasure's sake is sinful, it can only be justified in the context of conceiving children.
35. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Cabriel · 2013-03-13 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the preferring the same gender that is the problem in Christianity; it's the sex-making act. Incidentally, that act is also forbidden to be practiced by any heterosexual couple unless they have been married (some more restrictions may apply; consult your local repressive representative for details).
36. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. -- Matthew 5:18-19
  There are many such statements in the New Testament, which is no surprise since Jesus was a pretty conservative guy who was primarily opposed to the more liberal people of the day. The whole replaced covenant thing is obvious bollocks, and it shows. The churches and the Catholic Church in particular are bastions of backward dogma and the only overlook one of their silly rules if they need to in order to cling to the power they need to enforce the other silly rules.
37. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  Good one!
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
38. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  There never was a covenant. The covenant is crazy talk.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
39. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  If the old covenant was replaced by Jesus, why does the Catholic Church care if they are celibate or not?
  Celibacy (well, not getting married) is a disciple that is required of priests as a condition of ordination. Its been around in its present form since medieval times. Any Pope could change it with the stroke of a pen, its not considered by the church to be a teaching from Jesus or anything.
  The main benefit is that it has been pretty successful at keeping the power of family dynasties at bay from the church for the past few hundred years.
40. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize of course that Old Testament priests were married, and that the office was hereditary, don't you?
41. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  There's that damn typo cropping up again. One little mistake - celibate, celebrate - and a whole religion goes off on a tangent.
42. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by F34nor · 2013-03-13 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  He says DON'T disregard the book of law just try not to be a total dick to everyone also... um oh shit are those contradictory? Is that a zebra crossing?
43. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-03-13 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Celibacy in Catholic Church is a matter of tradition at this point, and it's only a part of the Latin Church. In Eastern Catholic Churches (which are still Catholic, in full communion, recognize the Pope etc), non-monastic clergy is not celibate, and marriage is encouraged for some positions in practice.
44. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-03-13 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  How dare he believe in 2000 years worth of teachings about the sanctity of life and marriage being between a man and a woman when it's all so unfashionable?
  I couldn't care less about it being fashionable or unfashionable. What matters is that it's oppressive and bigoted. That, unfortunately, is something that is just as true today as it was 2000 years ago - it's just that humanity has matured enough to realize that only recently.
  
  Why did liberal atheist's care so much what the Pope thinks. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to be a Catholic.
  Because he tells 1.2 billion Catholics how to vote. He also tells them how to live on other matters of importance - e.g. campaigning against condoms means more unwanted pregnancies, meaning more poverty and crime, not to mention how it helps propagation of STDs.
  (That's without even bringing up the topic of Rome directly supporting various dictatorial regimes against their democratic opposition, so long as said dictatorial regimes were in favor of the Church - from Ustashe to Franco, Salazar and Pinochet.)
45. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-03-13 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  So who was Jesus addressing in Gethsemane, then? By your own analogy, this is like invoking a method on an object, but you're claiming that there is only a single object in the play, so Jesus was passing messages to himself?
  Then, if what you say is true, then the references should all compare equal - so "Father is Jesus" is true, and "Jesus is Holy Spirit" is also true. But somehow Catholics disagree.
  Also, if names of entities in the Trinity are just references, why stop at three? I'm pretty sure that Catholics would consider it a heresy if I claimed that there are actually, say, five of them.
46. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by j-beda · 2013-03-13 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  I don't care what the Catholics believe. I care that they're trying to make me follow their rules.
  Well, and you probably care because some of those rules are ones that you don't agree with. I doubt you're much upset about Catholic teachings on feeding the hungry or perhaps against capital punishment.
  I suppose the important part is how a group goes about making others follow "their rules", yes? If I work to get the speed limit on highways changed by shooting motorists I would probably be condemned by most people, but lobbying politicians and holding rallies and stuff like that is probably OK. How can we possibly prohibit any of these types of things in support of any cause without running into huge freedom of speech issues? I suppose we could submit the causes to DuckDogers in his infinite wisdom to decide, but eventually good ole Duck's gonna retire and what could we do then? Trap all the Slashdot contributers in a room and wait for the right type of smoke to be seen?
47. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by gd2shoe · 2013-03-13 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think what you're getting at is the homosexual angle, and not the priest angle. In that case, I'd refer you to the passages in the New Testament that deride it as an abomination. You don't need the Old Testament to do that.
  And why celibacy for priests? I think it's an odd interpretation of something Paul wrote off-the-cuff.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
48. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by fearofcarpet · 2013-03-13 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  I have no problem with catholics being anti-gay and excluding gays from their church
  I'm not religious, but I have a problem with them not excluding child molesters and pretending Mother Teresa wasn't a sadist.
  
  But where I do have a problem is when the members of the church try to deprive the rights of homosexuals outside of church.
  Really the entire gay/lesbian/transgender/BDSM/etc. community, and atheists, women, and anyone who uses birth control.
  
  --
  Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
49. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 19:46 · Score: 0
  
  Celibacy was never practiced amongst religious jewish leaders in the old covenant. The priest, Zechariah, was the father of John the Baptist. He was married. Moses was married. Abraham was married. There is never as far as I know, any mention of priests being forbidden to marry in the old or new testaments. I believe that there is actually a verse...
  1st Timothy verses 1-5
  " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
  2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
  3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
  4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
  5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
  If anything... the catholic church is wrong in forcing upon the priests celibacy. God expressly commanded Adam and Eve (and their posterity) to reproduce and replenish the earth. By forbidding priests to marry, they not only force priests to break that commandment, but the commit a greater sin of overwriting God's command.
  I could go on and on about the apostate state of Catholicism. For instance, at one point in time a goat was given the priesthood as a "place holder". A woman was a pope for a short while, oh, and my favorite proof of apostasy, the very papal throne was divided into three over a power struggle. If that isn't apostasy, I don't know what is.
  Either way, I personally contribute and curse Catholicism for plunging the western world into a dark age for nearly 1600 years through tyrannical rule and abominable inquisitions and crusades. Had it not been for their tyrannical rule, and man had continued with governments such as that of Greece and Rome where liberty ensued (advanced for their time at least), man would probably be hundreds of years ahead in technology now. But instead you had Catholicism threatening and killing all who attempted to pursue the scientific method and explore nature and its forces. Galileo was imprisoned for his attempts to gaze into the skies with a telescope for crying out loud.
  So thus I say, to hell with catholic ideology. I respect their humanitarian aids, but I do NOT respect what they did to western civilization prior to the 1600's
50. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by HeronBlademaster · 2013-03-13 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  Just because something is 2000 years old doesn't make it right.
  Doesn't make it wrong, either. The age of an idea is irrelevant to whether it is correct or not. (And in religious debates, whether an idea is "correct" or not is often either impossible to prove or entirely irrelevant... at least, that's true if your goal is something other than hurling insults.)
  
  But where I do have a problem is when the members of the church try to deprive the rights of homosexuals outside of church.
  The fundamental problem with arguments about gays and/or homosexuality in general is simple: nobody bothers to agree on terminology up front. If terminology were agreed on before a debate were started, then the nature of these debates would be quite different. This is the mistake you are making.
  Suppose I create a club whose only requirement for membership is that every club member must wear a red shirt at all times. Now suppose I tell a club member that I will kick him out if he continues to wear blue shirts. Would you embark on a campaign to get the Red Shirt Club to change its rules so that the member who wants to wear blue shirts can feel included?
  Now suppose I create a chain of nonprofit clothing stores using my club's logo, and the store only sells red shirts and red-shirt-related items. How would you respond to salaried store employees who complain that the requirement that they wear red shirts at all times, even off the clock, stifles their freedom of expression?
  Suppose I set up a club-funded hospital, and open it to everyone, but only provide red hospital gowns. What would you say if a Blue Shirt Club member comes in for treatment, then later refers to the doctors' unwillingness to provide a blue hospital gown as persecution or intolerance?
  Suppose I fund an adoption agency, under the restriction that the adoption agency can only place children in homes where only red shirts are worn (whether or not the prospective family is part of the club). What would you say when a Blue Shirt Club member complains that the Red Shirt Adoption Agency denies their adoption application?
  My point is, it's not relevant whether the club's rules are frivolous or even plain stupid. It's not even relevant whether they're right or wrong. What's relevant is that these are the rules applied to club members and people who want certain types of service from club members. Is it really reasonable to force that club to change its fundamental rules in the name of being "open-minded" or "accepting" or "tolerant" or whatever?
  It's a waste of time to tell red shirt club members that they're being bigoted or whatever for not allowing blue shirts in their club -- and it misses the point entirely. Furthermore, none of the above scenarios require that the Red Shirt Club members believe themselves superior to anyone else in any way, and it's a mistake to assume otherwise.
  In this situation, if you want to argue about something, argue about whether the behavior in question is itself acceptable, not about whether it's acceptable for the group to deny membership to people who engage in it. Of course, at that point you leave the realm of what can be proven as fact and enter the realm of doctrine... That's probably why most non-religious people simply don't try, instead accusing Catholics of bigotry or being anti-gay or whatever, without actually trying to understand what Catholics believe and, more importantly, why.
  Personally I don't see why it's a problem for a group that believes a particular behavior is a sin to ask its members to not engage in that behavior, or to prohibit hospitals it funds from providing services it finds morally objectionable, or to go around trying to convince everyone else to share those opinions.
51. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by FireFury03 · 2013-03-13 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  If the old covenant was replaced by Jesus, why does the Catholic Church care if they are celibate or not?
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkGFpxRq-dg
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
52. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by HeronBlademaster · 2013-03-13 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody has read The Great Apostasy ;)
  For anyone interested, the book is a pretty interesting examination of the doctrinal changes the Catholic Church underwent in the centuries following Christ's death, and the book bases its assessment on writings from early Catholic priests among others.
  My personal favorite example of mishandling the Papacy is either the time the Papacy was put up for auction, or the time the Pope had a baby with a prostitute, and then was killed by that prostitute, who put her son on the Papal throne. If memory serves, that young Pope was among the most depraved and immoral to hold that particular office. (I might have some small details wrong, it's been a while since I read the book linked above.)
53. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 21:15 · Score: 0
  
  Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
  Because this power does not stay out of government for long and enforces it's own doctrine on so many liberals. Prime example: 'In God we trust' on official monetary units.
54. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  That's also true of some interpretations of Hinduism, which Christians consider polytheistic.
  Those references also aren't separate entities, they're pointers with identical values...
55. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 21:45 · Score: 0
  
  But that would imply that the different parts of the trinity are referentially transparent. However, I understand that they each seem to have their own properties, which suggests god-encapsulation or, god-forbid, god-inheritance, rather than simply multiple references. :-)
56. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Xest · 2013-03-13 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  "What is especially ironic is that the Catholic Church does not have anything against homosexuals per se, so long as they are celibate."
  So in other words it does have something against them?
  I don't have anything against Catholics per-se, as long as they don't ever practice their religion.
57. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 22:19 · Score: 0
  
  I just wish that the selection of laws to heed nowadays was less arbitrary. Just think how peaceful life could be if we confined women to the washing house during their time of uncleanliness.
58. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 23:35 · Score: 0
  
  If the old covenant was replaced by Jesus, why does the Catholic Church care if they are celibate or not?
  The opposition against sodomy is repeated in the new testament. Abstaining from sodomy (homosexual sexual acts) thus equates to celibacy.
  However, celibacy was never required of old testament priests - the office was hereditary (the descendants of Aaron) so celibacy would be counterproductive. Neither was a celibate priest class established in the new testament - all believers became part of the new (spiritual) priesthood. The Roman Catholic priesthood as well as their celibacy was taken over from some pagan traditions, which had celibate/castrated priest classes.
  (Which I think is an idea that should be considered: if you are really serious about becoming a RC priest, show you commitment by giving up the nether parts.)
59. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  Why did liberal atheist's care so much what the Pope thinks. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to be a Catholic. Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
  Because it's a source of power outside any democratic oversight by the people, unlike the government?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
60. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, a Robert A. Heinlein quotation that (a) makes sense and (b) I agree with.
  You truly do learn something new every day.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
61. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  In trinity, it is one person, therefore monotheistic. That one person is just represented by multiple entities. They are not in conflict.
  You're just proving Heinlein's point. Jesus cannot be both the Son of God and God, unless you beg the question by saying that God can do anything He chooses, regardless of the laws of physics or logic (an argument which is irrefutable, in a bad way).
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
62. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Either Leviticus is obsolete, in which case the Pope can wear glasses and christians can have gay sex, or it still applies, and both gay sex and a pope with poor eyesight are abominations.
  You must have missed the memo: whatever Christians want to be literally true in the Bible is literally true, the rest is metaphors/parables/poetry/mythology/inspiring fiction. Obviously, this varies over time.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
63. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm. Where is the hate? According to this everything except for sex inside a marriage without artificial contraception is the same sin.
  That's like saying that Hitler didn't particularly hate Jews because he also exterminated Roma, communists, gays, trade unionists and Slavs.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
64. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying the religion should be suppressed or outlawed. I understand freedom of speech and freedom of religion and I support them. I just happen to disagree with some principles the Catholic Church holds in very high regard, so I would prefer if the Catholic Church changed its positions or lost members. I was responding to the Anonymous Coward's statement "Why did liberal atheist's care so much what the Pope thinks". We care because what the Pope thinks influences world politics.
65. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
  I'm gonna bet its because they think that government is the "supreme being", not God.
  Despite what the libertarians on slashdot think, "the government" is just an expression of the will of the people in a democratic society. A source of power outside the will of the people is an anti-democratic influence on society. Religion is thus on a par with the military-industrial complex in being inherently elitist, reactionary and undemocratic.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
66. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by hierofalcon · 2013-03-14 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  The only of the 10 commandments that was not carried forward to the new testament defining what sin was was specifically the admonition to keep the Sabbath. That was because of what the religious order of Jesus day had done to the tradition of Sabbath keeping. In fact, God, through Christ, went out of His way on occasion to specifically annoy the religious order in their Sabbath traditions by healing on the Sabbath and then commanding the man who was healed to take up his bed and carry it home.
  The rest is still there in the new testament. The old testament commandments relating to food are gone because the Jewish people were not wandering about as nomads any longer. The old testament rules for sacrifice that were implemented to specifically cover the people's sin and acknowledge God are gone since Christ paid the price on the cross to do this. Everything else is still there. In fact, over and over again in the sermon on the mount Christ used a phrase similar to - you have heard it said ----, but I say unto you ---- where His standards and thus the standards of the new testament were higher and tougher than what was imposed in the old testament for how people should treat each other, specifically because He had come and was in the process of showing them how it was possible to live righteously and because He would send the Holy Spirit to in-dwell believers and, if they obeyed His promptings, lead them on the right path. Clearly, most don't and they will answer for that before God one day. The higher the position of authority, the more they will have to answer for.
  But the law still remains as it is what will be used on the day of the great white throne judgment at the end of the recorded history in the Bible when God judges those who did not accept His plan of salvation before sending them to hell for eternity.
  The new covenant is simply the final means of salvation which was alluded to from the time of man's downfall in the garden of Eden. It doesn't eliminate the definitions of sin that cause people to need salvation in the first place, and it certainly gives no indication that God treats it any more lightly on an eternal basis.
67. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by VoidCrow · 2013-03-14 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  > I'm gonna bet its because they think that government is the "supreme being", not God.
  Why, exactly, are you so full of shit?
68. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  Personally I don't see why it's a problem for a group that believes a particular behavior is a sin to ask its members to not engage in that behavior, or to prohibit hospitals it funds from providing services it finds morally objectionable, or to go around trying to convince everyone else to share those opinions.
  That's not the problem, though. The problem is when the Red Shirt Club advocates its followers to support legislation that makes it illegal for anyone not wearing a red shirt to adopt, to follow your metaphor.
69. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by HeronBlademaster · 2013-03-14 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. If I believe that some particular behavior will damage society at a fundamental level, isn't it reasonable for me to feel a responsibility to try to protect society from the thing I believe will harm it? The fact that other people disagree with me does not, in and of itself, mean I should sit down and shut up, regardless of how many people engage in that behavior.
  This only becomes a problem when one side of the debate refuses to address the underlying concerns (does it really cause the perceived harm?) and instead simply throws mud at those who disagree ("if you think it's bad you're an intolerant bigot!").
  The problem I see is that (in the case of gay marriage) very few pro-gay-marriage people are actually willing to address the root concern: the belief that having the government officially endorse gay marriage will [further] erode the fundamental building block of society (the family unit).
  As a related example, I've never been given an actual answer to this question: "Since psychologically speaking it is most healthy for children to grow up with both a mother and a father, wouldn't it be best for us as a society to place children in homes with both rather than homes with only [two of] one or the other?" The only responses I've gotten have either been insults ("You're just intolerant of gays!") or irrelevant counterquestions ("don't gay couples deserve children?") or irrelevant points ("plenty of single mothers/fathers raise healthy children!"). Wouldn't it be far more productive for us to have an honest, meaningful discussion about the topic, instead of hurling insults at each other and refusing to talk about anything at all?
70. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Rakarra · 2013-03-14 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  Theologians can persuade themselves of anything. Anyone who can worship a trinity and insists that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything -- just give him time to rationalize it.
  -- Robert A. Heinlein,
  
  Heinlein sometimes has some good points mixed up with the shitty ones in his writing, but this was a particularly poor example of reasoning on his part.
71. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Rakarra · 2013-03-14 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  The same people who hated Benedict XVI and John Paul II will hate Pope Francis. How dare he believe in 2000 years worth of teachings about the sanctity of life and marriage being between a man and a woman when it's all so unfashionable?
  Haha, 'unfashionable.' As if laws written thousands of years ago by superstitious old patriarchal men should be sanctified and never questioned. As if somehow in their backwards age THEY had it all figured out.
  As if it was impossible for society to grow more advanced and wiser in the same way we've learned more about technology and experienced more through it.
  But yeah, 2000, 3000 years ago were primitive, barbaric cultures ruled by superstition. Those are the ones we should emulate.
72. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 23:15 · Score: 0
  
  Leviticus 21:20-23 "or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect,
  
  Your translation sucks. They mean Cataract.
73. Re:Haters Gonna Hate by sonamchauhan · 2013-03-16 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  Because sin is still sin.
  Regarding the two Old Testament commandments above:
  - the first doesn't describe a squinty person as sinful
  - the second - the 'hair commandment' was apparently against an idolatrous fashion of the time.
  (Source: http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-27.htm)
  To be fair to your point, the Catholic church is itself idolatrous due to its worship of Mary, belief in apparitions and superstitions.
76? by sycodon · 2013-03-13 07:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Best keep that straw and chimney handy.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:76? by unixisc · 2013-03-13 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Given the really short tenure of Benedict, shouldn't they have gone for someone much much younger? Like in his 40s or 50s? In fact, why not directly make a choir boy the pope - how badly could one possibly do?
2. Re:76? by TsuruchiBrian · 2013-03-13 09:04 · Score: 2
  
  Everybody knows it goes: long pope, short pope, long pope, short pope....
3. Re:76? by macromorgan · 2013-03-13 09:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you want to be Pope someday, you don't elect someone younger than yourself.
4. Re:76? by mcmonkey · 2013-03-13 09:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm thinking this is done on purpose. I imagine it is very hard to fire the pope.
  If the cardinals like the pope, it shouldn't be too hard to find a like-minded replacement. If on the other hand the pope falls out of favor, he won't be around to long in any case.
  Plus they get all the positive buzz from the retirement/replacement process.
5. Re:76? by RazzleFrog · 2013-03-13 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  Youngest Cardinal is 53 and he is from India. I don't think he was much in the running. Not a huge clamor for an Indian pope.
6. Re:76? by jellomizer · 2013-03-13 09:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  John Paul II was elected pope at and earlier age and some would say electing a younger pope, means having a pope for a long time. Now the younger pope may be more of a reformist... However he will stay in power for so long, that his reforms will become old, and backwards. Having older popes with a gradual changes could be more productive.
  The big issues is that us Western Cultures have in terms of Sex Rights. (Woman's Rights, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Contraceptives) Are fairly new (40 or so years old) A younger pope may address these issues... However The way he addresses these issue will stay the same for the next 40-50 years. By that point culture would have changes where that method would seem unheard of. Having an older pope who will last 5-15 years means every new pope will gradually put in new changes.
  In some ways is like having continual obsoleteness in your policy. However sometimes a popular idea at the time turns out to be be a bad idea.
  For example in the United States Bill Clinton Signed the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy. This at the time was actually considered to be pro-Gay bill. Where it prevent the military from trying to find gay people to kick out. However over time and culture has changed further, the Don't Ask Don't Tell was considered to be anti-Gay and needed to be repealed.
  If we get a young Pope, he may come up with an appropriate compromise solution at the time, then by the time he dies or resigns, the policy is completely outside the change in our values.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
7. Re:76? by perplexing.reader · 2013-03-13 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Older men don't bother with making points http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV8BNDEc9EA
8. Re:76? by Shadowmist · 2013-03-13 10:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  When Benedict was selected, it was said that an older pope was chosen deliberately so that it wouldn't be a long reign like that of John Paul. Then again no one actually expected that we'd actually have another Papal resignation after only 600 years from the last one.
9. Re:76? by westlake · 2013-03-13 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Best keep that straw and chimney handy.
  The Roman church has never been comfortable with a pope who holds the reins too long. The cardinals who will both name his successor and from whom his successor will be chosen will all be his appointments --- and each a mirror image of a man grown old and set in his ways.
10. Re:76? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:28 · Score: -1
  
  I guess that's where the choir boys come into play, after all each candidate would need to be, shall we say, "inspected"...
11. Re:76? by Your.Master · 2013-03-13 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure that argument really holds, because you aren't actually changing the long-term rate of change by electing older popes. In the short term, you're just converting what used to be an immediate front-loaded step-function change into the same change amortized over a much longer period of time, so it's just worse.
  The one case where it works is if there's a flash in the pan idea that sweeps a generation born within a 5 year period before we discard that idea and go back to what we did before, but you elected one of those guys. But that's a different story. And I think there's more to it than just generational gaps, especially when the electors are potentially of a different generation than the electee.
12. Re:76? by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-03-13 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  This is a poor argument. By your scheme, with older Popes they get to revise their policies every 5-15 years, sure - but the people who do it are those who support policies that are already outdated by several decades. So the only difference is that this way they're lagging permanently, as opposed to occasionally catching up.
13. Re:76? by tlambert · 2013-03-13 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  Youngest Cardinal is 53 and he is from India. I don't think he was much in the running. Not a huge clamor for an Indian pope.
  28 million Catholics in Argentine, 24 million in India.
  Given that it's the first pope selected from outside Europe in 1000 years, either one would be likely, but for recruitment, a Spanish speaking country is more likely to up the numbers in South and Central Americas.
14. Re:76? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 21:35 · Score: 0
  
  The big issues is that us Western Cultures have in terms of Sex Rights. (Woman's Rights, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Contraceptives)
  Those are only "issues" at all because of people like this new pope. If we could just cast away those ridiculous old books and embrace a philosophy of live and let live, we could move past them and perhaps deal with actual issues.
15. Re:76? by jalopezp · 2013-03-13 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying you like rolling releases better?
16. Re:76? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2013-03-13 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine it is very hard to fire the pope.
  No.
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
17. Re:76? by Buchenskjoll · 2013-03-14 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Habemus papadum.
  
  --
  -- Make America hate again!
18. Re:76? by ArsenneLupin · 2013-03-14 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  He'd be the darling of all cardinals...
19. Re:76? by ArsenneLupin · 2013-03-14 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  A young pope can also change his mind, if he notices that the world around him changes...
  Il n'y a que les imbéciles qui ne changent pas d'avis
20. Re:76? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  FYI, don't ask/don't tell was and is a pro gay rule. The issue was that Clinton couldn't get a bill passed or make an executive order that would stick that would actually make gays allowed into the military.
  The political compromise was to prevent the military from going on witch hunts (i.e. don't ask/don't tell).
  Over the intervening time, we've now got an environment where we can formally make gays allowable.
  So it's not that don't ask/don't tell was repealed as it is that it was rendered unnecessary by finally being able to fix the root problem (the anti-gay policy).
21. Re:76? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  The big issues is that us Western Cultures have in terms of Sex Rights. (Woman's Rights, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Contraceptives)
  Women's rights (say, the right to be a priest) may change, but as to abortion and gay marriage, you'll never see a pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage Christian. The most you'll get from us is tolerance, "it ain't none o' my business, I have too many of my own sins to worry about yours." If jesus said it's bad, it's bad. Period.
  As to contraceptives, that is one way Catholics differ from other Christians; Christians believe you should only have sex within marriage, Catholics believe sex should only be for reproduction. I can't see any pope changing this, either.
  BTW, I'm not Catholic. There's too buch human bullshit (e.g., "seven deadly sins") and too little Jesus, and their praying to the saints rather than God is pretty fucked up, IMO. Lots I and the bibe disagree wit the Catholics on. Baptism is a big one, sprinkling water on you isn't baptism. If you want to be baptised, do it like John and Jesus did, immersion. Baptising babies also rubs against my grain, without informed consent baptism is meaningless.
  If we get a young Pope, he may come up with an appropriate compromise solution at the time
  Nope, never. No priest or preacher will or can condone sex outside of marriage, or sex between two people of the same gender. The bible says it's wrong, and that's that.
22. Re: 76? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  Immersion is valid form of baptism, if a little impractical for most Catholics. As for consent, that's the point of Confirmation at a later age
23. Re:76? by kattisch · 2013-03-14 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  The precepts of the Church will never change. So the Church will never bless a homosexual marriage. The Church will never have a female priest. The Church will never approve of contraceptives. The Church will never lessen the dignity and sanctity of life by approving of abortion or euthanasia. You obviously have little to no understanding of the Christ and the life that Christ lived. The church will always expect the life you live to be a sacrificial life lived for others and Christ gave himself for us. Not one minute upon this earth was his life lived for himself. It was lived for the sacrifice of others. If you cannot understand giving your life for others, you will never understand the culture of life. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Contraceptives are all part of the culture of death and will never be part of the Catholic Church whose teachings have not changed in 2000 years nor will it ever. God is the same now and forever and will never change. People change but the laws of God do not. Those of the Church are not of the secular world and will always be rejected by those who are of the Culture of Death. Unless you give up the things of the world and turn your life in sacrifice to others you will never understand that.
24. Re:76? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-03-14 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Change 5 to 40, and you've got the genocide of the unborn.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
25. Re:76? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-03-14 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  That's funny, because those four rights are specifically about "I want to live but want to make sure I have no responsibility to let the next generation live".
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
26. Re:76? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-03-14 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  And thank God for that, since young men are universally idiots.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
27. Re:76? by RespekMyAthorati · 2013-03-14 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's funny, because those four rights are specifically about "I want to live but want to make sure I have no responsibility to let the next generation live".
  What in the hell are you talking about?
28. Re:76? by RespekMyAthorati · 2013-03-14 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  The Church will never have a female priest.
  
  People change but the laws of God do not.
  
  What laws of God prohibit female clergy, but are OK with pedophillia?
29. Re:76? by RespekMyAthorati · 2013-03-14 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  And thank God for that, since young men are universally idiots.
  Well, you certainly were. And still are.
30. Re:76? by redneckmother · 2013-03-14 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  Given the really short tenure of Benedict, shouldn't they have gone for someone much much younger? Like in his 40s or 50s? In fact, why not directly make a choir boy the pope - how badly could one possibly do?
  Yeah, a Choir Boy would know how to "assume the position" (ducks).
31. Re:76? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-03-15 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  "(Woman's Rights, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Contraceptives)"
  All four of those are about selfishness. They are about hoarding resources for the born while denying them to the unborn. They are encouraged by our wealthy masters in order to reduce the population of the poor so that they can keep more wealth for themselves.
  Thus, they can't be described as "live and let live", but more "I've got mine and the rest of you can just die".
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
32. Re:76? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-03-15 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I most certainly was and still am- but at least I've got the ability to learn from my betters in history, unlike most modernists.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
33. Re:76? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-22 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  The church doesn't have an issue stuffing their pampered cardinals in huge 12 room apartments that share a building with a gay bathhouse.
  The church hoards so much wealth and power, where did they get that notion from? Certainly not Jesus Christ. Did he even build an actual physical building and call it a church? You do not need to put greedy, pedophile supporting, knowledge suppressing control freaks between you and God.
  The church is a man made construct, built to hoard things and control the masses, no other reason.
  The fact that they kneel before graven images should have been your first clue that the Catholic Church is bogus.
  The laws of God have changed. Eye for an eye was acceptable to Him, as was sacrificing animals.
  Culture of death? You mean like the Catholic Church actively opposing distributing condoms in areas of Africa that is being overrun by AIDS? Not THAT is a culture of death. We won't get into all the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church.
  If nothing changed there would be no need for a pope and no need for Papal Bulls right and certainly no need for a church?
34. Re:76? by ultranova · 2013-03-24 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  They are encouraged by our wealthy masters in order to reduce the population of the poor so that they can keep more wealth for themselves.
  
  Actually, the wealthy want there to be hordes of poor people to compete for their table scraps, as this helps depress wages and working conditions. Their actual actions - abusing work visas, offshoring to places with lots of cheap labour, etc - support this theory.
  
  Thus, they can't be described as "live and let live", but more "I've got mine and the rest of you can just die".
  
  Not getting children is not the same as killing people.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
35. Re:76? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-03-25 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  With a nice number of third world countries, they don't need the poor in the United States anymore- abusing work visas and offshoring makes LOCAL labor redundant at best.
  And with 55 million abortions since 1973, you can no longer describe "not getting children" as "not the same as killing people".
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Does he run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:46 · Score: 0

This Pope had better be Open Source... the last one was all Microsofty
Big job ahead by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:46 · Score: 0

Hopefully this pope will be able to clean out the sickness from the Church that is pedophilia.
1. Re:Big job ahead by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  Hopefully this pope will be able to clean out the sickness from the Church that is pedophilia.
  Not likely without getting rid of rules regarding celibacy of priests - they go after the kids because they have no other legitimate outlet for sex, so they try to be secretive about it.
2. Re:Big job ahead by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say that he'll have no more success than you would in the general population. Pedophiles are everywhere in the population and if we could have cleaned them out already, we would have.
  What I would say is 100% in his power is cleaning out the the sickness in the Church which is the hierarchy *covering for* pedophiles. I understand why they did it, but they made a huge mistake. They believed they needed to forgive, and that is proper for Christianity, but they also needed to make sure that forgiveness came both with penance and with ensuring that they were not put in a position to sin again and hurt someone else. In that, they failed miserably.
OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Freshly+Exhumed · 2013-03-13 07:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Devotees of Ireland's 12th century Saint Malachy believe that he predicted back then that the new Pope will be the very last one:
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/St-Malachy-predicted-Pope-Benedicts-successor-will-be-last-pope-190715001.html

--
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
1. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by operagost · 2013-03-13 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  He was supposed to take the name Peter II, though.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
2. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Kryptonian+Jor-El · 2013-03-13 07:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Not technically. The prophecy called him "Peter the Roman" but that doesn't mean that has to be his given or pope name. Also, the church will never have a Peter II out of respect for the first pope, Peter
  
  --
  All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
3. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Freshly+Exhumed · 2013-03-13 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry, someone will rationalize that problem into further "proof" ;)
  
  --
  I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
4. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by operagost · 2013-03-13 07:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Well, he's more like "Jorge the Argentinian".
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
5. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-13 07:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Im not sure its entirely accurate to call Peter the "first pope". The office as such did not exist, and the specific role of "pope" was never acknowledged by Peter or anyone else at that time.
6. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Farmer+Tim · 2013-03-13 07:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The church must have petered out.
  
  --
  Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
7. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by C0R1D4N · 2013-03-13 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  There's been like six popes named Benedict since the 12th century
8. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by RoknrolZombie · 2013-03-13 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Since when has accuracy been any part of the Catholic Church's process?
9. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-13 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  In catholic tradition, it's entirely accepted to be the case. I mean, if you want to talk about things that lack historical precedent in the context of religion of all things, I'm sure we could find better examples.
10. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Cro+Magnon · 2013-03-13 08:06 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Well, there have been a lot of peter problems in the church.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
11. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Seeteufel · 2013-03-13 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, you think in the wrong map. This person is a Jesuit. Jesuits are a very strange sect within the catholic power circles, educated and dangerous. SJ, not Argentinia
12. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Argentinians are descended from Italians!!!
13. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Jawnn · 2013-03-13 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  Im not sure its entirely accurate to call Peter the "first pope". The office as such did not exist, and the specific role of "pope" was never acknowledged by Peter or anyone else at that time.
  So..., you're saying..., that there might be some... confusion creeping into the collection of mythology and folk-tales that, over time, often becomes "religious truth"? Oh_my_gawd. So how are we to know when the end is actually nigh, so we can, you know, confess our sins and get our "get out of hell free" card?
14. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Chris+Mattern · 2013-03-13 08:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The pope has always been the Bishop of Rome. It's difficult to deny that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. Whether that makes him the first Pope can be a matter for debate, however. Part of it is how inerrant you believe the Bible really is: there's reason to believe that the "Upon this rock I shall build my church" verse in the Bible was inserted by those wishing to bolster the Papacy's claims.
15. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2013-03-13 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC there is a possible gap between "the glory of the olives" and "peter the roman", so there could be several more popes.
16. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by anagama · 2013-03-13 08:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  warning, NSFW for most workplaces, but an amusing Tim Minchin song about the pope:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTIorwtJbhE
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
17. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by AK+Marc · 2013-03-13 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I thought Argentinians born after 1945 were all German.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
18. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-13 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yet for some reason Peter never seemed to harp on his being the supreme vicar of Christ, or of that role being hereditary. Wierd.
19. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by DoILookAmused · 2013-03-13 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  No we aren't. But most of my fellow contrymen are something far worse: "left-wing" peronists.
20. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by DoILookAmused · 2013-03-13 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  The source of such prophecy comes from the fact that no pope would ever call himself Peter out of the very reason you said: taking the same name as the first Pope and Christ Apostle.
21. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by ShanghaiBill · 2013-03-13 09:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Im not sure its entirely accurate to call Peter the "first pope". The office as such did not exist, and the specific role of "pope" was never acknowledged by Peter or anyone else at that time.
  Well, there was this one guy (hint: his initials were J.C.) who said: "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church ..."
  This was a pun because "Peter" means "rock" (JC was a funny guy). So if we followed biblical precedent, the next pope should have been ... Dwayne Johnson.
22. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by abuelos84 · 2013-03-13 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, worse than nazis, sure dude...
  geez...
  
  --
  -- Counting backwards since 1984!
23. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by ebno-10db · 2013-03-13 09:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  or of that role being hereditary
  That's something the papacy has generally avoided.
24. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by AK+Marc · 2013-03-13 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  It was a Nazi joke, not a political one. And everyone loves Evita, don't they?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
25. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  LOL, I think he meant "for life".
26. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Farmer+Tim · 2013-03-13 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, getting their peters out is what gets them into so much trouble.
  
  --
  Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
27. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  You should drop the Da Vinci code and read real books on history (avoid conspiracy stuff please). Jesuits are just an order among others in the Catholic Church.
28. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Peter was the bishop of Rome, as the new Pope is. BTW Peter's grave is under the St Peter Basilica.
29. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by ButchDeLoria · 2013-03-13 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Ach, du Scheiße!
30. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · 2013-03-13 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  He should've taken the name 'Peter Gabriel' ; then he could be so much larger than life...
  
  --
  >;k
31. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is the pun only works that way in Latin. In the original text it is more clear that he wasn't referring to Peter.
32. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 10:09 · Score: 2
  
  Not really. The Pope is just a name that was attached to the Bishop of Rome. Peter, of course, did not gain his position by being made Bishop, he was an Apostle who walked around with Jesus, but he did the same job as the Bishop of Rome: teaching the people of Rome about Christianity. And of course at the time, it was just Christianity, there were no real sects yet, except perhaps the Jewish and Gentile Christians.
  Calling Peter the "first pope" is certainly not strictly accurate, since the title didn't exist, but it is fundamentally accurate because he did the same job as the Pope: leadership of the apostles and essentially being Bishop of Rome. And the Bishop job description and even the specific title is quite ancient.
  Obviously, a lot of people argue about whether just because this guy is in charge in the same place Peter was, he gets to be in charge. I'd say that it has pretty much turned out that way, at least for Catholics.
  In any event, there may well be some confusion about what you term "mythology", but the development of the papacy is a well recorded and understood part of Western European history. If there is confusion, it's on the part of people who don't know what they are talking about.
33. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  When you are actually the head of the Apostles, you don't need to explain to people why you are in charge. They join your religion knowing already that you're in charge. The people who come after usually need to explain their qualifications and explain what the position is and why it has the authority it does.
  Granted, they could do with dispensing with some of the more grandiose titles that accumulated when Popes were trying to ensure their independence from secular authorities by being a temporal lord themselves, but may of the titles are actually merely organizational titles like Bishop of Rome or Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Province. They sound fancy, but that's only because they are straight titles that have ancient origins due to there being a lot of organization to the church. Being called Supreme Vicar of Christ on Earth sounds imposing, but the title just means "chief guy who takes care of business while the Boss is temporarily away".
34. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-03-13 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Devotees of Ireland's 12th century Saint Malachy believe that he predicted back then that the new Pope will be the very last one:
  http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/St-Malachy-predicted-Pope-Benedicts-successor-will-be-last-pope-190715001.html
  But, then Jesus said "Nobody knows the time or the place except for the Father." So they can't both be correct, unless they are in a box you haven't opened, yet.
35. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  It *would* be highly irregular to choose Peter as a name. However, Popes have chosen the name of other apostles, such as John or Paul.
  Now, Francis is a very interesting name. St. Francis died in the 13th Century and there are literally a few hundred popes who could have chosen that name. There is a reason they probably did not: St. Francis is a Big Deal in the Church and his life also represents a stark counterpoint to the more grandiose organization of the Church. He's the guy that the priests who don't like all of that ostentatious wealth point to when they want to make a point about what the Church should spend money on.
  That said, St. Francis was 100% loyal to the Papacy, which is one reason that despite his differing views on wealth in the Church from the secular churchmen, he was never considered a heretic, unlike other groups that played faster and looser with doctrine and got suppressed.
36. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-03-13 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  Im not sure its entirely accurate to call Peter the "first pope". The office as such did not exist, and the specific role of "pope" was never acknowledged by Peter or anyone else at that time.
  If you want to be technical, there is no office or role of pope. There is the office of Bishop or Rome and it is accepted that Peter is/was the first Bishop of Rome. The title Pope is just a nickname and not an official title.
37. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  The first to be called "pope" was the bishop of Alexandria (in Egypt). Bishop Heraclas back in the good ol' 230's.
38. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by femtobyte · 2013-03-13 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  I'd love to know if you have a more original text, but in the Greek it's also (crappy transliteration because of no unicode support) "...lego oti su ei PETROS kai epi taute te PETRA oikodomeso...": the Peter/Rock pun works just as well.
39. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  As it happens, that's the origin of the phrase "You rock!"
40. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Can you SMELLLLLLLLLL what the POPE is cookin'?!
41. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by hjf · 2013-03-13 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of places refuse to accept the new ARS 100 bill with the face of Eva.
42. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-13 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Calling Peter the "first pope" is certainly not strictly accurate, since the title didn't exist, but it is fundamentally accurate because he did the same job as the Pope
  He didnt speak ex-cathedra, he didnt hold a higher position than Paul, he didnt act as a "vicar of Christ", and he didnt act as a policy-maker for the church.
  He certainly didnt indicate that his role was a unique one among the apostles, nor that any unique role that he DID have was to be passed down.
43. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-13 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  I used a poor choice of words, but was using it in the sense of "inherited" (not necessarily from family).
44. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-13 11:06 · Score: 2
  
  When you are actually the head of the Apostles, you don't need to explain to people why you are in charge.
  
  I see nowhere in the new testament the other apostles making reference to Peter being their leader, nor anything from peter to indicate that he expected that.
45. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Taken completely out of context! Read Matt 16:13-18.
  Christ asks his apostles who they thought he was and they answered that Christ was the Son of the Living God.
  Christ then blessed Peter and told him that his Father and Heaven had revealed it unto him.
  Then Christ calls him by name, and said that "THIS", not you, but "THIS" rock, etc. . .
  "THIS" is refering to the power by which Peter even knew that Christ was the Son of the Living God, namely revelation.
  Why would Christ build his church on a falliable man? Other verses clearly state that the church is built upon a foundation of apostles and prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone. (Eph 2:20)
46. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-13 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  As a protestant I have no problem saying that I believe the catholic tradition to be incorrect (in a number of ways). As I said, Peter did not acknowledge a unique role among the apostles, nor did the other apostles acknowledge him having a unique role. The term Pope would not be used for several hundred years, and the role of Pope did not exist for longer still.
  That would be like saying that King John of England was the head of the Anglican church, though that church would not exist for several hundred years, simply because his title would eventually be shared with the head of that church.
47. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by SteveFoerster · 2013-03-13 11:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I heard this guy is the logical choice, since who better than an Argentinian to offer sanctuary to a German with human rights abuse issues?
  
  --
  Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
48. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by kamapuaa · 2013-03-13 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  There's no real evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. The apostle Paul discusses a community of Christians in Rome, but doesn't mention Peter.
  
  --
  Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
49. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by NemoinSpace · 2013-03-13 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  You should read John's account of racing Peter to the tomb, and handily beating him there, only to wait outside and wait for "the boss" to enter first. (This wouldn't be my sole justification, but it's a good start to slow down an intellectual like you and get you to reason a little bit.) You should also do a little studying. Catholic Tradition often seems odd to those outside the Catholic Church. We question it ourselves at first, only years later, when the pieces of the puzzle start to add up and make even more sense that way, are we resolved. Peter being the boss didn't make him holier than anyone else, just like Matthew being the purser, didn't make him richer than anyone else. If you take everything from a book, without context, you're probably gonna get a few things wrong. It's like that 6,000 year thing only idiots argue about, 'cause neither side knows what they are talking about.
50. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  +1 awesome :)
51. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Im not sure its entirely accurate to call Peter the "first pope". The office as such did not exist, and the specific role of "pope" was never acknowledged by Peter or anyone else at that time.
  Well, there was this one guy (hint: his initials were J.C.) who said: "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church ..."
  This was a pun because "Peter" means "rock" (JC was a funny guy). So if we followed biblical precedent, the next pope should have been ... Dwayne Johnson.
  I don't remember that line in Deus Ex.
52. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  The last time I checked, there was a bloody big Muslim dome on top of that rock, and some well armed men on the entrances.
  The food in Jerusalem is awesome though.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
53. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  But he may have has a very great friend in Rome called Bigus Dickus.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
54. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  My mother does. But she's on a different continent and presumably in bed by now.
  It's always handy having a classics scholar in the family.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
55. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, I think he's probably the only Apostle that probably had an actual organizational-ish directive from Jesus. No one told Paul that he'd be the rock the Church was built on or that he could bind and loose. So yeah, he did have some pretty special superpowers.
  And as far as ex-cathedra and all that, again, Peter was an *Apostle*, that's going to outrank any bishop and likely he effectively spoke ex-cathedra without calling it that. It's just a name for a concept, it's not supposed to be something that anyone believes Jesus specifically said.
  The thing is, when all the Apostles have met their martyrdoms, who takes over? That question is a valid one, and people are going to want you to justify it. And when you have 2,000 years to justify it, you're going to probably start sounding pretty elaborate about it because you're going to have people attacking it from all angles. That's all I am saying.
56. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Livius · 2013-03-13 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  And none of the predictions from the 12th century have been wrong before!
57. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by billstewart · 2013-03-13 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  The Pope has always been the Bishop of Rome. That doesn't mean that the Bishop of Rome has always been the Pope; just because Rome was the capitol of the Roman Empire doesn't mean that the head of the Christian churches in Rome was part of a hierarchical organization or that he was in charge of the bishops of other cities. And the phrase doesn't have to have been inserted into the Bible later; the people who thought Rome should be in charge could have just reinterpreted it.
  On the other hand, the title "Pontifex Maximus" was traditionally the head of the Roman civic religion, and got borrowed later by Popes.
  
  --
  
  Bill Stewart
  New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
58. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by AK+Marc · 2013-03-13 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus could be right, and the Father told someone else long after Jesus was gone.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
59. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  Are we in a catholic church or on slashdot?
60. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-13 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  Im not taking it out of context-- at least not intentionally; the only real account that comes to mind of interaction between the apostles after Jesus' death is when Paul recounts (galatians?) of Peter committing a wrong regarding favoritism, and Paul having to correct him; and of Peter remarking that Paul's writing can be hard to understand at times but that it is nevertheless good.
  The problem I (and protestants historically) have is that "God's word" as an authority is well established throughout both testaments. What is NEVER established is the authority of tradition; in fact a lot of Jesus earthly ministry was centered around attacking tradition when it is placed above scripture or "used to nullify the word of God". And throughout history there has been a constant internal fight in the Catholic church against corruption, most notably with the sale of indulgences (which have never really been condemned despite having zero scriptural basis and really calling one back to Jesus in the temple)-- but also with the intermingling of politics in the catholic church (ie, the 3 popes / antipopes, the birth of the anglican church, etc).
  There are about a million other issues that I have with the catholic church doctrinally, but as an organization they have always had a problem explaining why they deserve special authority to create doctrine and modify the word of God.
61. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-13 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  And as far as ex-cathedra and all that, again, Peter was an *Apostle*, that's going to outrank any bishop and likely he effectively spoke ex-cathedra without calling it that. It's just a name for a concept, it's not supposed to be something that anyone believes Jesus specifically said.
  Apostle is the only reason we recognize his and Paul's words as scripture, and is not unique to Peter.
  
  The thing is, when all the Apostles have met their martyrdoms, who takes over?
  
  Elders and deacons, just as Paul described. Bishops, regionally. Christ, at a hierarchical level, is the head of the church; there was never laid out any requirement that there be an earthly representative of him, as if anyone could actually fill that role.
62. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by hierofalcon · 2013-03-13 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  Strictly speaking Christ only said Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. He doesn't say anything about the month or year. That many have made themselves laughingstocks in making projections is clear. But it is entirely possible for the Father to have told someone later and have the passage still be true as recorded. We weren't directly addressed as part of the "ye" in the verse. After all, there are still many passages of prophecy in the Bible to be fulfilled. St. Malachy either spoke a valid prophecy or he did not. Only time will tell which was true. Neither result would affect my Christianity at all. If he did speak truth, then many outcomes are possible. We could have not understood the last entry, the last entry could have indeed been added at a later point by another person as some have speculated, there could be a time period between the list and the final pope which we have now entered (the 49 years to rebuild Jerusalem, the 434 years from then to Christ's death followed by the long church age, followed by the seven years of tribulation being one example of the Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy with a gap), or perhaps the Catholic church is going to come apart and be judged by God, or perhaps the end really is near for everyone. Only time will tell, and again, it doesn't matter to my Christianity. I can say that the various messages in tongues and interpretations given in services I have attended in the last couple of years have included messages indicating His soon return, which I don't remember hearing in earlier years. I may just be paying better attention as I have gotten older. Regardless, I may not live to see tomorrow, so I need to be ready to meet Him at any time anyway.
63. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by arth1 · 2013-03-13 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  There's no real evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. The apostle Paul discusses a community of Christians in Rome, but doesn't mention Peter.
  There's no evidence that Saul of Tarsis (Paul) was an apostle either. He's not mentioned by either of the apostles. (The replacement for Judas Iscariot was Mathias.)
  There's only his own words for him being chosen for anything. Excise Paul and his teachings as fraud, and you have a very different Christianity.
  Then again, this is like discussing Fraggle lore.
64. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by smugfunt · 2013-03-13 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's difficult to deny that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome
  A contrary web page.
  There was more than one church in those days. The church of Rome was Paul's. He appointed Linus its first bishop.
  It's doubtful Peter was ever in Rome. His church was probably in Jerusalem or Antioch, if it (or he) ever existed.
65. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by femtobyte · 2013-03-13 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  If your mother actually has a more original text in a language other than the Koine Greek, then she'll be extremely famous for the historical/archaeological find of the millennium. There are theories that several of the gospels may have shared a common precursor text with collected sayings of Jesus --- possibly written in Aramaic --- but no such document is known to have survived from antiquity. The Greek version, in which the Peter/Rock pun (Petros/Petra) is obvious, is the most authoritative available (aside from some minor variations in fragmentary early copies of the texts).
66. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Panaflex · 2013-03-13 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Apostolic succession perhaps?
  
  --
  I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
67. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  Since when has accuracy been any part of humanities process?
  Fixed that for you.
68. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by gd2shoe · 2013-03-13 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see any clear references either (aside from the above mentioned Matt 16:18).
  There are, however, numerous implicit clues. The Lord seemed to favor Peter, James and John. Peter conducted the meeting where Matthias was chosen. It was Peter that the resurrected Lord returned to and fervently instructed "feed my sheep". This is just off the top of my head.
  (I'm not Catholic. I'd argue that Peter wasn't the first Pope, but it seems pretty sane that he was the chief Apostle, or what-have-you.)
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
69. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by gd2shoe · 2013-03-13 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  ... It's difficult to deny that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
  Oh? I have no reason to disbelieve it, but I also see no clear evidence that he was. I see a reference to Babylon that is taken to be a veiled reference to Rome, but nothing concrete.
  
  Whether that makes him the first Pope can be a matter for debate, however. Part of it is how inerrant you believe the Bible really is: there's reason to believe that the "Upon this rock I shall build my church" verse in the Bible was inserted by those wishing to bolster the Papacy's claims.
  Even giving this specific phrase legitimacy, does not actually support claims of later Popes. You have to really convolute Peter's probable role of leading the church with his possible role of leading the church in Rome. If you even consider for even a moment that those were two different offices held by the same man, then later Popes can no longer rely solely on Matt 16:18 to claim authority.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
70. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by gd2shoe · 2013-03-13 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  All that says is that Peter was going to run the church... Not that he'd wear a funny hat and live in Rome.
  And "Peter" (or Cephas) was the name Christ gave him. His given name seems to have been Simon. Thus, it's less of a joke, and more of an honorific nickname.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
71. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by j-beda · 2013-03-13 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yet for some reason Peter never seemed to harp on his being the supreme vicar of Christ, or of that role being hereditary. Wierd.
  Old Priest #1 - Do you think they'll ever allow priests to get married?
  Old Priest #2 - Not in our lifetimes, that's for sure... but maybe in our kids' ....
  See, it's funny because priests are not allowed to get married, so they shouldn't have any kids! The role of priest, bishop, or pope is certainly not "hereditary".
72. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by rohan972 · 2013-03-13 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  So how are we to know when the end is actually nigh, so we can, you know, confess our sins and get our "get out of hell free" card?
  The point of biblical end time teaching is not so you can confess your sins just before the apocalypse. The point is that it could come at any time and that even if that doesn't happen in your lifetime you should still be morally prepared for judgement because your personal last day could happen anytime.
  
  It's sort of like always wearing clean underwear in case you get in an accident.
  
  --
  http://marriedmansexlife.com/
73. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by nateb · 2013-03-13 20:38 · Score: 1
  
  I heard lately on Coast to Coast that Nostradamus predicted that the first pope and the last pope would have the same name. So, I'm waiting for Peter II!
  
  --
  -- Nate
74. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 20:45 · Score: 0
  
  The pope has always been the Bishop of Rome.
  Except during the Avignon papacy, for example.
  
  It's difficult to deny that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
  Which Peter was this? Cephas, or Simon Magus? Is there any proof that the former even set foot in Rome?
75. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by tubs · 2013-03-13 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  > shouldn't have any kids!
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_III_and_his_Grandsons
  Except this guy, with his grandchildren. One who is a Bishop. Appointed by him.
  
  --
  try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
76. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by frogjimmy · 2013-03-14 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh yes, the People's Pope. Perfect foil to the Archbishop of Canterbury's 'bad guy' image. The run up to Christ-o-mania XV should be good. PPV buy rates should be off the charts!
77. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by ArsenneLupin · 2013-03-14 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  nephews
78. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-14 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  And as an atheist, I have no problem saying your entire religion is bogus, and any historians confirming the existence of Jesus are religious people engaged in confirmation bias, because the actual presentable evidence is pretty substandard.
  See how easy that was. It's easy to dismiss the religious beliefs of others.
79. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  One of my classmates in grad school is the daughter of a Catholic priest.
  Her father is a devout Catholic, was married, had kids, etc. His wife (my classmate's mother) died. Her dad then went to seminary and was ordained a priest. The decision was based on the fact that he was celibate before and after marriage, did not violate any major church laws during any of that time, etc., so the Archbishop in Montreal said OK and the guy's now a priest.
80. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by kamapuaa · 2013-03-14 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  There's no doubt that he was an apostle in the sense of "the first or the best-known Christian missionary in any region or country."
  
  --
  Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
81. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  Part of it is how inerrant you believe the Bible really is: there's reason to believe that the "Upon this rock I shall build my church" verse in the Bible was inserted by those wishing to bolster the Papacy's claims.
  If you look at the original language it indicates that when Jesus said "Upon this rock" he was referring to himself, not Peter. The context was lost in translation (intentionally?).
82. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by Seeteufel · 2013-03-14 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Otto von Bismarck would agree that Jesuits are dangerous.
83. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-14 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  And as an atheist, I have no problem saying your entire religion is bogus, and any historians confirming the existence of Jesus are religious people engaged in confirmation bias, because the actual presentable evidence is pretty substandard.
  I like how youre willing to throw away dozens of eyewitness and historical accounts of Jesus existance, for the sake of a complete LACK of evidence that he was a myth.
  So Clement, Josephus, Luke, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, all full of nonsense? Paul, a completely mythical figure? Why does the Jewish Talmud confirm that Jesus lived and died? Why does Lucian confirm his existence?
  Even Wikipedia notes that
  
  Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed
  But apparently only religious people are capable of putting their blinders on and denying reality to support their presuppositions, right?
84. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-14 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  3/4ths of those people were born after Jesus supposedly died. How can they possibly be eyewitness accounts? Do you know that historians in that era would write what they heard from others to help build their histories, and that modern historians know that?
  As to Luke, that was an oral history for decades before it was written down, and contains elements that suggest it was derived from the gospel of mark, which was definitely written by someone who never met Jesus.
  I mean, this is exactly the sort of thing that I was talking about. Your traditional beliefs are sacrosanct, inviolable history despite being supported by dubious evidence at best, but Catholics, they're the crazy ones. I don't mind being wrong, I am quite frequently, but you need to seriously examine just what material your house is made of before you go throwing stones about.
  I wasn't actually contending Jesus didn't exist, I was just highlighting that your beliefs are based on absurdity too. And you should really take a look at the citation given for your pull-quote. The line clearly a synthesis drawn from misrepresenting the lack of affirmative denial as the same as supporting the Historical Jesus hypothesis. The two are not the same. It even incorporates a statement of a scholar who says exactly that. That [9][10] there doesn't mean a statement is factually true every time it's present. I've followed that debate on wikipedia for a while, and the long term consensus is that any change is too contentious to make, even if that the statement isn't perfectly accurate.
85. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by ultranova · 2013-03-14 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  So how are we to know when the end is actually nigh, so we can, you know, confess our sins and get our "get out of hell free" card?
  
  Free?
  Early Christianity might have been a hippie commune, but the Catholic Church is another kind of enterprise entirely: "Mighty fine soul you have there, pity if it caught fire or something. Better buy some insurance."
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
86. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-14 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Im sure that the Jews were trying to defend the Christian faith when they remarked about Yeshua being hanged on a tree on the night of passover.
  
  Your traditional beliefs are sacrosanct, inviolable history despite being supported by dubious evidence at best,
  Im not sure you understand how piecemeal a lot of history is. Reading an intro to a translation of Eusebius, one of the things that jumped out at me was how much of his works have been lost. Eusebius himself noted how little of christian history had been recorded (~300AD) aside from a few sources. The Bible is generally seen as a remarkably accurate historical record, preserved in a way that few other historical records are.
  I find it amazing that some people (such apparently as yourself) will insist that the bible-- the 4 accounts in the gospel and Acts-- does not suffice as any sort of evidence. OK, i say, lets use the Talmud, Tacitus, Eusebius, Josephus. "Not good enough!" comes the response, we need eyewitnesses, and not from the Bible! What other historical figures are subject to such scrutiny? Is the rosetta stone thrown out since we only have the one copy of it? Do we doubt the existence of King Narmer because we only have a few records of him? Since when are several corroborating accounts from historical figures who claim to be eyewitnesses, along with several later compiled histories about said figures, considered to be "traditional belief" rather than "historical evidence"?
  
  I wasn't actually contending Jesus didn't exist,
  Not so fast--your exact words were
  and any historians confirming the existence of Jesus are religious people engaged in confirmation bias
  Which is utter nonsense. I challenge you to find a single reputable historian who denies the historicity of Jesus.
  
  The line clearly a synthesis drawn from misrepresenting the lack of affirmative denial as the same as supporting the Historical Jesus hypothesis
  From Wikipedia, the full sentence which starts a new paragraph:
  Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7]
  I think saying "theories which say he did not exist are generally agreed to be wrong" is the same as saying "it is generally agreed that a correct theory will say that he existed".
  not(A.exists)==$false ==> A.exists==$true
  Youre welcome to reference an article on Jstor or some other journal that denies this, if you like.
  
  and the long term consensus is that any change is too contentious to make, even if that the statement isn't perfectly accurate.
  OK, name me some reputable scholars who deny the existence of Jesus, and on what grounds they discard all the evidence we have.
87. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by j-beda · 2013-03-14 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  One of my classmates in grad school is the daughter of a Catholic priest.
  Her father is a devout Catholic, was married, had kids, etc. His wife (my classmate's mother) died. Her dad then went to seminary and was ordained a priest. The decision was based on the fact that he was celibate before and after marriage, did not violate any major church laws during any of that time, etc., so the Archbishop in Montreal said OK and the guy's now a priest.
  I think you can also convert from being an Anglican priest and keep your wife. And the Eastern Catholic Churches (in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church) allows married men to be ordained
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy
  and
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_provision
  "Since at least the early 1950s, former Anglican, Lutheran and other clergy who join the Catholic Church have been granted such exceptions and is a practice mentioned in Pope Paul VI's encyclical Sacerdotalis caelibatus of 1967."
  So if you plan ahead, you might be able to be a married priest, but it looks like you cannot make it to Bishop in the RCC.
88. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by RoknrolZombie · 2013-03-14 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I actually realized that the word I should have used was "doctrine", as well...
89. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-15 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  I can't deal with this. I find a substantive difference between not affirming something and denying something, and objecting to those affirming something blindly, is a serious problem.
  Your post lacks exactly the kind of thorough contemporary documentation that would be inviolable, which as much as you try to twist what I said, all I was contending. I'm not going to be cornered into defending a position I don't take, and I don't appreciate you dictating to me what I think.
90. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by LordLimecat · 2013-03-15 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can see I simply quoted your exact words. If youre not willing to back up what you said, dont say it, and dont accuse others of confirmation bias.
91. Re:OMG the Last Pope EVAR!!!!!!!1 by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-15 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  You quoted my exact words then refused to acknowledge what they meant.
Slashtroll by OakDragon · 2013-03-13 07:46 · Score: 0

Please, you KNOW what this thread is for!

--
Dark Reflection
1. Re:Slashtroll by Trepidity · 2013-03-13 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Page views?
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm Argentine and proud that the first non-european pope is from Argentina!!! congratulations Bergolio!!
Soy argentino y es un orgullo que el primer papa no europeo sea argentino!!! felicidades Bergolio!!
1. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by RLiegh · 2013-03-13 07:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  the first non-european pope
  Whoa -slow down there, cowboy!
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:African_popes
2. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'm from Argentina too and I'm not proud of the new pope because of who he is. Which is a shame, sharing the country of origin shouldn't be something to be ashamed of.
3. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by cervesaebraciator · 2013-03-13 07:59 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  In the ancient conception of the world, North Africa was sometimes reckoned as part of Europe (though Egypt was not). Culturally, during the lives of these popes, it was thoroughly European inasmuch as it was thoroughly Latinized. In one important sense, therefore, one could get away with saying that these popes were as European as any others. Of course, culture isn't the only important sense, but maybe this is how he got it in his head.
  There were, in any case, at least five Syrian popes and Syria was reckoned part of Asia even by pre-moderns. Pope Francis remains only the most recent non-European pope.
4. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  ok :( he is first pope born in american continent. right?
5. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by davidwr · 2013-03-13 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Pope Francis remains only the most recent non-European pope.
  Pope Francis remains the most recent __FILL_IN_THE_BLANK__ Pope, at least until we have another new Pope.
  
  --
  Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
6. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by Seeteufel · 2013-03-13 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  It is not about being Argentinian or German or whatever. He is the SJ pope, a jesuite.
7. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  The first white hispanic pope then?
8. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  These popes were from Roman Empire back then, which is considered Europe. A more modern example is Russia. It is considered a European nation while majority of its landmass is in Asia.
  So yes, first non-European pope.
9. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by nitehawk214 · 2013-03-13 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm Argentine and proud that the first non-european pope is from Argentina!!! congratulations Bergolio!!
  Soy argentino y es un orgullo que el primer papa no europeo sea argentino!!! felicidades Bergolio!!
  Uhh, what about the first one?
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
10. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by hawguy · 2013-03-13 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Pope Francis remains only the most recent non-European pope.
  Pope Francis remains the most recent __FILL_IN_THE_BLANK__ Pope, at least until we have another new Pope.
  Not true if FILL_IN_THE_BLANK is "deceased" or "resigned".
11. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by pjt33 · 2013-03-13 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Are you excluding the popes who were actually from Spain from your definition of "Hispanic"?
12. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  Soy argentino y es un orgullo que el primer papa no europeo sea argentino!!!
  Yo no soy marinero
  Yo no soy marinero, soy capitan
  Soy capitan, soy capitan
  Bamba, bamba...
13. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know why they didn't just say he's the first Pope from the New World? I mean, that's a pretty big first, right?
14. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-03-13 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  By the same account, one could argue that Argentina (and the entire Latin America) is culturally a European offshoot. After all, they speak a European language, and practice religion taken directly from Europe.
15. Re:viva Argentina and Bergolio!!! by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm Argentine and proud that the first non-european pope is from Argentina!!! congratulations Bergolio!!
  Soy argentino y es un orgullo que el primer papa no europeo sea argentino!!! felicidades Bergolio!!
  Yes, it's nice of the Catholics to let a third world country have a go.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So what religion does he belong to? by Marrow · 2013-03-13 07:47 · Score: 5, Funny

linux, mac, vi, or emacs? :)
1. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-03-13 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  He leads a major denomination, Bud. He's a Mac guy.
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
2. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by j00r0m4nc3r · 2013-03-13 08:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Eunuchs
3. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  What if you run linux on a mac, running emacs in vi mode?
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
4. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  pico?
5. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  What if you run linux on a mac, running emacs in vi mode?
  Then you are an Anglican.
6. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by Just+Some+Guy · 2013-03-13 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Sublime.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
7. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Only fire for the heretic.
8. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  What if you run linux on a mac, running emacs in vi mode?
  HERETIC!
  [hanover fist] Hangin's too good for him! Burning's too good for him! His CPU should be shredded into little tiny pieces and BURIED ALIVE! [/hanover fist]
9. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Than you are unitarian universalist
10. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-03-13 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  They always had a fancier building that the Methodists over the road.
  The only thing that will outlive the church is the roof maintenance fund for the church.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
11. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by ikaruga · 2013-03-13 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  I think you just described hell
12. Re:So what religion does he belong to? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-15 17:04 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, I thought you said major denomination, yet Apple desktop products amount for about 5%. What he leads is a major denomination that has long outlived its useful lifespan. I'm pegging him for OS/2
name change by bmorency · 2013-03-13 07:48 · Score: 1

Does anyone know why they don't go by their real name?
1. Re:name change by OakDragon · 2013-03-13 07:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The tradition was started when a Pope named Mecurious (Mercury) was elected. He thought that a Christian Pope with a pagan name wasn't kosher (so to speak), so he took the name "John" (I think it was John).
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
2. Re:name change by acariquara · 2013-03-13 07:53 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  It's easier to commit crimes against humanity when they are going to be pinned to a different name than yours.
  
  --
  Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
3. Re:name change by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-03-13 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  Tax evasion, of course!
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
4. Re:name change by Darkness404 · 2013-03-13 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Regnal names are used for a number of reasons, for one it adds a bit of "dynasty" to the papacy since Catholics believe that the Popes are an unbroken continuation from Peter, it helps to give more cohesion to the naming. Also, it avoids pitfalls such as having the name of Peter (for example, someone might be born Peter but would not want to take the regnal name of Peter II for obvious reasons!) or to avoid a stigma associated with the name. For example, when Charles Prince of Wales will take the throne he most likely will not be called Charles III because Charles I and Charles II had disastrous reigns and legacies. Instead he will pick something like George VIII since all of the Georges (except for George IV) had pretty respectable reigns.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
5. Re:name change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  The tradition was started when a Pope named Mecurious (Mercury) was elected.
  Pope Mercury is remembered for his humility. He once said, "I'm just a poor boy and nobody loves me"; and indeed he was just a poor boy from a poor family.
6. Re:name change by IronChef · 2013-03-13 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  If I were Pope, I'd choose a sweet name like "Maximum Hammer." These guys are squandering the chance of a lifetime!
7. Re:name change by alexander_686 · 2013-03-13 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Also, the pope is a “prince” and gets a regal name – just like when any other royal ascends to the throne. This is partly done to distinguish between their prior personal life (when they spoke for themselves) verse the royal state where they are the state (Royal “We”, body of the state/church, etc.)
8. Re:name change by Rakarra · 2013-03-14 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  The tradition was started when a Pope named Mecurious (Mercury) was elected.
  Pope Mercury is remembered for his humility. He once said, "I'm just a poor boy and nobody loves me"; and indeed he was just a poor boy from a poor family.
  I'm sure Freddie must have had a pope outfit. He wore just about any other sort of costume.
The hat, the hat, the hat is on FIRE! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:48 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnUaUXZrYb0
Oh, Holy Shit!
He has substantial Vatican experience. by david.emery · 2013-03-13 07:49 · Score: 1

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Bergoglio
"As cardinal, Bergoglio was appointed to several administrative positions in the Roman Curia. He served on the Congregation of Clergy, Congregation of Divine Worship and Sacraments, Congregation of Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Congregation of Societies of Apostolic Life. Bergoglio became a member of the Commission on Latin American and the Family Council."
1. Re:He has substantial Vatican experience. by bluefoxlucid · 2013-03-13 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Why the hell are we letting little birds run a religion?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
really, slashdot? by kimvette · 2013-03-13 07:49 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Does Slashdot really need to carry this story? It has nothing to do with science, tech, gaming, or anything relevant.
It has everything to do with homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic, and racist organization which puts on airs of setting out to do good but in reality protects child diddlers and extorting money from gullible followers while ignoring the bible which it purports to follow, nothing to do with science or tech. Why again is this on slashdot?

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
1. Re:really, slashdot? by Extremus · 2013-03-13 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Well, I was amazed how fast his article in Wikipedia got updated. It didn't take more than a minute. Also, many big news websites in my country are down. That never happened before, as far as I know.
2. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  It has everything to do with homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic, and racist organization which puts on airs of setting out to do good but in reality protects child diddlers and extorting money from gullible followers
  The church or Xbox Live?
3. Re:really, slashdot? by LordLimecat · 2013-03-13 08:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because it has a substantial impact on the world.
4. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe it serves to expose how cynical that organization is. Bergoglio is known here in Argentina for his supporting of Videla's dictatorship.
5. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  Is it you, Satan?
6. Re:really, slashdot? by Taibhsear · 2013-03-13 08:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Does Slashdot really need to carry this story? It has nothing to do with science, tech, gaming, or anything relevant.
  It has everything to do with homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic, and racist organization which puts on airs of setting out to do good but in reality protects child diddlers and extorting money from gullible followers while ignoring the bible which it purports to follow, nothing to do with science or tech. Why again is this on slashdot?
  Know thine enemy.
7. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  Really? Like more substantial that the last guy?
  I'm genuinely curious what kind of substantial impact you imagine might occur.
8. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Satan, is it you?
9. Re:really, slashdot? by addie · 2013-03-13 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  You may have noticed over the years that us Slashdotters really, really enjoy being indignant.
10. Re:really, slashdot? by LordLimecat · 2013-03-13 08:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He might make statements that are held to be authoritative by 1.2billion people?
11. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  So do lots of things that aren't relevant to Slashdot.
12. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  New guy gets job at church. Woo!
13. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  I would say it matters.
  (The prophecy of the popes is quite a geeky thing to be interested in.)
14. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Well, no, the choosing of a new pope who has claimed to uphold the existing rules of the church has virtually no impact on the world. In fact, the existence of a new pope will have almost zero impact on the world as a whole.
15. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  It will also be plastered on every single news outlet in the world.
  Its not like anyone would miss that there is a new pope if it wasn't on slashdot.
16. Re:really, slashdot? by ThePeices · 2013-03-13 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Because it has a substantial impact on the world.
  Nerds != The World.
17. Re:really, slashdot? by EricTheGreen · 2013-03-13 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  To let the (sizeable) theophobic subpopulation of Slashdot members have an opportunity for a rant, perhaps?
18. Re:really, slashdot? by Sprouticus · 2013-03-13 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  no, it won't. The church policies will be the same. The church will not change one bit under this pope, aside form maybe some window dressing. Anyone who thinks the pope really matters needs to examine how the church has worked in the last 200 years.
19. Re:really, slashdot? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  It has everything to do with homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic, and racist organization which puts on airs of setting out to do good but in reality protects child diddlers and extorting money from gullible followers
  The church or Xbox Live?
  Most of those things are exaggerations and hyperbole about the Catholic Church.
  However, they are spot-on for Xbox Live.
20. Re:really, slashdot? by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  I can't believe you would say that. How insulting!
21. Re:really, slashdot? by hairyfish · 2013-03-13 13:10 · Score: 2
  
  Where does that 1.2 Billion figure come from? My neighbour claims to be Catholic. She doesn't go to church or even believe in the God, she just says she is because her parents were and she was baptised as a baby. How many other people in the world fall under this category? If we classified religious people as" willing to die for their cause" rather than "I think it sounds good to say I am" then I think the number would be closer to 1.2 thousand. And lets face it, if you really believed in a big man in the sky who made everything, and can make you live forever you would happily die for it, because ultimately you actually believe you're not going to die your actually going somewhere better. I call poppycock on this so called "belief" (unless you're a radical muslim, those dudes actually truly do believe that shit).
22. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  Also, many big news websites in my country are down. That never happened before, as far as I know.
  Crazy isn't it. Apparently some kid ran up a UKP1000 bill buying virtual doughnuts on an iPad. The story went viral, and look at the consequences. I blame Steve Jobs, myself.
23. Re:really, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 17:26 · Score: 0
  
  My neighbour claims to be Catholic. She doesn't go to church or even believe in the God,
  So she really is catholic.
24. Re:really, slashdot? by gd2shoe · 2013-03-13 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  He might make statements that are held to be authoritative by some fraction of 1.2 billion people?
  FTFY
  (A considerable percentage of Catholics are very, very non-practicing. But they still call themselves Catholic, and appear on church records. It's like that with all organized Faiths, but seems to be more-so with the Roman Catholics.)
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
25. Re:really, slashdot? by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Because it has a substantial impact on the world.
  Nerds != The World.
  Nerds are a subset of the world, genius.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
26. Re:really, slashdot? by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic and racist posters on slashdot too, so an article on the Pope should suit quite a lot of readers.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
27. Re:really, slashdot? by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  As an atheist I can't be theophobic, since it's illogical to be afraid of (or hate) something imaginary.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
28. Re:really, slashdot? by Painted · 2013-03-14 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  I take offence to this! It is an outrage! /froth
  
  --
  http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
29. Re:really, slashdot? by LordLimecat · 2013-03-14 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I call poppycock on this so called "belief"
  Thats probably because you neither know your history nor much about contemporary missionary work.
  There are a great deal more than 1.2 thousand people "willing to die for their cause"; China has 60 million people who claim to be christian, in a country that will arrest you for proseletyzing and bar you from public office for claiming Christ. Im not sure how many practicing Jews were killed during the holocaust, but Im sure it was more than 1.2 thousand. Even during the first 4 centuries, particularly 200-350AD, im sure more than 1.2 thousand christians were deprived of property, judicial rights, and even their lives due to refusing to give up their faith.
  So call poppycock all you like; if youd ever like to join reality, I suggest you read about the persecutions in China, under Diocletian, in many parts of southeast Asia, in the Middle East, and in Africa for people who refuse to give up their faith.
  You are correct of course, that 1.2billion is probably the official, inflated number, but there really isnt a better number that Im aware of, and technically "calling yourself catholic" is to make the claim that you hold the Pope's words to have some degree of authority; its not my place to say "they lie", nor is it yours.
30. Re:really, slashdot? by EricTheGreen · 2013-03-14 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  But to someone who does believe, you are every bit the theophobe. Your perspective is as irrelevant to their assessment as theirs is to yours.
31. Re:really, slashdot? by isorox · 2013-03-17 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I was amazed how fast his article in Wikipedia got updated. It didn't take more than a minute. Also, many big news websites in my country are down. That never happened before, as far as I know.
  What are you, a teenager?
  Slashdot was pretty much the only news site accessible on Sep 11th 2001.
All hail to the new king of the pedophiles. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:50 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Who I for one do not welcome.
Do we have to call him "Psycho"? by chill · 2013-03-13 07:50 · Score: 1

As Sergeant "Big Toe" Hulka Said, "Lighten up, Francis!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Funtastic! by warrax_666 · 2013-03-13 07:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now will he renounce the current Catholic stance on condoms, so that perhaps we can save, oh, hundres of thousands or even millions of lives?
Will he: Disawow the insane and puerile dogma of original sin?
(Etc.)

--
HAND.
1. Re:Funtastic! by kimvette · 2013-03-13 08:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Will he: Disawow the insane and puerile dogma of original sin?
  . . . and espouse the good news of salvation by grace which was promised by the one they claim to follow?
  Of course not. That would end Catholic guilt, and eliminate the need for indulgences.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
2. Re:Funtastic! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you think original sin is insane and puerile? I mean, insane, sure, but puerile?
  Try to study something that was believed by the greatest minds of Christendom for a thousand years before calling it puerile.
  Here's what I think it means. Babies are annoying, they live in six of seven deadly sins - greed, envy, wrath, pride, sloth, gluttony. As they grow up, they are taught to moderate these impulses and be civilized.
  At baptism, besides water being poured on the baby, a "godfather" is named for the baby. In the event that the parents are incapacitated, the godfather will step in and ensure that the baby is raised properly.
  It's not like there aren't puritans (or rather the intellectual descendants thereof, with just as much emotional terrorism and imminentizing the eschatology) who believe in original sin nowadays, either. Sometimes, they'll even undergo a more humiliating procedure than getting splashed with water to cleanse themselves of white privilege.
3. Re:Funtastic! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  Original sin is just thermodynamics. Error is inevitable. Christian doctrine on original sin is just the end result of a game of Chinese telephone which started from that truth. Just because you don't understand the lesson you've received doesn't mean there isn't anything behind it.
4. Re:Funtastic! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  How in the world could a change in the Catholic stance on condoms save lives?
  Don't tell me that people who ignore Catholic teachings on fornication will listen to Catholic teachings on condoms.
5. Re:Funtastic! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  Oh yes, just what we need. I'm sure if Luther were living in our time, he'd have posted his 95 theses on Slashdot. Where else could you find an audience better qualified to discuss the finer points of theology?
  </sarcasm>
6. Re:Funtastic! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, you believe that you just get into heaven because well... because? Then who is going to Hell? And I know you believe people are going to Hell, because Protestants are much better at the good old Hellfire than even Mother Church is.
  I get that Jesus died for our sins, and that's important, but you really think you have nothing to prove? You can just sit in some mutual admiration society in a megachurch and talk about how you're going to heaven? Call me crazy, but I don't buy it. Jesus didn't just shoot laser beams out of his eyes and save all of us, he walked around and did things to help people. If Jesus took the time to do good works, then why are you immune?
7. Re:Funtastic! by Holammer · 2013-03-13 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Get rid of original sin? That's like getting rid of the 'One Ring' from Lord of the Rings.
  The entire narrative rests on this plot device.
8. Re:Funtastic! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  My kingdom for a mod point.
9. Re:Funtastic! by Rakarra · 2013-03-14 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  How in the world could a change in the Catholic stance on condoms save lives?
  Don't tell me that people who ignore Catholic teachings on fornication will listen to Catholic teachings on condoms.
  It's more the Catholic Church being successful at blocking official support for contraception in my 3rd-world countries. It's not that contraception is available and usable in the 3rd world, but a priest says "don't do it!" It's more that a church is successful at keeping contraception out of an entire area.
10. Re:Funtastic! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-15 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  He has stated that using condoms for the purpose of preventing disease is okay, but using them to prevent children is not. So yes, he might at least make some significant inroads there!
stupid pope by kkonrad · 2013-03-13 07:51 · Score: 1

it's just what the world needs. another stupid pope...
1. Re:stupid pope by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  AFAIK this pope has a master in chemistry, one in philosophy and one in theology and a PhD.
2. Re:stupid pope by kkonrad · 2013-03-13 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  so you are saying he is not stupid for his master collection?
  this makes me think that being so clever he should believe in fairy tales... (ie god)
Bigoted by Bonker · 2013-03-13 07:51 · Score: 3, Informative

This guy has said that allowing gay couples to adopt children is a form of discrimination against the children.
So a lot's going to change in Vatican City

--
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
1. Re:Bigoted by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Yes indeed, they will change their clothes daily.
Don't forget by lesincompetent · 2013-03-13 07:53 · Score: 0

to stress his collusion with the Pinochet regime in Argentina.
1. Re:Don't forget by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  you mean the Pinochet regime in CHILE, right?
2. Re:Don't forget by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  They are often confused, but Pinochet was Chilean. Bergoglio supported Videla's dictatorship with its thousands of murders including nuns and priests known for their left wing ideas.
3. Re:Don't forget by marjancek · 2013-03-13 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  to stress his collusion with the Pinochet regime in Argentina.
  Get informed: Pinochet == Chile
  But yes, he was presumably involved with the Argentine military government of 1976.
4. Re:Don't forget by lesincompetent · 2013-03-13 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  I was trying to be snarky towards all those conspiracy nuts i hear all around me :)
5. Re:Don't forget by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  to stress his collusion with the Pinochet regime in Argentina.
  Yeah, and his support of Hitler's reign in the United States!
No word yet on papal shitting location. by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-03-13 07:57 · Score: 4, Funny

The woods, however, are still the traditional choice.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Because of Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:57 · Score: 0

He changed Simon's name to Saint Peter, the very first Pope.
Let me speak for everyone here: by Nimey · 2013-03-13 07:57 · Score: 1

"Lighten up, Francis."

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Oh well. by Minwee · 2013-03-13 07:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Better luck next time Richard Stallman.
So, basically nothing changes by Looker_Device · 2013-03-13 07:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception
Guess he'll continue the long, proud tradition of covering for child molesters too.

--
Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
1. Re:So, basically nothing changes by Tyrannicsupremacy · 2013-03-13 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  ...What variable would you expect to have caused change if someone else had been elected pope?
  
  --
  http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
2. Re:So, basically nothing changes by Looker_Device · 2013-03-14 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they maybe could have started with electing a Pope who doesn't still believe in 2013 that it's part of God's holy plan for starving poor people to not have contraception. I mean, if you want the Church to remain relevant in the 21st century, you may at least want to go with a Pope who supports something that 90% of modern Catholics already believe. Monty Python even did a cute song about it.
  
  --
  Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
3. Re:So, basically nothing changes by Tyrannicsupremacy · 2013-03-14 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  Well, none of the candidates were like that, so what's your point?
  
  --
  http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
Sounds like some validation message by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 07:58 · Score: 0

"New pope selected" "New account created"....
In related news ... by PPH · 2013-03-13 08:00 · Score: 5, Funny

... still only black smoke from the US Congressional budget committees.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:In related news ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 14:49 · Score: 0
  
  Same thing from the EU budget negotiations. Springs are bitches for the manic-depressive.
The yo-yo man. by Pahroza · 2013-03-13 08:01 · Score: 1

Ah, the yang to Black Francis' yin has been revealed.
Initially a chemist by schneidafunk · 2013-03-13 08:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

I find it interesting he was initially trained as a chemist. "Bergoglio taught literature, psychology, philosophy and theology before taking over as Buenos Aires archbishop in 1998."

http://news.yahoo.com/francis-first-pope-americas-193844474.html

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
1. Re:Initially a chemist by RDW · 2013-03-13 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  ...and got a master's degree, apparently. Is this the first Pope with a science qualification? Other papal trivia - he reportedly had a lung removed as a teenager, which obviously hasn't held him back.
2. Re:Initially a chemist by Bigby · 2013-03-13 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, a Masters in Chemistry
3. Re:Initially a chemist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  I believe that Jesuits, such as Bergoglio, have the reputation for being scholarly and scientific.
4. Re:Initially a chemist by alexander_686 · 2013-03-13 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  He is a Jesuit – Big emphasis on education - they all have post-grad degrees. As part of the Counter Reformation the Catholics decided that they needed better intellectual firepower so the Jesuits were created. They run a lot of schools – IIRC Bill Clinton went to one for primary education. They are also known for their particular strident/rigors methods of thought and debate. (i.e. they tend to turn out better lawyers then chemist.)
5. Re:Initially a chemist by Carewolf · 2013-03-13 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  The church used to sponsor and teach most science as a study of Gods creation. Plus if you go back before the enlightenment there was not much of a distinction between theology and philosophy (what we now call science). So no I don't think you should start debating the science qualifications of historical popes.
6. Re:Initially a chemist by treeves · 2013-03-13 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  There have been many Catholic scientists, see:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists
  I was looking for another well-known chemist who was a Jesuit, and whose name I cannot remember, and I could not find him...
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
7. Re:Initially a chemist by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  The Jesuits are like the Spanish Inquisition, but without their fanatical devotion to the Pope, oddly enough.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It's part of a coded messge. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:01 · Score: 0

Notice, the last 3 stories - 3 Trilogy Trinity - 1. "Users Flock To Firewall-Busting Thesis Project" 2. "Book Review: Hadoop Beginner's Guide" 3. "Point and Shoot 3D Modeling (Video)"
And then the story about the Pope.
See, for those in the Illuminati, they know now that by using Hadopp and firewell busting techniques, they can model 3D the entire plan that they have for World denomination with the Pope in charge.
It's quite apparent of you have the ultra-violet light app.
Obligatory Post. by tetrahedrassface · 2013-03-13 08:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

For Catholics this is big deal.. So congrats to them. I'm only really commenting because of an accidental moderation up there ^. Anyway, in world that increasingly tries to tear things down, at least the Catholics know where he stands on some issues. Nothing will change, and they'll stand by their beliefs and that's okay because it's a free world..... So with that... See ya.
1. Re:Obligatory Post. by PhxBlue · 2013-03-13 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. A free world ... unless you're a Catholic who was born gay, or, for that matter, a Catholic who was born female.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
2. Re:Obligatory Post. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  You are as free as ever to reject your Catholic beliefs if you don't agree with them.
3. Re:Obligatory Post. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Being catholic is a free choice. You aren't born a catholic.
4. Re:Obligatory Post. by Bigby · 2013-03-13 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  "... unless you are a Catholic" = choice. No one is born Catholic.
5. Re:Obligatory Post. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  But there is millions of catholic women.
6. Re:Obligatory Post. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  I am confused. Are you trying to insult Catholics, gay's or women?
  Probably you aren't trying to insult anybody.
  I always get that malice!=stupidity statement mixed up too.
7. Re:Obligatory Post. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, i was baptized within an hour, due to being at risk of death.
  Since then I've pretty much chosen not to have sex with other men. And ruled out a sex change (mostly on financial grounds)
  I think that choosing not to be a catholic, after being one is the ultimate failure of logic.
  The reason most failed catholics become anti religious schmucks, is because they beleive they are going to hell.
  Let me tell you, you're not going to hell. You are going to spend eternity in heaven and not realize it. Much like your hate filled existance in this world. But longer.
8. Re:Obligatory Post. by FireFury03 · 2013-03-13 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. A free world ... unless you're a Catholic who was born gay, or, for that matter, a Catholic who was born female.
  Or, in fact, not catholic at all since they try to use their power to prevent legislators giving everyone else freedoms...
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
9. Re:Obligatory Post. by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Anyway, in world that increasingly tries to tear things down, at least the Catholics know where he stands on some issues.
  Big deal. We know where the Taliban stand on many issues. That doesn't make them right.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
10. Re:Obligatory Post. by PhxBlue · 2013-03-14 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  None of the above. Don't have to insult anyone in order to call the Vatican out on their centuries-long tirade of bullshit.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
11. Re:Obligatory Post. by PhxBlue · 2013-03-14 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and they're considered second-class citizens according to Christian dogma. At least most Protestant denominations have accepted them as ministers, but the Vatican can't even do that.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
12. Re:Obligatory Post. by PhxBlue · 2013-03-14 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  "... unless you are a Catholic" = choice. No one is born Catholic.
  Which is why I didn't say "unless you're born Catholic and ..."
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
13. Re:Obligatory Post. by PhxBlue · 2013-03-14 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  The reason most failed catholics become anti religious schmucks, is because they beleive they are going to hell.
  Emphasis mine. I think most of those "failed Catholics" you're talking about would probably call themselves recovering Catholics.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
14. Re:Obligatory Post. by PhxBlue · 2013-03-14 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have any Catholic beliefs. But the beliefs are really irrelevant -- it's the Vatican's actions that matter here. I'm judging the tree by its fruit, if you will.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
15. Re:Obligatory Post. by Bigby · 2013-03-14 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  Most are baptized really quickly. I was baptized within a week. Today, people are baptized within months.
  News: That doesn't make you Catholic. Confirmation makes you Catholic. Baptism, within the Catholic Church, is about your parents (and god parents) raising you within the Catholic traditions.
I for one by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:05 · Score: 0

Welcome our new papal overlord
Re:name change (let's suggest better names!) by undeadbill · 2013-03-13 08:06 · Score: 1

I think Francis is kind of a lame name for a pope. You would name a pet pig or a badger Francis.
I think Steve would be a good name. It sounds like a nice safe name. We should call him Pope Steve!
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND POWERFUL STEVE!
Wait, where did that come from? Ok, Hypnopope Steve, then. Any better names?
Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:07 · Score: 0

queue (ky)
n.
1. A line of waiting people or vehicles.
2. A long braid of hair worn hanging down the back of the neck; a pigtail.
3. Computer Science
a. A sequence of stored data or programs awaiting processing.
b. A data structure from which the first item that can be retrieved is the one stored earliest.
intr.v. queued, queuing, queues
To get in line: queue up at the box office.
[French, from Old French cue, tail, from Latin cauda, cda.]
Word History: When the British stand in queues (as they have been doing at least since 1837, when this meaning of the word is first recorded in English), they may not realize they form a tail. The French word queue from which the English word is borrowed is a descendant of Latin cda, meaning "tail." French queue appeared in 1748 in English, referring to a plait of hair hanging down the back of the neck. By 1802 wearing a queue was a regulation in the British army, but by the mid-19th century queues had disappeared along with cocked hats. Latin cda is also the source of Italian coda, which was adopted into English as a musical term (like so many other English musical terms that come from Italian). A coda is thus literally the "tail end" of a movement or composition.
1. Re:Fail by Aaden42 · 2013-03-13 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  cue 1 |kyoo| [Mac OS X's Dictionary.app]
  noun
  1. a thing said or done that serves as a signal to an actor or other performer to enter or to begin their speech or performance.
  2. a signal for action: any conversational lull was my cue for asking a question.
  3. a piece of information or circumstance that aids the memory in retrieving details not recalled spontaneously.
  As in: Bigots, it's time to do your thing. This is your cue.
2. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Who knows what the OP was thinking...line them all up or signal them to all start hating.
Great... by marjancek · 2013-03-13 08:08 · Score: 1

...yet another old right-wing homo-phobic Pope that will have to retire in less than 10 years.
Though I'm actually surprised they've chosen him considering the suspicions on his involvement in the forced disappearances during the last dictatorship in Argentina.
Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:08 · Score: 0

As a Quebecker, the last thing we needed was a Quebecois Pope. We have enough government here already, thanks, I don't need yet another layer of authority.
Thought I was on Slashdot ... by rok3 · 2013-03-13 08:08 · Score: 1

... but I must be mistaken.
Why on /. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:10 · Score: 0

Does this matter?
Just imagine... by DougOtto · 2013-03-13 08:11 · Score: 0

how proud his wife and kids are.

--
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
Irish? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:12 · Score: 0

He was probably drunk when he wrote it.
Name by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:12 · Score: 0

Does anyone else know someone with the name Francis?
1. Re:Name by fran6gagne · 2013-03-13 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  My name is Francis you insensitive clod!
2. Re:Name by InsectOverlord · 2013-03-13 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Just an oldish variation of a rather common name.
  Know any Catholic (or Catholic-raised person) named Frank? He may very well have been baptized Francis.
  Similarly, do you know anyone named Benedict?
  Well, guess what, I am not sure I know one, because they probably go by Ben.
76 years old? by Chris+Mattern · 2013-03-13 08:13 · Score: 0

Well, it's about time they put somebody from the new generation in. Fresh blood and all that.
Very disappointed in Slashdot by Shivetya · 2013-03-13 08:17 · Score: 1

that such a hate filled post is rated as high. It is an irrational venomous posting and nothing more that contributes nothing to the conversation.
While you may not like the Church or its elected leaders they exert a large influence good and bad throughout the world and acknowledging changes in their structure are worthy our time. Through the actions of Popes and the structures within the Church many leading scientist look for both spiritual guidance and in some cases cover in the form of acceptance of what their life's work entails.
Yes they have bad people in the Church, guess what there are people who think a similar problem but on a much larger scale exists within the public school systems, it is no reason for your hate filled diatribe.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
1. Re:Very disappointed in Slashdot by kimvette · 2013-03-13 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  I have nothing against the people in the church. I believe they are deceived, misled, and lost.
  I have everything against the clergy. I'd rather someone be overtly evil than covertly evil.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
2. Re:Very disappointed in Slashdot by hairyfish · 2013-03-13 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  While you may not like the Church or its elected leaders they exert a large influence good and bad throughout the world
  Do they really? I know church leaders would like you to think this is the case, and they'll show you images of thousands of poor uneducated people dancing in their honour, to back that up, but if the church ceased to exist overnight I doubt much in the world would change. The sheep would find something else to latch onto, and the rich and powerful would keep doing what they're doing. In real terms, Warren Buffet probably holds more sway than anything the man in the funny hat does.
The light grows brighter by tepples · 2013-03-13 08:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

Religions appear to prefer stagnation, at least at their upper levels.
Do Jehovah's Witnesses buck this trend? Look at some of the "new light" that has come from their cardinals as they have grown in understanding of the Bible.
1. Re:The light grows brighter by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure that they still think that I shouldn't have a blood transfusion after I crash my motorcycle and lose a couple pints, so I'm not buying what they're selling.
2. Re:The light grows brighter by billstewart · 2013-03-13 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  They've had to change. It's what happens when you predict the End of the World, and it doesn't happen, and you rewrite your theories and predict The End of the World, and it doesn't happen again, and you rewrite them again and predict The End of the World, This Time for Sure!, and it still doesn't happen. If you're just one guy, like Harold Camping, you can do this a few times and people laugh at you and eventually you go out of business, but if you've got a large movement, it can have enough momentum to stick around even after the founder gets it wrong.
  
  --
  
  Bill Stewart
  New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Some day they will run out of Old Dudes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:18 · Score: 0

Then maybe there will be a Pope that is ready to handle the modern world. The previous now retired pope was called a "transition" pope due to his advanced age and the recognition that we wouldn't likely be in the position for long. I think thant now yet another "transition" pope just got elected. Perhaps if he does the traditional thing of pass on in office, the next one will be someone from a different more advanced era, and the Church can then move in to moden times.
1. Re:Some day they will run out of Old Dudes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:32 · Score: 0
  
  The reason they pick 70-year-olds is because they've got 70 years of training in how to act like an old person.
2/3 majority by bugs2squash · 2013-03-13 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why rounds of voting? Surely all these men are close enough to god to know his will and reach consensus on the first try.

--
Nullius in verba
1. Re: 2/3 majority by Bigby · 2013-03-13 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Only the Pope is infallible in the execution of the office. So even Pope Francis could have voted wrong.
2. Re: 2/3 majority by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  According to Catholics and most Christian religions, the heavens are closed. God does not speak to man or man kind anymore.
  Basically, they are guessing.
3. Re: 2/3 majority by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  The Pope is NOT infallible in the execution of his office, it is only certain specifically designated doctrines that are considered infallible. Although much of what the Pope says and does have additional value, in that even if he's wrong about it, if he tells you to do it, then you get at least some indemnity for it due to the idea of the what he binds on Earth is bound in Heaven concept.
  Ironically, the only person who gets no cover for "Just following orders" is the Pope himself. If he screws up bad enough, he's going to be hanging by his toenails to roast over the lake of fire. For that reason, he's got some motivation to make sure his orders are the best they can be. That's what we call a true checks and balances system.
Was it PopeRatzo? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:22 · Score: 0

Or Richie Battaglia?
Employer has not be heard of for about ever by kanweg · 2013-03-13 08:23 · Score: 1

He is a Jesuit, supposedly more the thinking type of priest. Let's see how long it takes him to figure out that his employer never shows up at the office, never gives any instruction, and doesn't pay his salary. How long will it take him to doubt the existence of his employer and tell the world about that?
Bert
1. Re:Employer has not be heard of for about ever by AnonyMouseCowWard · 2013-03-13 09:15 · Score: 2
  
  In real life, assume you've been given the reigns of a company that issues new shares every quarter, produces nothing but annual letters, and pays your every expenses and allows you to live in luxury, with no Board of Directors to oversee your actions. Would you really tell your shareholders "y'know, that Board of Directors doesn't exist and we're selling you pipe dreams?"
Never thought Pope Sidius would relinquish by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-03-13 08:23 · Score: 0

So, will the new Pope take the name Vader, Maul, or Tyranus. I look forward to a safer, more secure Catholic...empire!

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:Never thought Pope Sidius would relinquish by tnk1 · 2013-03-13 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  On that note, Darth Francis is sort of a disappointing selection. Perhaps he can go back into Conclave and get a do-over. I'm going to suggest he goes with Darth Supremus or Darth Pontifex.
Re:name change (let's suggest better names!) by webmistressrachel · 2013-03-13 08:24 · Score: 1

Just make hypno-toad pope, call it hypno-toad, and have done with it. Then at least none of us would be on here arguing about it....
Bzzzzzz.....

--
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
Re:name change (let's suggest better names!) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:27 · Score: 0

I think Francis is kind of a lame name for a pope. You would name a pet pig or a badger Francis.
Fuck you. Ron Francis is one of the greatest hockey players ever.
this does not below on slashdot!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:29 · Score: 0

this does not below on slashdot!!
1. Re:this does not below on slashdot!! by InsectOverlord · 2013-03-13 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean, this does above on slashdot?
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-03-13 08:29 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
apparently... by crutchy · 2013-03-13 08:30 · Score: 1

there was plenty of good shit smoked by all... judging by what came out the chimney
not to mention the fun they had with the whores they keep locked away in their dungeon... erm... i mean "archives"
This is front page news? by SinisterRainbow · 2013-03-13 08:34 · Score: 1

I thought this was Slashdot, where we avoid false nonsense and focus on true nonsense.

--
-Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler
News for creationists... by nozzo · 2013-03-13 08:38 · Score: 0

stuff that splatters...
Re:Speaking of using high tech means to communicat by Cro+Magnon · 2013-03-13 08:39 · Score: 1

LOL! I found it interesting that any organization, in 2013, still communicates by smoke signals.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Another dogmatic old fool by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 08:39 · Score: 0

Why doesn't the catholic church listen to its own subjects? This crazy and dogmatic old man's extremist views on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality will only continue to alienate this inner sect of religo-fascists from the sane people of this world.
How will he exibit humility, if he continues to dictate these views to his subjects, when a huge proportion of his subjects fundementally disagree of these matters. I look forward to an exhibition of this 'humility', as he decides to listen.
The church of catholicism is living on borrowed time. Most people in civilised societies now reject, pretty much outright, the extremist dogma of this inner clique of authoritarian monsters. Ironically, the catholic church has been the very organisation that seems to have been riddled, worldwide, by a massive outbreak of homosexual behaviour, with a particular focus on sick acts perpetrated against young boys. How can the chuch of catholicism have any credibility, given its disgraceful handling of these affairs? Will the new pope seek to purge from the ranks, all those who participated in the cover-up of these foul acts, and openly seek to hand over the perpetrators to the police forces of the nations in which these sick and deranged crimes occurred. If he does not, he will just be another accessory to the sex offenders, that his church's polices have enabled, and empowered.
chemist and Jesuit by peter303 · 2013-03-13 08:46 · Score: 1

That makes him a formidable academic type. I wonder if we have had a STEM Pope before.

A guy from my MIT class is also a Jesuit and Vatican Astronomer. Spends a lot of research time in an Arizona telescope complex the Vatican co-owns. I've only ran into him once since graduation.

Academic types are necessiarily the best fro running something as large and injured as the Catholic Church. Probably they chose him for other qualities. The last pope was too much like a college porfessor and considered too quiet.
Door-to-door outreach by tepples · 2013-03-13 08:47 · Score: 1

He considers social outreach, rather than doctrinal battles, to be the essential business of the church.
If a new focus on outreach catches on in the Catholic Church, will Catholics start bearing witness from door to door like Jesus recommended (Matthew 10:5-15) and like first-century Christians did (Acts 5:42)? They have to stop the rapid growth of Jehovah's Witnesses somehow.
His Followers Lack Drive by fascismforthepeople · 2013-03-13 08:51 · Score: 1

The followers of Pope Francis have nowhere near the drive of some followers of other religions. We frequently see the results of the devoted followers of a religion that holds itself supreme above all others, whose followers will tirelessly repeat the religious mantras regardless of being confronted with facts that show parts of their beliefs to be based on lies and nonsense. These followers want nothing less than to see the world burn and to see nonbelievers first in the fire. We even have followers of that religion posting frequently here on slashdot, this religion is lead by an American.

This religion is fascism, the product of concentrating power into the hands of very few while trampling on the rights and opportunities of the masses. The leader of the religion of fascism is none other than slashdot sweetheart Ron Paul. It is through religious devotion that his followers aim to deliver fascism for the people.
Will he support by Fuzzums · 2013-03-13 08:54 · Score: 1

Linux?

--
Privacy is terrorism.
Re:name change (let's suggest better names!) by drunk_punk · 2013-03-13 09:00 · Score: 1

I completely agree. I AM partial to "Gozar The Key Master", but hey, whatever. Now, on to more pressing matters: The Pope Mobile. I'm thinking more of a Rocket Powered, Monkey Driven, Batmobile type vehicle... alright fine, and it's white. But the monkey is drunk.
eeewww 70-year-old ball fondling! filthy perverts. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:00 · Score: 0

Testiculos habet et bene pendentes
Well, I'm Pagan, but by medcalf · 2013-03-13 09:03 · Score: 1

If he reestablishes the martial orders and calls a crusade, if consider conversion.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Expander transfusion by tepples · 2013-03-13 09:05 · Score: 2, Informative

they still think that I shouldn't have a blood transfusion after I crash my motorcycle and lose a couple pints
Not consuming blood is in the Bible (Acts 15:29), and theoretically, it applies to all Christians. In practice, there's nothing wrong with having an expander transfusion to keep your blood volume up until your bone marrow has spit out more red blood cells. In fact, it's safer that way because there's no need for an antigen type match and no chance of catching an STD or other blood-borne infection.
1. Re:Expander transfusion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of circumstances where an expander transfusion is inadequate, as I'm sure you're aware.
  And Acts doesn't say "consuming", it says "eating", and of course you can't absorb a blood transfusion through your digestive system, who would even think that was a good idea?
  And the bit where accepting an organ transplant went from "barbaric cannibalism" to "a personal matter to be decided without criticism" is pretty hilarious. Who in the Governing Body needed a new kidney in the early 1960s, I wonder?
2. Re:Expander transfusion by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  Consumption of blood is generally I think a bad idea. Iron overload n' stuff. What has that got to do with transfusions I don't know, though. Wild misinterpretation IMHO.
3. Re:Expander transfusion by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  Not consuming blood is in the Bible (Acts 15:29), and theoretically, it applies to all Christians.
  So wouldn't Christians have to be vegetarian? I don't see how you can eat meat without consuming some blood, however it's been slaughtered and drained in a kosher/halal style.
  Also, since when is having a blood transfusion the same thing as eating blood?
  The whole thing is just another ridiculous hangover from dietary laws dreamed up in a hot, desert society. I wouldn't want to eat shellfish if I lived in the middle of the Sinai either.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Not stupid by warrax_666 · 2013-03-13 09:05 · Score: 1

He's likely to be quite intelligent.
Just not very moral.

--
HAND.
Rats by ISoldat53 · 2013-03-13 09:11 · Score: 1

And all the Seahawks got in the draft was Percy Harvin.
You know what they say about popularity... by warrax_666 · 2013-03-13 09:13 · Score: 2

Billions of McDonald's burgers have been sold. What does that tell you?
Come back with something substantive and maybe we'll talk like adults.

--
HAND.
1. Re:You know what they say about popularity... by DuckDodgers · 2013-03-14 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how fast food burgers have anything to do with Catholicism. If you're a practicing Catholic and you don't recognize the authority of the Pope, isn't that kind of like being a practicing Muslim that doesn't believe in the Koran or a practicing Buddhist that follows some path that isn't Buddha's eight-fold path?
  
  You might be a Catholic but disagree with the Pope in a few specific issues - maybe some obscure theological point, maybe in something simple like the correct age for First Communion, maybe for something like treatment of homosexuals. But if you don't recognize the Pope's authority at all, why are you Catholic?
We are all Popes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:22 · Score: 0

I declare everyone in this thread a Discordian Pope, may chaos bless you
A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by rocket+rancher · 2013-03-13 09:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you have ever had the pleasure of debating with a Jesuit, you'll know what I'm talking about. I'm not being sarcastic or ironic in the least. If the Church is the Federation, the Jesuits are the Vulcans. Jesuit scholars have made many contributions to our collective store of knowlege, especially in math, astronomy, and philosophy.. These are the guys that invented propaganda, and are trained in logic, analysis, and debate in support of their faith. Speaking of their faith, it is the most rarefied, intellectualized faith on the planet. I'm looking forward to a vigorous debate between secularism and theism over the next several decades, and it's good to know that the opposition is putting their best foot forward.
1. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by trout007 · 2013-03-13 10:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Believe it or not there are many Catholics that see no conflict between science and our faith. We start from the definition of God being the creator of the universe. Therefore anything you learn about science teaches you about God. There can be no conflict.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
2. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yet there are still those idiotic "Praise the Creator, not the Creation" bumper stickers I keep seeing :(
3. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by coma_bug · 2013-03-13 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  We start from the definition of God being the creator of the universe.
  How did you test that hypothesis?
4. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by simoncpu+was+here · 2013-03-13 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  I agree; however, the Roman Catholic church teaches many things that contradict God. The geocentric model, for instance, is technically a blasphemy, but the Church supported it anyway...
5. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by TuringTest · 2013-03-13 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  How did you test that hypothesis?
  The same way you tested the hypothesis that empirical methods can discover regular, universal laws; and with equivalent results.
  
  --
  Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
6. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 21:54 · Score: 0
  
  We start from the definition of God being the creator of the universe.
  Step 1: Cherry pick the stupidest part of the first couple of paragraphs of the first page of the old testament to base your belief on.
  Step 2: Ignore the rest of the Bible.
  Step 3: Conveniently forget the fact that Step 2 is necessary because science conclusively proved that the rest of the Bible is utter garbage, even though the church you belong to fought tooth and nail for centuries to burn people that disagreed with it's insane teachings at the stake.
  Step 4: Hold on to that Step 1 belief because they can't take that away from you. That one insane belief that can never be disproved, because hell, it's impossible to prove or disprove any entity or object created everything. Science took the rest of your book away, but by your mighty God (defined by your one belief, not the rest of your crazy book unfortunately), they can't take him away from you!
  Congratulations, your God created the Universe. You don't know a damn thing about him other than that. But I'm sure he's a top bloke/girl/spaghetti space monster.
7. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by coma_bug · 2013-03-13 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  The same way you tested the hypothesis that empirical methods can discover regular, universal laws; and with equivalent results.
  The error bars are too small to be displayed by a computer screen, but were included to demonstrate the impressive accuracy of the data.
  It's your move.
8. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by rocket+rancher · 2013-03-14 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  How did you test that hypothesis?
  The same way you tested the hypothesis that empirical methods can discover regular, universal laws; and with equivalent results.
  What? You are assuming science and religion are the same kinds of things. They aren't. Science is a methodology, religion is an artifact -- an ontological distinction that Augustine and Aquinas understood, even if the rest of the good Doctors of the Church do not... :) It makes sense to test the assertions of religions against reality, because religions can and do make assertions about reality. But a methodology is merely a methodology -- it can't make assertions about anything.
9. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by TuringTest · 2013-03-14 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Solipsism. We're talking metaphysics here, you're not even playing the right game.
  Do you realize that science relies on logic, logic relies on sets of axioms, and axioms can't be disproved by empirical evidence, only by inconsistencies in the formal system? The existence of $DEITY$ can't be proven nor disproven by empiric data, because it's a logically consistent system. How would you disprove that the COBE prediction is proof of the Will of God?
  (FYI I'm an atheist, but in my day I did my duty learning a bit about philosophy of science. I know science's limits, and while I know where my axioms lay, I recognize what happens when you change your axioms starting from a different belief system).
  
  --
  Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
10. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by TuringTest · 2013-03-14 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  What? You are assuming science and religion are the same kinds of things.
  Not exactly. I'm assuming "the belief that science can describe an objective, external world" and "the belief that an objective, external world exists at all" are the same kind of "the belief that God exist".
  True, science is a method to study the external world; but you can also see religion as a method to study emotions and human relations. You can use religion to make assertions about reality in the same way that you can use science to make moral judgements - which is, by stretching the method outside of their area of validity.
  Being beliefs, neither can be proven nor disproven merely by logic alone; beliefs are ultimately based on emotion, not reason. In that level, yes, they're the same kind of thing. I may believe that science is a better method to learn about existence, and I may even believe that it's incompatible with religion, but I can't prove it scientifically; that would be an infinite recursion.
  
  --
  Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
11. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by coma_bug · 2013-03-14 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Solipsism
  
  Ah, the old "solipsism, therefore anything goes" argument.
  
  Do you realize that science relies on logic, logic relies on sets of axioms, and axioms can't be disproved by empirical evidence, only by inconsistencies in the formal system?
  So I resist the urge to ask Storm whether knowledge is so loose-weave of a morning when deciding whether to leave her apartment by the front door or a window on the second floor.
  
  The existence of $DEITY$ can't be proven nor disproven by empiric data, because it's a logically consistent system.
  Why, yes, god is not testable..
  
  How would you disprove that the COBE prediction is proof of the Will of God?
  .. and, in particular, god is not falsifiable.
  
  FYI I'm an atheist, but in my day I did my duty learning a bit about philosophy of science.
  Good for you. Next time go beyond the first chapter in the book.
12. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by TuringTest · 2013-03-14 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  So, what am I missing? How is it rational to prove the validity of science through science?
  
  --
  Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
13. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  But once you acknowledge that most of the Bible is not actually true from a scientific point of view, why should anyone then have faith that the remaining bits are true? Or that there is a God who created the universe at all?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
14. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by TuringTest · 2013-03-14 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  .. and, in particular, god is not falsifiable.
  And that was precisely my point; your original question asked the OP to test God as an hypothesis, which you recognize is absurd.
  God is an axiom, exactly like the idea that science can work at all. You can collect evidence supporting them, but not disproving them.
  
  --
  Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
15. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by coma_bug · 2013-03-14 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  your original question asked the OP to test God as an hypothesis, which you recognize is absurd.
  Yes, that is the Socratic method.
  
  God is an axiom, exactly like the idea that science can work at all.
  "Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition.."
  
  You can collect evidence supporting them, but not disproving them.
  You clearly do not understand what "evidence" means. If some possible observations would support a hypothesis then alternative possible observations would cause it to be rejected. As the god hypothesis is constructed to avoid the latter possibility, it also cannot be supported by any observation.
16. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by TuringTest · 2013-03-14 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  So, what's the observation that could ''reject'' the idea that science works by collecting evidence?
  
  --
  Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
17. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by rocket+rancher · 2013-03-16 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  Believe it or not there are many Catholics that see no conflict between science and our faith. We start from the definition of God being the creator of the universe. Therefore anything you learn about science teaches you about God. There can be no conflict.
  Well, science and religion are not the same thing, dude. Science is merely a methodology, A methodology can make no assertion about anything, whereas religion makes all sorts of assertions about everything. So your assertion that there is no conflict between religion and science, while true, is vacuous. They are not in conflict because they aren't in the same category. Leaving that aside, your definition rests on an untestable hypothesis, the existence of some supernatural entity. For your argument to be valid would require faith, which is not compatible with any method of rational inquiry, of which science is a shining example. This further underscores the serious differences between science and religion. So -- put your Nicene Creed back on the shelf next to your copies of Augustine and Aquinas, and pick up some Dawkins or Dennett, instead. If you are trying to defend your faith (and you should!) you would be better served to see what arguments are marshaled against you, than to recite 1600-year-old Catholic doctrine in the hope that nobody will call you out.
18. Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting by rocket+rancher · 2013-03-16 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  What? You are assuming science and religion are the same kinds of things.
  Not exactly. I'm assuming "the belief that science can describe an objective, external world" and "the belief that an objective, external world exists at all" are the same kind of "the belief that God exist".
  True, science is a method to study the external world; but you can also see religion as a method to study emotions and human relations. You can use religion to make assertions about reality in the same way that you can use science to make moral judgements - which is, by stretching the method outside of their area of validity.
  Being beliefs, neither can be proven nor disproven merely by logic alone; beliefs are ultimately based on emotion, not reason. In that level, yes, they're the same kind of thing. I may believe that science is a better method to learn about existence, and I may even believe that it's incompatible with religion, but I can't prove it scientifically; that would be an infinite recursion.
  Scientists make no such ontological claims about an objective, external world. Science is a methodology, and methodologies can't make a claim about anything. Science is just a way -- a methodology -- to make a map of the territory; it is neither the map nor the territory. Only the map can make any claim at all about anything. Scientists can and do claim their maps correspond to reality, but "belief" in the map is a non-starter for scientists, because the map is going to have to change to accommodate observations that conflict with the territory. Paradigm shifts in science happen all the time because of those conflicting observations. Aristotelian cosmology gave way to Copernican cosmology, and the physics of Newton gave way to the physics of Einstein. I think you can see why this makes science fundamentally different from religion. Paradigm shifts in religion just don't happen, largely because the religions themselves forbid it, dogmatically asserting things like "heresy" and "blasphemy" when their maps are challenged by some competing paradigm.
I was hoping for Dolan by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:29 · Score: 0

Cardinal plz...
1. Re:I was hoping for Dolan by maroberts · 2013-03-13 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  They made a cardinal error.
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
An Argentine Pope???? by maroberts · 2013-03-13 09:31 · Score: 1

Cue excommunication of the Falkland Islands/UK in 3...2....1

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Desaparecidos: the dark side of the new pope by Giorgio+Maone · 2013-03-13 09:35 · Score: 1

The dark side of the new pope (Google translation of Google cache, original 2006 italian report is being DOSed).

--
There's a browser safer than Firefox, it is Firefox, with NoScript
1. Re:Desaparecidos: the dark side of the new pope by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  If that turns out to be true, the guy should be in jail, not in Vatican. One can dream...
Bishop Len Brennan by DougOtto · 2013-03-13 09:36 · Score: 0

Unavailable for comment.

--
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:37 · Score: 0

News for nerds stuff that don't matter !
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio aka Andy Rubin? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:42 · Score: 0

coincidence?
Which pope... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 09:50 · Score: 0

Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Assyrian Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church) or the Orthodox Church.
Splitters the lot of them.
Jonathan Pryce Clone by rgbfoundry · 2013-03-13 09:58 · Score: 1

anybody else see the resemblance? http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200833929959387&set=a.1123167208210.19559.1497996634&type=1&relevant_count=1
So the catholic church gets a new Head Pedo? by Dodgy+G33za · 2013-03-13 10:14 · Score: 0

Can't see how it falls into either the "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"
Occams razor says that it is in here just so we can post jokes.
Francis?? Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:20 · Score: 0

Come on.... What about something with more 'oomph'? Like Pope Omegatron or Pope Buck....or Pope Adope (no 'oomph' but at least mildly entertaining).
That many? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:24 · Score: 0

Where do you get 1.2 billion catholics?
Out of curiosity by Alioth · 2013-03-13 10:27 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, why is he Pope Francis, not Pope Bergoglio? And why was Pope Benedict called that, not Pope Ratzinger?
Is "Francis" basically his IRC nick?

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
1. Re:Out of curiosity by Celarent+Darii · 2013-03-13 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  I believe it is from the fact that the first Pope was originally called 'Simon' and was renamed 'Peter' when he received his appointment ("on this rock (petrum) I will build my Church" Mt 16). So when the Pope is chosen his name is also changed, but strangely he gets to choose it.
Article says "He is well-known ..." by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:29 · Score: 0

"He is well-known for his humility and espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception"
It should read "He is well-known for his child fucking, kiddie-fucker protection, and backwards, obsolete fundamentalists views on homosexuality, abortion and contraception."
As an Argentinian, I'm sorry for any policies this piece of shit, ultraconservative, delusional motherfucker might cause.
Fuck him, fuck the catholic church, and fuck anyone protecting them.
Just another one of the same stripe by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 10:45 · Score: 0

So, we have another Poop (excuse me, Pope) that while not from Italy (or Europe) still espouses the old, byline of the Catholic (but not universal, which Catholic actually means), church. I don't suppose we could be so lucky that he lives in the 21st century?
New for nerds? by ClioCJS · 2013-03-13 11:15 · Score: 1

More like news for turds. I don't come here for religious bullshit.

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Arse coitus in the Greek Scriptures by tepples · 2013-03-13 12:11 · Score: 1

If Leviticus 21:20-23 is "no longer applicable", why does the Catholic Church claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are still applicable?
The letter of the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians, but its spirit is helpful in interpret the principles explained in the Greek Scriptures. See what Paul wrote in his letters to the Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. The second and third of these use the Greek word arsenokoítês, literally "going to bed with a male", which even looks like "arse coitus". Homosexual sex still squicks YHWH out.
Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:14 · Score: 0

How does this even come close to being "News for nerds?"
Why the Hebrew Scriptures are still in the Bible by tepples · 2013-03-13 12:18 · Score: 1

Christians include the Hebrew Scriptures, including Leviticus and Deuteronomy, in their Bible for two reasons: 1. to show the history of YHWH's people and the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, and 2. to show YHWH's principles that show how to apply the common-sense "love YHWH with your whole soul and love your neighbor as yourself" law that Jesus taught. Paul wrote that a few things mentioned in the Mosaic Law were still disgusting to God even under the new covenant, including arse coitus (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10) and consuming blood (Acts 15:29).
Other denominations have their own catechisms by tepples · 2013-03-13 12:22 · Score: 1

One of the nice things about being a Catholic is there is a nice clear rule book. It's called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Catholics aren't the only Christian denomination to have a rule-book-style aid to studying the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses have one too: Reasoning from the Scriptures .
Imperfection in DNA by tepples · 2013-03-13 12:29 · Score: 1

Will he: Disawow the insane and puerile dogma of original sin?
I don't see how original sin is "insane". Adam and Eve stole fruit from God; their punishment was to become imperfect and die. Everybody since then has inherited imperfection in his DNA. Jesus died in part to pay for the original sin, so that people who obey his Father can be resurrected to everlasting life in bodies that don't have this imperfection anymore.
Eating vs. shooting up by tepples · 2013-03-13 12:35 · Score: 1

And Acts [15:29] doesn't say "consuming", it says "eating",
In the copy I have, it's "keep abstaining [...] from blood", with nothing about the route of administration. Look at it this way: if you wouldn't take mind-altering drugs orally, why would you shoot them up? Likewise, if you wouldn't take blood orally, why would you shoot it up?
1. Re:Eating vs. shooting up by terpri · 2013-03-13 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's true that the verb is "apexesqai" 'to abstain from", but the context makes it quite clear that it's referring to the consumption of blood. If one interprets a food prohibition this way, one should also avoid organ transplantation since it would constitute cannibalism. Apparently organ transplants _were_ officially prohibited by the Jehovah's Witnesses until 1980, which is at least consistent, I guess.
you may be interested in knowing that... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 12:56 · Score: 0

Jorge Mario Bergoglio (as all of the argentinian church) is a long time suspected and proven to be a big supporter in ommision and action of the last military dictatorship in the country ('76 to '83) that "disappeared" about 30.000 people for political, racial, religious and economic reasons, with extensive torture practices, rape, and child theft. In the particular case of Bergoglio, he appears in various photos with Rafael Videla and other de facto presidents of the time. Videla himselfs cites Bergoglio as the moral support of the process in a relatively recent interview.
It simplified a lot of mundane things by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 13:04 · Score: 0

It's a church rule from ages ago. That and the vows of poverty simplified a LOT of things related to church governance, like inheritance rights and nepotism (e.g. via posts becoming hereditary). Not that they didn't have various issues with those kinds of things anyhow, but the rules do mitigate the problems quite a bit.
Congratulations by tompaulco · 2013-03-13 13:16 · Score: 1

Congratulations and may I be the first to say "Et patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram: unus est enim Pater vester, qui in cælis est.".

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
St. Francis by billstewart · 2013-03-13 13:54 · Score: 1

There were several saints named Francis. The popular one is St. Francis of Assisi, the hippie pacifist monk dude, but there's also St. Francis Xavier, a cofounder of the Jesuits. And the new pope is a Jesuit.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Fuck Pope news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 14:29 · Score: 0

this shit is all over normal news, its not the reason i come to /.
"News for nerds" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 14:54 · Score: 0

This is not tech news, how did this make it to the main page?
Now all is Popastetic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 16:27 · Score: 0

First: Holy Quit!
Next: Popefuls
Next: Pope and Change
Next: Holy Smoke!
Next: Popastetic! ...I've been watching Jon Stewart too much lately!
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 17:38 · Score: 0

How an atehist site like slashdot think this is a news after all? Ah.... yes, trolling.
Plenty of "Vatican experience" by gsiarny · 2013-03-13 18:06 · Score: 1

Contrary to the summary, the new Pope has had plenty of Vatican experience since his creation as a cardinal in 2001.
He's not a true insider of the Curia, but he knows his way around.
"As cardinal, Bergoglio was appointed to several administrative positions in the Roman Curia
Member of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Member of the Congregation for the Clergy
Member of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life
Member of the Pontifical Council for the Family
Member of the Commission for Latin America"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis#Cardinal
Illogical by Roger+W+Moore · 2013-03-13 18:08 · Score: 1

Your argument seems to be that past the age of 40 or so our views no longer keep up with the values of society. In which case how can selecting a 40 year old pope who stays in office for 40 years and is woefully outdated for the last 10 years of his reign be worse than selecting a 70 year old pope who is woefully out of date for all 10 years of his reign? With the younger person you at least have 10-20 years in-sync with society instead of permanently being at least a generation behind society which is very clearly where the Catholic church is.
Everything is based on the assumptions, or axioms. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 19:29 · Score: 0

Jesuits, like any Catholic who actually believes in and accepts their faith, must accept assumptions and axioms that are either patently ridiculous, self-contradicting, irrational or all three. Transubstantiation for one.
Since I do not accept any of these silly assumptions or axioms their "logic", "analysis" or "debate" can't touch me. Of course, I cannot convice them of anything either, like mathematicians that have accepted a contradiction, they are beyond the reach of true logic, analysis or debate. Their loss.
I come to slashdot to read technology news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 19:31 · Score: 0

This isn't technology news. Pope Francis or whatever his name will be (why do they even change their name?) means NOTHING in the world of technology. Not to mention, he will now be living a horrifically lavish life filled with gold and jewels, fine food, exquisite clothing. So the idea that he has humility will now be something of naught in my opinion considering he will NOT be living a humble life.
Not to mention, 1.2billion catholics refers to an estimated amount of catholics, many of which are NOT practicing (especially in the united states, being catholic in the hispanic culture is more of a symbol of fitting in than an actual way of life, at least thats how the mexican gangs I've ever seen portray their faith).
Anyhow, I'm not going to go any further on this, this is SLASHDOT.ORG, not yahoo.com. Please continueing posting about technology, medicine, astronomy, physics, and mathematics. Please keep religion out of it. Thanks :)
Religion is for losers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 20:12 · Score: 0

Why is this /. news? Any technical content here? Keep religion out of my daily feeds!!
New boss, same as the old boss. by Epeeist · 2013-03-13 20:29 · Score: 1

So another geriatric ultra-conservative in exactly the same mould as Benedict and John-Paul II. Cynics might say he has been elected in an attempt to halt the decline in Catholicism in Latin America, one of the sects most important regions. Otherwise the only place in the world it would seem to be growing is Africa. How relevant is it in the developed world? What percentage of Catholics actually attend mass each week? How many Catholics solely practice "natural" birth control methods or have issues with gay marriage? Oh, and interesting to see that this supposed bastion of morality has no problem, again, with someone who has cosied up to a fascist regime.
1. Re:New boss, same as the old boss. by janimal · 2013-03-14 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  There were replies to this above. JPII was actually quite progressive, as far as Popes go. Judging his progressiveness based solely on the way the church has handled homosexuality or contraception is quite a narrow view. Consider that popes before JPII didn't venture outside the Vatican very often, didn't address the faithful in their own language and didn't so openly help bring about the fall of the most dangerous and destructive evil empire in history (USSR: 30M+ intentionally starved citizens + countless political murders hell-bent on eliminating the thinking classes).
  You're griping that he didn't react to gays quickly enough? Give him a break. The guy had more important things on his mind, like saving the friggin' world, where he had some ground-breaking achievements. You want to judge JPII? You must be out of your mind.
2. Re:New boss, same as the old boss. by Epeeist · 2013-03-14 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  There were replies to this above. JPII was actually quite progressive, as far as Popes go. Judging his progressiveness based solely on the way the church has handled homosexuality or contraception is quite a narrow view. Consider that popes before JPII didn't venture outside the Vatican very often, didn't address the faithful in their own language and didn't so openly help bring about the fall of the most dangerous and destructive evil empire in history (USSR: 30M+ intentionally starved citizens + countless political murders hell-bent on eliminating the thinking classes).
  You can actually provide a causal warrant to show that he openly helped bring down the USSR? Impressive.
  
  The guy had more important things on his mind, like saving the friggin' world, where he had some ground-breaking achievements. You want to judge JPII? You must be out of your mind.
  Again, I presume you can justify this. Its an assertion I have seen a number of times, but I have never seen anything that would count as justification. As for "judging" him, this is the wrong word. "Criticising" would be better.
3. Re:New boss, same as the old boss. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-17 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  Catholicism in the US is dead. 57% of Catholics voted for Obama. No real Catholic votes for a pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage President.
666 by Any+Web+Loco · 2013-03-13 20:39 · Score: 1

There won't be now, but when I saw this story there were exactly 666 comments *giggles*
Hey, did you see that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 20:41 · Score: 0

This article had exactly 666 comments!
Disappointing. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-13 21:17 · Score: 0

They're just going to have to do this again in a few years when he quits or dies. However, that does give me a neat idea for a TV pilot:
The Catholic Church accidentally elects a newly ordained twenty-something priest as Pope. Or they inadvertently choose a Protestant minister, or a Jew. Oops... what whacky hijinks could then ensue!
Or they could just elect someone about the same age as the last two when THEY left office, who will change little or nothing... oh wait, that's what they did.
Do people really expect the Church to change any positions on anything? Do they really expect Frank to say "Hey, God called, he said killing your unborn babies is okay now before 20 weeks..." or perhaps "Jesus sent me an e-mail, and he says the Father told him to tell me to tell you that being gay is OKAY!" Not bloody likely. Think he'll change mass to Spanish? No, little is likely to change.
Allowing priests to marry would be a positive move he could make though, and would help alleviate the problem that people considering becoming Catholic priests are necessarily also considering giving up pussy forever... How could it never have occurred to them that if you have a job that requires that, that people who have no interest in pussy will be overrepresented in the list of candidates or applicants. When you further insist they all be male... you have a recipe for a massive, worldwide scandal of child-abuse in the church.
So that would be something the Church could do... let priests marry, and maybe even allow women to be priests, bishops, etc. But will they? Probably not.
I'm sort of impressed, sort of disappointed by tehcyder · 2013-03-13 21:26 · Score: 2

The first few posts contain no references to paedophile priests.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Just about the worst choice imaginable by Squidlips · 2013-03-14 00:55 · Score: 2

Right now the church needs deep reforms, but they chose a stubbornly conservative Pope. It is time for the church to get out of the Middle Ages and liberalize its stance on abortion and gay marriage and it is way past due to drop the celibacy requirement for clergy
Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 00:57 · Score: 0

This is not slashdot material. Move on people...
That's Right by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 01:04 · Score: 0

Science is man's description of God's creation.
God created Evolution and all the evidence that supports it.
If the interview was like... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 02:42 · Score: 0

If the interview was like that of a software engineer:
"Hello Jorge, Bob and I here, we've got a couple of questions and exercises for you to understand your experience. First one, sort of a puzzler I think: Could God create a stone so heavy even he couldn't lift it? Hmm...ok, I see, makes sense... Next one: I've got this passage, it's in Aramaic. Could you translate that to Latin, then to Italian and explain your choices? Fantastic. Last one, this is a tough one. There's a whiteboard up front, could you sketch out how you'd go about saving a soul? Oh, and needless to say, no consulting the big guy on this one... Well, that's a great idea, but could you improve it? Singleton pattern use somewhere, maybe to represent the big guy? And that smart pointer of the soul class, nice memory handling, but that thing has to stick around after the scope ends, shouldn't it?"
"News for nerds, stuff that matters"... no, and no by squash_me_quickly · 2013-03-14 02:47 · Score: 1

Exactly how does this fall in to either category, the choosing of a new pope has nothing to do with "nerdery".
Unless one of his first edicts as pope is to bring the Vatican into the 21st century, create the first fully paperless state, and to ensure 100% "IT literacy" among all the inhabitants of the Papal state (and no this is not a misspelling of Paypal(tm) ).
So that would leave "stuff that matters"..... nope, it fails there too!! Because YES "1.2 billion Catholics", along with all other religious people, CAN be WRONG :)
Myoglobin != blood; Noah by tepples · 2013-03-14 02:55 · Score: 1

I don't see how you can eat meat without consuming some blood
For one thing, the red stuff you see coming out of properly drained meat is not blood; it's myoglobin. For another, God doesn't appear to look down on eating the trace of blood in well-drained meat. God told Noah as he was getting off the ark: "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its life--its blood--you must not eat." (Genesis 9:3-4) There are some people who won't eat meat at all, perhaps because of this trace of blood, but one shouldn't judge them for that.--Romans 14:2-3.

Also, since when is having a blood transfusion the same thing as eating blood?
Please see my other comment.

The whole thing is just another ridiculous hangover from dietary laws dreamed up in a hot, desert society.

For one thing, the area Paul preached in wasn't quite as hot and arid. For another, as is common with passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures, there's something in the Hebrew Scriptures to help interpret it, such as the instructions given to Noah mentioned above.
Re:name change (let's suggest better names!) by tehcyder · 2013-03-14 03:13 · Score: 1

My suggestions would include: Pope Kevin, Pope Ricky, Pope Wayne, Pope Dave and Pope Barry/Bazza.
If the Roman Catholic church wants to remain relevant, the Pope should sound like it's someone you'd go out on the lash with after the match.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
he will "teach" people if they ask... by inHaliburton · 2013-03-14 04:33 · Score: 1

There is nothing worse than having religion "jammed down your throat" as the "born agains" do.
1. Re:he will "teach" people if they ask... by Cloud+K · 2013-03-14 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  The important bit is "if they ask", so there's no jamming of anything down any throats.
  I'll grant that "teach" can seem a bit arrogant, it's just the way of those who believe though, if someone has a really solid faith they'll believe it as the absolute truth. I'm more of the opinion that we should be fully open-minded on both sides of the coin, but again, opinions.
2. Re:he will "teach" people if they ask... by inHaliburton · 2013-03-14 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  The important bit is "if they ask", so there's no jamming of anything down any throats.
  I'll grant that "teach" can seem a bit arrogant, it's just the way of those who believe though, if someone has a really solid faith they'll believe it as the absolute truth. I'm more of the opinion that we should be fully open-minded on both sides of the coin, but again, opinions.
  "If they ask" would be just fine. It's been my experience many time--as with a next-door neighbour--that they seem driven to talk about it obsessively. I've heard it said many times over the years that when you are into religion at that level, it's an illness. Most whom I have met involved in these evangelical religions, seemed narrow-minded, and not receptive to ideas other than their own.
The Pope is Satan's Spokesperson by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-14 07:32 · Score: 0

The Pope speaks for Satan. He is Satan's spokesperson. He teaches lies and falsehoods. They teach your soul is Immortal but the Bible teaches it dies: (Ezekiel 18:4)
Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.
Hellfire is a lie. The word translated into Hell by the King James copyists really means Grave not some fiery place. The word Tormentor in the Bible means Jailer. This means those Tormented in Hell are really Jailed in the Grave. Its easy to check the translation of the original texts now since they have been translated by those who speak the languages. When you check behind what these people teach, you find they have been teaching lies to all their members for as long as they existed. They were the same Pharisees that killed Jesus Christ. Check the history books. History proves it and the original texts prove these people are False religious teachers. They are the ones Jesus warned against. (Mark 12:38-40)
And in his teaching he went on to say: “Look out for the scribes that want to walk around in robes and want greetings in the marketplaces 39and front seats in the synagogues and most prominent places at evening meals. 40They are the ones devouring the houses of the widows and for a pretext making long prayers; these will receive a heavier judgement.”
(Revelation 19:20)
And the wild beast was caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who render worship to its image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulphur.
(Revelation 18:4,5 ) And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues. 5For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind.
(1 John 4:1)
Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.
I suggest you check behind these teachings. Its easy to see the lies.
catchy headlines by Meski · 2013-03-14 11:26 · Score: 1

Reading my /. email feed, I got "New pope selected using truth serum" - think of the questions you'd ask a prospective pope under the influence!
A wise man once said ... by PPH · 2013-03-15 03:40 · Score: 1

"He no playa the game, he no maka the rules."

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Homosexuality used to be in the DSM by Dareth · 2013-03-18 03:40 · Score: 1

Homosexuality used to be in the DSM as a mental illness.
They removed it in later revisions. Society has changed to the point where being immoral is no long abnormal.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
1. Re:Homosexuality used to be in the DSM by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  hahahaha you sanctimonious fuckwit.
  my landlord is like you, head so far up his ass he can see what he had for lunch.
12 Billion Catholics... by Optali · 2013-03-18 07:00 · Score: 1

Just a note about the ciphers: Most natives of "Catholic" countries know about the fact that no matter what religion or non-religion they really belong to they are getting counted as Catholics.
A good example is Belgium or my country, the Netherlands, country with a 60% of non-believers. It is however enough that you parents had you baptised to count officially as a Catholic, even if you are like most in this country non-believer (which is BTW quite usual among the right wing that would more or less correspond to the USian republicans). In order to stop being counted as a Catholic you need to send a letter to the corresponding bishop.
There are countries like Spain, where at a 25% of the population declare themselves openly agnostic where even muslim converts are counted as "Catholics" because they have been baptised as babies.
I know that in South America Protestant and Evengelical creeds are increasingly popular...
I wouldn't be able to say what the real figures might be, but just make you aware that you need to take the figures handled by the Vatican with a very very high amount of salt.

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast
I just hope by zwarte+piet · 2013-03-24 03:22 · Score: 1

the next pope won't be a catholic.
agreed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 09:04 · Score: 0

as a 42yo, i remember when people said 'never trust anyone over 30'
now my thinking is 'never trust anyone *under* 30'
I too realise I was an idiot as a youngster. Young cannot percieve their own ignorance due to lack of experience
Young people suffer from the idea that they have enough life experience to know everything. they simply cannot get the idea that certain forms of wisdom require a certain age and that there is no substitute for experience in many areas. I blame the limitations of the language myself. Curse the romans