home
RSS
Pope Francis: First Catholic leader from Latin America
March 13th, 2013
02:38 PM ET

Pope Francis: First Catholic leader from Latin America

Rome (CNN) - Pope Francis, the first non-European pontiff of the modern era, revealed himself to the world from a balcony at the Vatican on Wednesday.

Jorge Bergogolio, who served as archbishop of Buenos Aires, took the name Francis shortly after being elected by cardinals in what was apparently the fifth round of voting on the second day of the conclave.

"As you know, the duty of the conclave was to appoint a bishop of Rome," Francis told a cheering crowd of thousands packed into St. Peter's Square.

"It seems to me that my brother cardinals have chosen one who is from faraway. ... Here I am. I would like to thank you for your embrace."

The new pope called on the thousands packed into the square - and those watching around the world - to pray for him before he delivered a blessing.

Bergogolio, 76, is the first pope to take the name after St. Francis of Assisi, revered among Catholics for his work with the poor.

The new pontiff is considered a straight shooter who calls things as he sees them, and a follower of the church's most conservative wing.

Live blog: Argentina's Bergogolio elected new pope

FULL STORY
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Catholic Church • Pope • Pope Benedict XVI • Pope Francis • Vatican

soundoff (331 Responses)
  1. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    It is hindus ignorant s cow mamas hindu filthy dung, but it is holy, because this child of hindu Lucifer, filthy secular donkey was borne in south america, but hindu filthy blood of hindu terrorist Spanish invaders of America , historic hindus plunderers and murderers of humanity in Americas. America can do better without hindu catholic ism racist compounding of hindu criminals of Europe.

    March 13, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • Colin

      Oh great, a f.ucking towel-head with Tourette Syndrome.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      From a hindu crooked secular donkey head of a hindu, ignorant.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • STFU

      STFU YOU NAVE MUSLIM, STOP CLEANING ASS WITH YOUR HANDS, YOU SWINE.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
  2. Chuckles

    Just read this and thought it apt.

    " I think the universe might be trying to tell us something. Since the last pope quit we've found a cure for AIDS, learned to successfully predict when heart patients will die based on their DNA strands, smashed a record for sequential clongin in animals, extended Einsteins theory of relativity beyond light speed, and discovered that men in same-se.x marriages live longer, amon many other important break throughs

    I, for one, think that maybe we should continue along this trajectory."

    Discuss

    March 13, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • Bubbles, Doom Poodle of the Apocalypse

      I love it when they break clongin records. It ought to be an Olympic sport, like curling and synchronized swimming.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
  3. Colin

    Ten signs you are a Catholic.

    [Now, if you are a Catholic and have an issue with anything I say below, respond. But, I am sick of getting responses like, “you have no idea about REAL Catholicism” or “You have no idea what you are talking about” with no specifics. If you disagree with ANYTHING I say, point it out. If you just don’t like hearing how absurd your religion is, get over it.]

    So, TEN SIGNS YOU ARE A CATHOLIC

    1. You honestly believe that an all powerful, immortal being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies (each with billions of stars) about 13,720,000,000 years ago, then sat back and did nothing for virtually all this time, until h.omo Sapiens evolved on one planet, then sent his “son” to visit some Jews in the late Iron Age Middle East and tell them parables about wheat, goats and sheep.

    2. You believe that priests have special, magic powers that nobody else does, that allow them to turn grocery store bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of a crucified apocalyptic Jew from 2,000 years ago.

    3. You believe that, when you think silent thoughts like “please God, help me pass my exam tomorrow,” the being that created the entire cosmos reads your mind and will intervene to alter what would otherwise be the course of human history in small ways to satisfy your concerns – or “answers your prayers” as you call it.

    4. You are about 60% likely to believe that the entire Universe was created less than 10,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake.

    5. You believe that your “all loving” god will cause those who are smart enough to be honestly and rationally skeptical of his existence to suffer an eternity of torture an infinite times worse than anything Hitler came up with. You don’t have to kill, you don’t have to steal, hell, you don’t even have to litter. All you need do is honestly, rationally and reasonably reject a belief in the Catholic god and he will inflict a barbaric eternal torture on you an infinite times worse than the death penalty……and he loves you.

    6. You base your belief almost entirely on the life and divinity of Jesus Christ, blissfully ignorant of who wrote the 4 gospels upon which this belief is 100% based, how the gospels were altered over the Centuries and when and in what language the authors wrote.

    7. You probably don’t even know anything about how the Bible was compiled, who write it, who decided what books to include and what to exclude and the criteria they used, yet you base your entire view of life, death and the Universe on it.

    8. You believe you will live for ever after death, with zero evidence to support such a preposterous claim.

    9. You fail to realize that you are a Catholic for no other reason than where you were born. If you were born in India, chances are you would be a Hindu; if in Israel, a Jew; if in Iran a Shiite Muslim. Every culture that has ever existed has its own god or gods, yet you believe you were lucky enough to have been born in the one time and place where we “got it right.”

    10. At its core, Catholicism requires a belief that a god impregnated a virgin with himself, to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to forgive the original sin of a couple that anybody with a fifth grade education knows did not exist.

    March 13, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • Lenn

      I was raised Catholic and I was 40 or so before I ever met a young earth Catholic. Seems like a very recent thing.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Colin

      Lenn, and when you did? And my other nine points?

      March 13, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • G.B.

      It was the Hellenistic-Roman Period, not the "late Iron Age." (I'm not a Catholic, but I happen to be a professor of Middle Eastern archaeology.)

      March 13, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • EX catholic

      Well Im NOT Catholic now but was raised Catholic. I know that Organization well enough.

      However about 40 years ago I was lead to the TRUTH of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. So you can take this from someone who knows fairly well the Truth and the Lie. I can tell you this, regardless of what any Catholic may say. The truth is that you really, really are somehow Ignorant of Scriptures, of Christianity and of what the RCC is.

      IDOLATRY is NOT Religion, IDOLATRY is a Very, Very Serious Sin. What the RCC do, its Dogmas, doctrines and practices are Idolatrous. They are taken Not from Scriptures but from the religions of the ancient Greco-Roman World. That said however; the Belief in an Almighty God is NOT a Romanist prerogative. You're Totally unable to discern one from the other. Therefore you're unable to discern the Truth from the Lie.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      You repeatedly post this drivel as if it is some scholarly thesis and then receive applause from the atheist peanut gallery for your pithiness. But here are the responses.

      1. Catholic theology doesn't date the universe. Science is the discipline of describing nature. Christianity and Catholicism both are the philosophical underpinnings from which mankind proceeds to describe, subdue and employ nature for the greater good.

      2. Transubstantiation is a mystical sacrament which the priest presides over by the act of God Himself. Not a parlor trick which the priest conjures up. It is an article of faith which is as hard to accept today as it was when Jesus taught it in the book of John. Your reduction of it because you can't accept it is plebian.

      3.God is not a cosmic concierge. One purpose of prayer is to bring our intentions to God asking that our hearts be transformed to be like Jesus and our minds be renewed in His likeness. Submission to the will of the Father is the natural consequence ala Gethsemane. Another purpose of prayer is simply communion, praise and worship of the one who loves us.

      4. Young earth Catholics again? Isn't this the same statement as number one? I suppose one could be Catholic and not educated scientifically but the doctrine doesn't direct us that way.

      5. Wrong again. categorically. By you own statement all one has to do is "reject God". This is the entire catechist definition of hell. So, by your own free choice, you place yourself in hell. Conversely, it is just as simple to avoid hell by accepting. But it is your choice, not God's.

      6.&7. Trust me on these two, Catholics know who wrote the Bible. We name our kids after them. We know when and how and why the books are assembled the way they are.

      8. Did I miss number 8?

      9. Among lapsed Catholics, I suppose there are a number of cultural Catholics, though some of the strongest Catholics I know are cradle Catholics with generations of history and practice int eh faith, quite beautiful to see. Converts are typically thoughtful, experienced, intelligent seekers who, some after decades of introspection, have found the depth and majesty of the Catholic Church one of the most compelling gifts in God's creation. Muslims, Hindus and others undoubtedly feel the same about their faith. To each his own.

      So can you retire this stuff? It isn't scholarly. It isn't accurate and it isn't even an interesting challenge to the faith because of the errors and suppositions you make.

      8.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
    • fred

      Colin
      1) I have not run into anyone who believes what you have written as to the origin of life. This is nothing more than your personal error of understanding God and the purpose of life.

      2) You confuse magic with faith and the actual presence of the God. As to the sacrament referred, the Church has taken a verse from the Bible into a direction that is questionable but does not impact the truth of God. Saul of Tarsus would give it a pass and let this Church keep its sacrament.

      3) Prayers are answered and the outward results you see are evidence of that. The physical reality of what one observes is subject to the knowledge and core beliefs of the observer. The realities of the answered prayers remain as they are since reality is not altered by opinion and is in fact that which is.

      4) Some may believe a 10,000 year creation, a 6 day creation period and many others. That is not science or religion it is man attempting to make sense of the world around them by combining religion and science. Pope Paul II hit it square on where in short he observed the fault with science that combines philosophy with evolution and religion that attempts to combine the words of the Bible with theories of evolution: “theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, [that] consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996)”

      5) You do not understand the meaning of rejecting God such that it results in eternal hell. Most likely you do not understand how God administers perfect goodness alongside perfect justice. You wording of “all loving” god together with god who inflicts barbaric eternal torture expresses that confusion. I would think that you should notice how irrational that combination is.

      6) Wrong again belief is not based upon the Word of God alone it incorporates many other experiences and knowledge acquired over a lifetime. Your core life belief was not based simply on Darwin’s first book was it?

      7) As with all things outside of pure objective scientific method belief determines how evidence is accepted or rejected. This is not unique to Catholics or non believers.

      8) You also have a belief as to death based on a lifetime of knowledge that presents zero evidence to support such preposterous claim.

      9) You fail to realize that you are a Catholic for no other reason than where you were born. Yes, and your father was an atheist. Both of you were born in a time and place that allowed your belief to continue. If there is God then the facts reveal we were perfectly placed. If there is no God then only the facts remain, yet they remain unchanged because God is and always has been (God if He exists is substance over matter).

      10) No, our belief is that God is revealed through His creation. Jesus was the clearest representation of the Glory of God in a man known as Jesus. This is miraculous in and of itself as no other person lived a perfect life without sin and loved the world so much He would suffer unthinkable pain simply to reconcile perfect eternal goodness and perfect eternal justice.

      March 13, 2013 at 7:02 pm |
    • clarity

      Whoa – the Empire Strikes Back! Go on, fred!

      March 13, 2013 at 7:04 pm |
    • Colin

      @Bill Deacon – You said

      “1. Catholic theology doesn't date the universe. Science is the discipline of describing nature. Christianity and Catholicism both are the philosophical underpinnings from which mankind proceeds to describe, subdue and employ nature for the greater good.”

      The Universe is about 13,720,000,000 old. If you believe your silly sky-fairy created it, he must have done so this long ago. Get it, Bill, it’s not that hard. The fact that this makes your belief look silly shows, well, how silly your belief is. It was fine when mankind thought the Universe was young and small, but now that we know how overwhelmingly enormous it ids, your idea of a the Judeo-Christian god making the whole thing is ridiculous.

      “2. Transubstantiation is a mystical sacrament which the priest presides over by the act of God Himself. Not a parlor trick which the priest conjures up. It is an article of faith which is as hard to accept today as it was when Jesus taught it in the book of John. Your reduction of it because you can't accept it is plebian.”

      In other words, you believe that a priest transforms grocery store bread and wine into flesh and blood because of his special powers. Which is exactly what I said!! And it is completely ridiculous and childish to believe such Dark Ages nonsense in the 21st Century. That said, I am happy to hear evidence that I am wrong. Evidence please Bill?

      “3.God is not a cosmic concierge. One purpose of prayer is to bring our intentions to God asking that our hearts be transformed to be like Jesus and our minds be renewed in His likeness. Submission to the will of the Father is the natural consequence ala Gethsemane. Another purpose of prayer is simply communion, praise and worship of the one who loves us.”

      In other words, you believe that, when you think silent thoughts like “please God, help me pass my exam tomorrow,” the being that created the entire cosmos reads your mind and will intervene to alter what would otherwise be the course of human history in small ways to satisfy your concerns – or “answers your prayers” as you call it. Which is, once again EXACTLY what I said. And which is, once again, a pretty childish thing to believe.

      “4. Young earth Catholics again? Isn't this the same statement as number one? I suppose one could be Catholic and not educated scientifically but the doctrine doesn't direct us that way."

      Read Genesis and get back to me!! And don’t give me that nonsense that its all a “parable.” Every Catholic believed it lock, stock and barrel for 1800 years until science proved it to be garbage.

      5. "Wrong again. categorically. By you own statement all one has to do is "reject God". This is the entire catechist definition of hell. So, by your own free choice, you place yourself in hell. Conversely, it is just as simple to avoid hell by accepting. But it is your choice, not God's."

      Again, you believe that all I need do is honestly, rationally and reasonably reject a belief in the Catholic god and he will inflict a barbaric eternal torture on me an infinite times worse than the death penalty. You seem to be agreeing with everything I say. The difficulty you are having is that you are realizing how silly it all is.

      6.&7." Trust me on these two, Catholics know who wrote the Bible. We name our kids after them. We know when and how and why the books are assembled the way they are."

      Great, tell me something about the authors of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or about one of the authors of the Old Testament, or about one of the authors of the Epistles other than Paul. He is the only author in the entire bible we know anything about – unless you accept the garb age about the apostles writing in Greek decades after they would be dead!

      "8. Did I miss number 8? "

      I don’t get your point. Please elaborate.

      "9. Among lapsed Catholics, I suppose there are a number of cultural Catholics, though some of the strongest Catholics I know are cradle Catholics with generations of history and practice int eh faith, quite beautiful to see. Converts are typically thoughtful, experienced, intelligent seekers who, some after decades of introspection, have found the depth and majesty of the Catholic Church one of the most compelling gifts in God's creation. Muslims, Hindus and others undoubtedly feel the same about their faith. To each his own."

      So, once again, for the fourth time, you agree with what I said, that you are a Catholic for no other reason than where you were born. If you were born in India, chances are you would be a Hindu; if in Israel, a Jew; if in Iran a Shiite Muslim. Every culture that has ever existed has its own god or gods, yet you believe you were lucky enough to have been born in the one time and place where we “got it right.”

      You just lack the ability to put your faith in geographical context and realize you are no more correct that any other belief.

      March 13, 2013 at 7:12 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Colin,
      I am not a Catholic, but I couldn’t resist.

      “Ten signs you are a Catholic.

      [Now, if you are a Catholic and have an issue with anything I say below, respond. But, I am sick of getting responses like, “you have no idea about REAL Catholicism” or “You have no idea what you are talking about” with no specifics. If you disagree with ANYTHING I say, point it out. If you just don’t like hearing how absurd your religion is, get over it.]

      So, TEN SIGNS YOU ARE A CATHOLIC

      1. You honestly believe that an all powerful, immortal being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies (each with billions of stars) about 13,720,000,000 years ago, then sat back and did nothing for virtually all this time, until h.omo Sapiens evolved on one planet, then sent his “son” to visit some Jews in the late Iron Age Middle East and tell them parables about wheat, goats and sheep.”

      The bible does not date the universe or the earth. Parables are very good teaching tools.

      2. “You believe that priests have special, magic powers that nobody else does, that allow them to turn grocery store bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of a crucified apocalyptic Jew from 2,000 years ago.”

      Where did you get this? All kinds of Christians observe the sacrament. Jesus said when you do this, do it in remembrance of me. We take the bread and wine and think about his crucifixion, death, and resurrection. We are thankful for his sacrifice to save us.

      3. “You believe that, when you think silent thoughts like “please God, help me pass my exam tomorrow,” the being that created the entire cosmos reads your mind and will intervene to alter what would otherwise be the course of human history in small ways to satisfy your concerns – or “answers your prayers” as you call it.”

      Personally, I don’t think I have ever prayed a prayer like that, but I wouldn’t fault someone for asking Gods help with anything.

      4. “You are about 60% likely to believe that the entire Universe was created less than 10,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake.”

      I don’t mind telling you, I don’t know when the universe was created. The cool thing about it is, you don’t either.

      5. “You believe that your “all loving” god will cause those who are smart enough to be honestly and rationally skeptical of his existence to suffer an eternity of torture an infinite times worse than anything Hitler came up with. You don’t have to kill, you don’t have to steal, hell, you don’t even have to litter. All you need do is honestly, rationally and reasonably reject a belief in the Catholic god and he will inflict a barbaric eternal torture on you an infinite times worse than the death penalty……and he loves you.”

      If you seek God, he will find you. He will reveal himself to you. If he hasn’t already he will give you an opportunity to believe, if you reject him, then yes, you will be separated from him. There are plenty of skeptical people who are also Christians, if God hadn’t revealed himself to them and me, we wouldn’t believe either.

      6. “You base your belief almost entirely on the life and divinity of Jesus Christ, blissfully ignorant of who wrote the 4 gospels upon which this belief is 100% based, how the gospels were altered over the Centuries and when and in what language the authors wrote.”

      The disciples wrote the gospels. They witnessed what they wrote about. The bible we have Today has been checked to the oldest copies found and it is accurate.

      7. “You probably don’t even know anything about how the Bible was compiled, who write it, who decided what books to include and what to exclude and the criteria they used, yet you base your entire view of life, death and the Universe on it.”

      We know who the men were that were inspired by God to write the books included in the bible. I won’t list them all here, but if you’re serious and would like to discuss specific books, just let me know. The criteria for selecting the writings that were included in the bible were very simple. The most important of which was consistency.

      8. “You believe you will live for ever after death, with zero evidence to support such a preposterous claim.”

      You are discussing faith again and when it comes to that, if you have a personal experience with God, you will have the opportunity to believe too.

      9. “You fail to realize that you are a Catholic for no other reason than where you were born. If you were born in India, chances are you would be a Hindu; if in Israel, a Jew; if in Iran a Shiite Muslim. Every culture that has ever existed has its own god or gods, yet you believe you were lucky enough to have been born in the one time and place where we “got it right.””

      No argument about that, you are more likely to believe the faith you were raised in. This is why Jesus told us to spread the good news.

      10. “At its core, Catholicism requires a belief that a god impregnated a virgin with himself, to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to forgive the original sin of a couple that anybody with a fifth grade education knows did not exist.”

      The holy spirit overshadowed the virgin so that Jesus could be all man and all God. God the father remained in heaven while God the son walked the earth in human flesh. Jesus came to do something that no one, or nothing else could do, to reconcile all humans to God. It is his free gift, all you have to do is accept it. Peace.

      March 13, 2013 at 7:51 pm |
  4. Ken

    Then I'll get on my knees and pray
    We don't get fooled again
    Don't get fooled again
    No, no!

    YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss

    March 13, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
    • Dennis

      Very appropriate and a great band. You and they rock, dude.

      March 13, 2013 at 7:53 pm |
  5. anthony chelsea

    His papal name is FRANCISCO
    ...
    ...not "FRANCIS".....ridiculous translation. say as it is

    March 13, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
    • Rollo Tomasi

      Why do popes need aliases anyway? I mean, aside from souonding more pompous and condescending?

      March 13, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Do you really think that Francisco is a different from Francis?

      March 13, 2013 at 7:05 pm |
    • clarity

      Well now you've got me wondering about the Xavier dude – is his also really Francisco?
      (I've always kind of like both those names actually.)

      March 13, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
    • clarity

      (liked)

      March 13, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Clarity:

      Francis Xavier, born Francisco de Jasso y Azpilicueta in the Kingdom of Navarre (later Spain).

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

      March 13, 2013 at 7:09 pm |
    • clarity

      Yeah – I think I like the longer version – it makes the gender clearer, too. I guess it would be Francesca or something like that if it were a woman.

      March 13, 2013 at 7:11 pm |
    • Oldster

      Francis = English
      Francisco = Spanish
      Francesco = Italian
      Frankiskos = Greek
      Etc, etc., etc.

      Same same.

      . -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_%28given_name%29#Related_names_in_other_languages

      March 13, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
  6. clarity

    I'm sure we'll learn more about this one in weeks to come. But they did say this guy likes to live cheaply; and the dude introducing him said blah blah something Dominos something and I just got a queasy feeling in my stomach. I don't care what they say, that is not pizza.

    March 13, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
    • Yuppers

      Dominos, Chick Fil A, Hobby Lobby . . . why is it that Christian Fundamentalist greedball owners pay minimum wage to serve crap quality?

      March 13, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
    • What?

      Yuppers
      The same reason the Princes of the church live in luxury while the laity turn over their hard earned money and live modestly, this guy maybe different if he can maintain his values.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
    • Yuppers

      Don't hold your breath on that one. He's alread wearing the rich robes.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      A little more on this man: http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/13/who-is-jorge-mario-bergoglio/

      March 13, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
  7. Bubbles, Doom Poodle of the Apocalypse!!!

    I see from the picture that the new Pope is continuing Ratzi's boyhood salute.

    Argentina, huh? Isn't that where the Nazis all fled after the war?

    March 13, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
  8. Facepalm

    Trolls, oh trolls. Nothing else to do, so put down other people. Makes sense.

    March 13, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • Mirror Mirror

      Facepalm likes to put down people who put down people.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • anthony chelsea

      atheists are emotionally disturbed....they are like a fly that drops in someone's soup...:)

      March 13, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • Bubbles, Doom Poodle of the Apocalypse

      Flies that drop into soup are emotionally disturbed?

      I sure you wanted to make sense, but you just didn't get there.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Bubbles

      You don't think they're mentally disturbed? If you had wings would you ever "fall" anywhere? Let alone fall to your impending death?

      If I had wings (not the red bull kind) I would pretty much never use my legs again, just saying.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • Bubbles, Doom Poodle of the Apocalypse

      I was more wondering whether Facey had done some weird test on the flies in his soup . . . which of course don't "fall" there.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
  9. Truth Prevails :-)

    A little info on the new Pontifex:

    "He strongly opposed legislation introduced in 2010 by the Argentine Government to allow same-sex marriage. In a letter to the monasteries of Buenos Aires, he wrote: "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." He has also insisted that adoption by homosexuals is a form of discrimination against children." (http://www.therealstevegray.com/)

    March 13, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • Lycidas

      What's the shocker with this? It's not surprising that he would be against it and legislature that would endorse it. If one believes in free speech, then it's his right to oppose it if he wishes as long as he doesn't force any govt to abide by his thinking.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • Wakey Wakey

      He WAS trying to get a government to abide by his thinking!

      March 13, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
    • Lycidas

      "He WAS trying to get a government to abide by his thinking!"

      How?? By stating his opinion to ppl within the church?
      Hey..let's go round up the likes of Clooney and other Hollywood ppl in our country that use their position to voice their nonabiding opinions about govt.

      Don't fear the opinions of others that cannot make you do anything.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • Wakey Wakey

      Hysterical much? You are the one who claimed he was not trying to influence legislation when the quote clearly showed he was. And what does that have to do with citizens in America exercising their constitutional right to state their political views?

      It's the separation of church and state, no citizen and state.

      Calm down, take a few deep breaths, and try to get a grip.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Lycidas: It's wrong because it is solely based off of his belief and therefore is very misguided and damaging. This man is not good man...he's a bigot and bigotry is simply wrong.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
    • Walla Walla

      Bigotry is okay if your holy book says so.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Walla Walla- "Bigotry is okay if your holy book says so."

      Lol...but bigotry that you develop as an individual is okay? I mean, it would seem that you are just as bigoted toward the RCC and this man whom you know nothing about really.

      Opinions, whether they are from a bigoted POV or not, are not illegal. When he was archbishop, he was allowed to have any opinion he wanted as anyone is. Did he use his position as an archbishop to make the legislature change it's mind? No.
      He did what was allowed and voiced his opinion within the organization he belongs to.

      Sure you are more than allowed to disagree with him on his position, but to make it out that he has done something illegal is just plain wrong.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • Wakey Wakey

      Who ever said it was illegal? You keep perverting what others say to cover up your argumentative failures. The point you started with was he was not trying to influence government, which was wrong. You could be honest and just admit you were wrong, but instead you went on this weird change-the-subject-and-toss-in-some-straw-men thing to hide the simple fact you were wrong.

      So my question now is why Christians like you have so much trouble being honest, and result to such sleazy trickery?

      March 13, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      To be fair, he didn't say "influence." He said "force." There's a significant different. Did he try to influence the government? Yes. Did he try to force the government? Well, I haven't seen anything that would suggest that.

      Essentially what he did was what every protester of every type on every subject does. Voice their opinion to the government and see what happens.

      March 13, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Thank you Damian.

      March 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm |
  10. Answer

    Yes.. a white guy is indeed voted in.

    March 13, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • Zingo

      Of Italian parents. It's not like the Papacy has lost its klannish shade of white.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
  11. Lycidas

    Guess all the naysayers that said that the RCC would never pick someone outside of Europe are feeling pretty stupid right now.

    March 13, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      I only said old, white, peadophile. Nothing about being from Europe.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Is there something wrong with being old?
      Is there something wrong with being "white"? European American is so much better btw.
      And do you have any evidence of him being a peadophile? Other than your opinion.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      I'm sure it will come out eventually. Only a matter of time.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
  12. Reality

    The damage has been done. The flawed underbelly of the RCC and all religions in general has been forever exposed and no pope even one named Francis will be able to cure the wounds.

    March 13, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Make a mental note for yourself....positive reinforcement speeches are not in your future.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • A Conversation

      ....Unless they can be cut and pasted.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
    • Reality

      Part of the flawed underbelly of Christianity:

      (only for the new members of this blog as current members know the flaws already):

      Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Con/

      From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15: 14, Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

      Even now Catholic/Christian professors of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.

      To wit;

      From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:

      "Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
      Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.

      Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

      Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.

      The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

      Only Luke records it. (Luke mentions it in his gospel and Acts, i.e. a single attestation and therefore historically untenable). The Ascension ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers.

      The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "

      "In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
      http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

      The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.

      With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:

      An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

      p.4

      "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

      p.168. by Ted Peters:

      Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "

      So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.

      March 13, 2013 at 11:10 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Ah..the copy/pasting of ppl that Reality considers to be smarter than him. Never refreshing but always predictable.

      March 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • Reality

      For those who want to learn more about the historic Jesus:

      o 1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.
      o
      2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
      – a list of early Christian doc-uments to include the year of publication–

      30-60 CE Passion Narrative
      40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
      50-60 1 Thessalonians
      50-60 Philippians
      50-60 Galatians
      50-60 1 Corinthians
      50-60 2 Corinthians
      50-60 Romans
      50-60 Philemon
      50-80 Colossians
      50-90 Signs Gospel
      50-95 Book of Hebrews
      50-120 Didache
      50-140 Gospel of Thomas
      50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
      50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
      65-80 Gospel of Mark
      70-100 Epistle of James
      70-120 Egerton Gospel
      70-160 Gospel of Peter
      70-160 Secret Mark
      70-200 Fayyum Fragment
      70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
      73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
      80-100 2 Thessalonians
      80-100 Ephesians
      80-100 Gospel of Matthew
      80-110 1 Peter
      80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
      80-130 Gospel of Luke
      80-130 Acts of the Apostles
      80-140 1 Clement
      80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
      80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
      80-250 Christian Sibyllines
      90-95 Apocalypse of John
      90-120 Gospel of John
      90-120 1 John
      90-120 2 John
      90-120 3 John
      90-120 Epistle of Jude
      93 Flavius Josephus
      100-150 1 Timothy
      100-150 2 Timothy
      100-150 T-itus
      100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
      100-150 Secret Book of James
      100-150 Preaching of Peter
      100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
      100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
      100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
      100-160 2 Peter

      3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
      – "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"
      4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html–"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."
      5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm
      6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria
      7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html
      8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
      joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm
      9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

      Added references are available.

      March 14, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
  13. hawaiiguest

    The only thing people should expect from the RCC until its eventual irrelevancy is more of the same.

    March 13, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
    • bobk52

      Yes I agree!

      March 13, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • fred

      What can we expect from the atheist? As I move around the world I see hospitals, schools, orphanages built by the Catholic Church.
      Exactly what has the atheist done for the world except to tear down a hope and the promise that we are created for a purpose?

      March 13, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • St. Montius Pythonus

      Aside from the science and the medicine and the democracy and the justice system and the freedom and the equality, what have the atheists ever done for us?

      March 13, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Ever heard of science? Without science there would be no medicine or doctors for those hospitals. Science has advanced in spite of religion, not because of it.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
    • Chad is not just a pleasant little Sub-Saharan Country

      Not just more of the same. They've overcome the Pauli-exclusion principle for religious conservatism. As they implode the magnitude of the conservatism scalar field's gradient will increase without bounds. At the last they will go over an event horizon and become, at the boundary, an undifferentiated source of unfocused, principle-less conservatism.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • Lycidas

      "Aside from the science and the medicine and the democracy and the justice system and the freedom and the equality, what have the atheists ever done for us?"

      Are you drunk?
      Medicine can find it's roots in many cultures with strong religious background.
      Democracy....ever heard of the Greeks? You know...those guys who had a pantheon of gods?
      Justice System...was Napoleon an atheist? Not to mention all the various lawyers and judges within our own nation for the last200+ years.
      Freedom and equality...yeah, atheists came up with that *rolls eyes*

      I hope you were trying to be sarcastic and just didn't get it right.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      I doubt you've moved anywhere outside the U.S.. Even so, hospitals by the Catholic Church? You got any numbers for that?
      Catholic schools are expensive, and not even necessarily good schools.
      Orphanages that discriminate against people who they don't like?
      We don't need those kinds of things in an inclusive society.

      As for your little "hope and promise" crap, the fact remains that there is no evidence of those things being true, and yet religion punches that god-sized hole in people, then offer the assertion that their god fills the hole they put there, so really why should anyone care about false hope and promises?
      Ever hear of doctors without borders?

      Now, what irrelevant crap will you spew to avoid actually addressing anything?

      March 13, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Lycidas: None of what you said points to a god, it merely points to the age old belief in gods. Science is what saves your sorry ass from dying of deadly diseases; science is what enables you to communicate via a computer and the internet; science is everywhere around us...no god needed, just the brilliant minds of men.
      Since you pointed to the greeks, do you believe in their gods?

      March 13, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • What?

      fred
      You are stupid really, really, fvcking stupid. Gates and Buffett and now with the help of Bloomberg are doing more in their lifetimes than the RCC has in centuries, you see you have to turn over what soul you might have to get help from the likes of Mother Teresa, the bit ch.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Lycidas

      @Truth Prevails- what you are not understanding is that all those great things were developed within cultures that were very religious. Not ONE of them were ever developed within an atheist dominated culture. Right?
      Religion does NOT instantly hinder the development of new technologies or scientific discoveries. Religion has in fact helped with passing along old information and new to the world.
      For anyone to presume that atheists developed democracy or freedom while those of a faith couldn't is stupid.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Stop, stop, stop! Look, there have been some profound experiments and realizations done by religious people and non-religious people alike. No one can take credit for science, because there was the examining of natural phenomenon in different parts of the world that didn't have much, if any, contact with each other. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Middle Eastern peoples, Asians and others. All of these people had atheists and religious people.

      No one can say that atheists have not done anything beneficial for the world, just like no one can say that no religious person has ever done anything beneficial. It's a stupid argument.

      Yes, medicine is important. There are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, atheist and agnostic doctors (as well as those of many more faiths). So let's all stop trying to claim "science" for one side or the other because it's just ridiculous.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Lycidas

      In many cases (mainly during christian or abrahamic religion reigns), progress happens in spite of the religion in power.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Lycidas: Regardless of belief, those things would have happened....you might as well have just said that Atheists (due to our lack of religion) haven't accomplished anything or haven't any good and that would be pure bull. You do not need religion to make for science to exist. You have a computer because someone without religion had the intelligence to create it; you have the internet because someone without religion created it. You simply don't need religion for anything...everything religions do can be done regardless (including charities; science; etc).

      March 13, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest

      Primary and secondary schools 125,016
      Universities 1,046
      Hospitals 5,853
      Orphanages 8,695
      Homes for the elderly and handicapped 13,933
      Dispensaries, leprosaries, nurseries and other inst-itutions 74,936

      March 13, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • Larry of Nazareth

      The Catholic Church makes a ton of money on those institutions.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Lycidas

      @hawaiiguest- I never said that religion never hindered science, just that religion wasn't instantly wrong either. One can't point out that atheism is instantly better. Different perspectives can bring about different results.

      @Truth Prevails 🙂
      Lol....in no way did I imply that atheists never contributed to the world of science. My point was simply that science began and grew in culture with strong and/or various belief structures. Science didn't come about in an atheist bubble.
      I agree that science can come from a position of non-belief. But the truth that prevails is that the majority of our science came from cultures that were religious.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Got citations for any of that?

      March 13, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Lycidas

      You pointed out "correctly" that the people and the general culture of certain areas did not hinder certain social and scientific advances. What I said was that, generally, progress has happened despite Abrahamic religion reigns.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization#cite_ref-Froehle30_92-0

      March 13, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      The father of computers was Charles Babbage who was a Christian.
      Gottfried Leibniz was a Lutheran
      Thomas Bayes was a Presbyterian minister
      Otto Brunfels is considered one of the fathers of botany was a Christian
      Ignazio Danti was a bishop and also a mathematician and astronomer.

      What does all of this mean? Nothing. It just goes to show that not all Christians are backwoods, non-thinkers who don't ascribe to science.

      March 13, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Lycidas: My misunderstanding...my apologies.

      March 13, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Good, now tell me why we should want divisive schools and orphanages in an inclusive society? Also, what point does any of this make? That the church has tons of money? We already knew that.

      March 13, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Truth Prevails :-)-Lycidas: My misunderstanding...my apologies.

      No problem..all is cool.

      March 13, 2013 at 8:09 pm |
    • fred

      Hawaiiguest
      “tell me why we should want divisive schools and orphanages in an inclusive society?”
      =>my opinion only, I have not really thought this out: Divisiveness as to good and evil is a good thing when done according to the ways of God. In the old days God would separate out a people from the mass of ungodly types. They were to be a holy people and as such were not to do as the people around them did. This was to protect those destined for unity with God. God floods out the wicked and the Hebrew kill off men, women and children that spell death to good. At the time of Jesus man had civilized sufficiently to where divisiveness was no longer needed. Paul and others of course were old school that had divisiveness still in their character. That trait was necessary to launch Christianity and so it did.
      Jesus was a clear model and we are to love and not condemn. We were also given the Holy Spirit that would guide us. Now we are to be in the world but not of the world. We are to serve and not be divisive or hateful.
      Some consider that when Jesus said “I am the way the truth and life, no one comes to the father but through me”. That is not divisive because the offer is to all. If you choose to be Hindu I should share the gospel and my testimony then let it be. In short not judge the Hindu vs. the Catholic etc.

      “ Also, what point does any of this make?”
      The point being that as bad as the Church has behaved it still had some great redeeming value.

      March 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      NOBODY expects the Argentinian Papacy ...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4

      March 13, 2013 at 8:13 pm |
    • Old Dutch

      More classic Python please. So appropriate to religion.

      March 13, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @DamianKnight

      "It just goes to show that not all Christians are backwoods, non-thinkers who don't ascribe to science."

      Of course not. The opposite however is certainly true as well – particularly when fundamentalism is applied.

      Have you seen the Neil DeGrasse Tyson lecture on the impact of Muslim fundamentalism (in the wake of 12th century teachings by Al-Ghazali) on the sciences in the Muslim world?

      This is no different to people like Congressman Paul Broun.

      March 13, 2013 at 8:20 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      And yet you are taking a single interpretation of your holy book to decide what is good and evil, and you're perfectly willing to disregard every other interpretation, even though they'd say the same thing. Also, I was talking about orphanages that would rather shut down rather than not use government money to discriminate against people, as has happened. I'm talking about schools that teach complete crap science and math, like the one I went to. I'm talking about demonstrable harm, which you seem to constantly ignore or try to diminish. You can talk about "word of god" until your blue in the face, but the fact remains that it's merely an interpretation that you accept to be true.

      A direct analogy according to your logic:

      A man spends 364 days every year being what you would call a "perfect christian", yet on that last day of the year, goes out and murders a person. Should we ignore his yearly murder because he does so much "good" throughout the rest of the year? Or should he be held responsible, just as the criminal organization known as the RCC should be held responsible?

      March 13, 2013 at 8:20 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      Responsibility of course, and the RCC paid out over 2 billion in disclosed settlements and who knows about the undisclosed settlements.
      As to good and evil what is your issue with Jesus as that goodness he modeled should be accepted across all the earth. As to evil he said the religious leaders of his day were evil, devil evil and everything that is not the love of God or love of neighbor.
      The bad experience in school for you was the result of misguided people not God.

      March 13, 2013 at 9:12 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      So doling out hush money and shuffling the priests to different parishes where they have the ability to molest again is taking responsibility? How about their responsibility in the spread of HIV/AIDS in african countries by working against any kind of condom use, instead relying on a demonstrably useless "abstinence only" policy?

      As for your second paragraph, that in no way addresses my post, which is much more like you. Are you going to address it or not?

      In terms of schools, this does not let the church off the hook.

      Here's what I notice about you fred, whenever a point comes up about the bad things religion or church has done, you switch it to "it's not god's fault" when that's not even the subject at hand. Why do you use this dishonest tactic?

      March 13, 2013 at 9:34 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Just in case DamianKnight comes back, here's the DeGrasse Tyson lecture:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w

      It's very good.

      March 13, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
    • fred

      “Here's what I notice about you fred, whenever a point comes up about the bad things religion or church has done, you switch it to "it's not god's fault" when that's not even the subject at hand. Why do you use this dishonest tactic?”
      =>here is what I notice about you Hawaii, whenever the truth of God’s goodness is presented as represented by the writers and Hebrews who recorded their revelations you switch to “god is a mean nasty killer”. Why do you use this dishonest tactic?

      March 14, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      It took you that long to come up with that pathetic response? You have never been able to demonstrate the "goodness" of your god without needing to presuppose that same goodness. Now, will you continue pathetic irrelevancy in your posts, or will you actually address what I said?

      March 14, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
    • fred

      The issue with you on most Christian related posts is that you have a bias based a belief that God is a wicked killer. We need to resolve this. Given that we are speaking about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that revealed a plan to redeem His Chosen Ones the Hebrew (Old Testament) what value is our belief since everything is based upon their belief?
      Your basis for calling God a killer is the flood. Given the story is by and from the Hebrews that came from Noah one would expect that their roots came from Noah that found favor in the eyes of the Lord. This God is very loving and kind to have done that right? Now, we have the rest of mankind that somehow had their DNA from wicked old murdering God hating Cain mixed up with fallen angels at these people were wicked beyond account and getting worse. Regardless if you believe it was God or simply natural selection that led to only one line (the Hebrew) the story shows they were selected and protected from extinction. Why? Because God loves them.
      Your basis for calling God a killer is that their story claims God told them to kill off the Amorites and Moabites who were constantly attacking them without end. Remember Jesus is not on the scene yet so we are still in the barbaric cultures. If the Bible is not believable as you say then we cannot believe God told these barbaric people to do anything other than use God as an excuse to harm others (which we are very familiar with even today). If the Bible is believable then we know it was necessary in order to protect the Word of God (they were the keepers of the Word) from pollution by these foreign people and to protect the genetic line physically to fulfill the promises of God made to His people.
      Where is your killer? Was there a killer found in your naturalism that eliminated the Neanderthal?

      March 14, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      So you'll continue with your normal tactic of moving the subject away from the church and the religion into the irrelevant territory of your same old moronic assertions and spin? Still predictable. So how many more irrelevant posts will you spew before you run like the coward you are?

      March 14, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
    • David

      What's going to be funny is they have proof that water use to exist on mars, that means the very likely life exists on other planets in the universe and has nothing to do with the Christian god. Just like the evidence they identified a particle with characteristics of the elusive Higgs boson. It's further proof the bible is wrong and myth.

      March 14, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
    • clarity

      Thanks for posting the video notaGOPer – that was very thought-provoking.

      March 14, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • fred

      Dave
      Science and religion deal with different areas of our life experiences and our beliefs based on those observable events. They complement each other and as such water on Mars or invariant mass of leptons and quarks under the gauge transformations simply prove God is not of baryonic matter rather substance over form.

      March 14, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • David

      "They complement each other and as such water on Mars or invariant mass of leptons and quarks under the gauge transformations simply prove God is not of baryonic matter rather substance over form."

      My name is David not Dave. Do you lie to yourself like this all the time?

      March 14, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Clarity,

      you're welcome. Someone else posted it here long ago.

      Religion can be a champion of education or a promoter of ignorance and fundamentalism tends to reinforce the latter.

      March 14, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • fred

      GOper
      Education also promotes ignorance of God by bringing God down to the level of man his gods.

      @David
      What is it with the Dave's of the world that insist on being called David ?

      March 14, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      So instead of running fred now uses his ignore tactic. He hasn't done that in a while. Poor, sad little liar.

      March 14, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • The Wobbly World of Jesus

      Let's call fred "pubicface" for a while so he can understand why people prefer to be addressed by their correct names.

      That okay with you, pubicface?

      March 14, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      “And yet you are taking a single interpretation of your holy book to decide what is good and evil, and you're perfectly willing to disregard every other interpretation, even though they'd say the same thing.”
      =>Ok, Jesus said no one is good but God which sets and absolute standard. That absolute standard is an infinite, eternal, self existent goodness. You cannot get any “gooder” than that. Evil is the opposite. Any other “holy book” will fit within those absolutes.

      “ Also, I was talking about orphanages that would rather shut down rather than not use government money to discriminate against people”
      =>there are always exceptions to the norm.

      “I'm talking about demonstrable harm, which you seem to constantly ignore or try to diminish.”
      =>I do not ignore such things and see harm from others not just Catholics.

      “ You can talk about "word of god" until your blue in the face, but the fact remains that it's merely an interpretation that you accept to be true.”
      =>no different than your philosophical naturalism that you accept to be true.

      “A direct analogy according to your logic:A man spends 364 days every year being what you would call a "perfect christian", yet on that last day of the year, goes out and murders a person. Should we ignore his yearly murder because he does so much "good" throughout the rest of the year? Or should he be held responsible, just as the criminal organization known as the RCC should be held responsible?”
      =>This was completely addressed when I said they (RCC) paid out 2 billion so far in damages. This is also why there is a need for eternal accountability. I see your constant rants that eternity in hell is bad and at some time the punishment should stop. So, let me clear that up once again. Hell is reserved for Satan and his followers. Priests that were evil were satanic. Are you suggesting that after some period of time they should be released so they could do it again? You would make a good Pope.

      March 14, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Science

      Hey fred

      Can you DANCE like CHAD ?

      Peace

      March 14, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
    • Holy Hallucinations 28

      Creationists FUN

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XXhfs4W8Qs

      March 14, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • fred

      Science
      No, Chad belongs on Dancing with the Stars as he knows his stuff.
      As for me I only do the Samba...........................samba done told me dat .

      March 14, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
    • Science

      All chad knows fred is RELIGIOUS BS

      Gravity wins splat goes the fairy in the sky.

      Check it out on sciencedaily.com

      Peace

      Or watch video above about the 28 ghosts you MIGHT learn something

      March 14, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @fred,

      "Education also promotes ignorance of God by bringing God down to the level of man."

      I should hope so, seeing as "God" is an invention of humans anyway.

      March 14, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • fred

      GOPer
      An invention always requires an inventor just as we have the creation and the creator. That is not an invention it is self evident from observation. Everything you know in the physical world is observable through the application of our 5 senses. Billions of years of evolution have left us blind to anything outside that which is observable by our 5 senses. From a fish in a fish bowl to a chimp in the jungle do they know anything that is not required for survival?

      Man knows something for survival that points to preparation for something that is not of the physical. From the time of Adam that knowledge has been passed down generationally under the umbrella of God and codified into the Bible about 1400 BC. It is convenient to suggest (without evidence) that there is nothing outside the known physical yet instinct within 98% of the population suspects that is not the case. I believe that it is more likely that 2% lacking this instinct represent a significant deviation from the norm than do 98% that retain this human trait.

      Pain and pleasure, though a driving force in life experiences, tend to be viewed and elevated outside the physical when incorporating cognitive awareness outside of the physical. When that happens religions are formed at the local level reflecting this awareness. The religions may or may not be nonsense but the foundation of knowledge that there is something necessary for survival beyond the physical is very real and self evident.

      March 14, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
    • clarity

      fred: "Man knows something for survival that points to preparation for something that is not of the physical . . ."

      fred, we've just evolved to where our minds can imagine unreal things. that's why man whipped up gods. But we're not all that special in that regard. we observer pets doing the same thing on a bit simpler level – creating that imaginary mouse around the corner.

      March 14, 2013 at 7:07 pm |
    • clarity

      we *observe* not observer

      March 14, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
    • fred

      clarity
      Would you say the evidence for your belief as expressed above (i.e. simply capacity to imagine) for the existence of God has about the same quality of evidence and does my belief that God gave us that capacity for a reason?

      March 14, 2013 at 7:17 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      The two beliefs do not have equally supported premises, fred, so that difference should be considered as well.

      March 14, 2013 at 7:21 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Wow, what a long rambling way to not actually answer what I said. Same old fred, unable to actually give anything resembling an answer.

      March 14, 2013 at 7:23 pm |
    • clarity

      I don't like to rule out any possibilities, fred. And that includes many possibilities that may involve a higher being or creative force that is like nothing we've seen so far. But from my point of view, I don't see compelling evidence for the Abrahamic God.

      March 14, 2013 at 7:33 pm |
    • Ron

      "An invention always requires an inventor just as we have the creation and the creator."

      No, creator. January 2013 The scientific world is abuzz with news of the ratification of the existence of the subatomic particle called the Higgs boson – or more colloquially, the 'God particle.' This subatomic particle's existence – which was verified recently (with virtually near certainty) by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland – lends credence to several long-standing physical theories such as the so-called Standard Model and the Big Bang Theory.

      The nickname God particle is ironic for two reasons. First, generally, the nuclear physicists who deal with these matters – postulating the fundamental physical laws of the universe and then setting about to either verify or refute them – tend not to be regular church-goers. While there are some highly prominent scientists who balance personal, religious beliefs with professional, scientific quests, most probably go along with the thoughts of the world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking.

      "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God."

      So, it is a bit ironic that physics' most famous quest has resulted in the discovery of the 'God particle.' Most physicists are quite comfortable having their names associated with famous – even if dead – humans like Newton, Einstein or the afore-mentioned Hawking. One will find few, if any, attributions to deities in the objects that physicists discover and name or the theories they propose.

      Second, and more importantly, the discovery that the God particle really exists does not – as the name suggests – imply that God played some role in the creation of the universe. In fact, quite the opposite.

      March 14, 2013 at 7:34 pm |
    • fred

      Ron
      “Second, and more importantly, the discovery that the God particle really exists does not – as the name suggests – imply that God played some role in the creation of the universe. In fact, quite the opposite.”
      =>According to the Bible God spoke the creation into existence in the beginning and Jesus was the Word that was with God. I find it impossible to correlate the method of creation used by God with longitudinal components of the weak force. The word of God when spoken may break the weak isospin symmetry of the electroweak interaction in which case there is a loss of mass not the creation of mass.
      Sorry, I cannot think of a single way Higgs boson proves, disproves or implies God is needed or not needed in creation of the universe.

      March 14, 2013 at 8:53 pm |
  14. William Demuth

    God willing perhaps this Pope, will be the last Pope

    March 13, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • bobk52

      Like +1 I luv u.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • Lycidas

      That's a good prayer because what could possibly happen in the world that would cause a 2,000 year old religion and it's establish hiearchy collapse in less than a decade that wouldn't damage the heck out of the rest of the world?

      March 13, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Lycidas

      It would be fasicinating to watch, from a purely academic POV. I guess it would depend on how it happened, but maybe a new religion would rise to take its place, maybe the other sects would absorb the catholic members, maybe, just maybe people would come to the mass realization that god most likely doesn't exist

      March 13, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • Lycidas

      @Chuckles- it would be interesting to see from an academic POV but wow...short of a massive war or social upheaval...I couldn't fathom anything "safe" for the world that could result in it.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Lycidas,

      I think it all depends on the WHY more than anything else. I mean, it would depend a large part on what disi.llusi.oned these people or not. On the upside, I don't live in a very catholic area so I think I would have a head start to head inla.nd into the woods or something before batsh.it ex-catholics burned sh.it down.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
  15. Christianity is a form of SEVERE mental illness

    "and a follower of the church's most conservative wing."
    .
    *rolling eyes*

    March 13, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • Zingo

      Well duh! That's why The Rat stepped down – to ensure that the hard-liners stay in power.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
  16. Chad is not just a pleasant little Sub-Saharan Country

    What we've needed for years – an even more conservative Pope.

    March 13, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
  17. William Demuth

    It never fails when you are in Rome, you can never find either a Taxi or a Palestinian suicide bomber when you need one.

    March 13, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
  18. Mass Debater

    From this picture he looks like Pope Jonathan Pryce...

    March 13, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • Akira

      Evita! Evita! Evita!

      March 13, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
  19. William Demuth

    Does the communion wafer now come with salsa?

    March 13, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • Zingo

      Doctrinal changes that the new pope is instituting:

      Jesus turned water into margaritas.

      It's now the communion tortilla.

      Gays are still evil, and it's okay to make tacos out of them.

      Siding with right-wing dictatorships and ignoring the disappearing of dissidents is okay if the church keeps its power.

      The Papal sombrero will be revealed Friday.

      March 13, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
    • End Religion

      Holy guacamole!

      March 13, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • The Vengador Sombrero

      I have the faint feeling that you are confusing Mexico with Argentina. Finding sombreros in Argentina is very very very very very very very hard. I know what I'm talking about.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Zingo

      Methinks you took that way too seriously.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • The Vengador Sombrero

      Youthink wrong. I was merely doing a Zingo of my own.

      March 13, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
  20. William Demuth

    It figures they boot the Nazi and pick a slum lord

    March 13, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Lycidas

      1. The last Pope was NEVER a Nazi.
      2. Slum Lord? Come on...you can make up a better lie than that can't you?

      March 13, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
1 2 3 4
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.