New Pope Francis I of the Roman Catholic Church is Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Thanks, Highlands. I agree.

[brainstorm]

[vertigo0923]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Ain't it great

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

LOL @ "Flagellant Four"

Hey whatever happened to TampaGtr, anybody remember him? Very acerbic but articulate Lefty, used to know a lot and post a lot about Opus Dei and Catholic hierarchical issues.

[madgator]

forget Dolan....


I with the either the Argentinian cardinal

or the african cardinal not named Peter

[cocodrilo]

It would be great if the new pope proclaimed an immediate end to the celibacy requirement. It would be even greater if he announced he is marrying one of the cardinals.

[reformedgator]

Agree to your first point. The second sounds like something you'd see on SNL.

[RayGator]

At the moment, the Vatican is Popeless.

[Spurffelbow833]

So nobody noticed that only 19% of the Catholics surveyed three pages back want something done about the kiddie diddling?

[Dreamliner]

Why not the dude from Brazil ? Isn't Brazil the most Catholic country in the world ?

Besides, Europe is dying.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by Spurffelbow833

So nobody noticed that only 19% of the Catholics surveyed three pages back want something done about the kiddie diddling?

It's pretty shocking, but in fairness many probably believe the church has done a bunch to clean it up already. Plus to admit how bad it is is to admit the fallibility of something central to their lives, which is hard to do.
Of course this is exactly what pedophiles count on, silence and why it's so hard for the church to get the momentum to truly break it.
There was a great quote on Jon Stewart's show the other night, I haven't researched it, but essentially it revolved around who was allowed to vote at the conclave. Apparently the bishop over England isn't allowed to vote because he hit on another priest, but the arch bishop of LA, who told priests not to come back to California because they could be prosecuted for abuse while not protecting the kids has a vote.
Anyone who thinks the church has done even remotely enough is only setting themselves up for further disappointment.

[Dreamliner]

At least all the church does is kiddie diddling. The state does kiddie killing.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by oragator1

It's pretty shocking, but in fairness many probably believe the church has done a bunch to clean it up already. Plus to admit how bad it is is to admit the fallibility of something central to their lives, which is hard to do.
Of course this is exactly what pedophiles count on, silence and why it's so hard for the church to get the momentum to truly break it.
There was a great quote on Jon Stewart's show the other night, I haven't researched it, but essentially it revolved around who was allowed to vote at the conclave. Apparently the bishop over England isn't allowed to vote because he hit on another priest, but the arch bishop of LA, who told priests not to come back to California because they could be prosecuted for abuse while not protecting the kids has a vote.
Anyone who thinks the church has done even remotely enough is only setting themselves up for further disappointment.

The church is still far more interested in protecting its image than protecting kids from pedophiles. Like Penn St, only far worse.

[MichiGator2002]

As for the 19%, maybe it looks so low because the wiser majority of Catholics know the scandal doesn't define the Church and ultimately can't be reasonably argued as its biggest priority in its worldwide mission these several years after the worst of it.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

As for the 19%, maybe it looks so low because the wiser majority of Catholics know the scandal doesn't define the Church and ultimately can't be reasonably argued as its biggest priority in its worldwide mission these several years after the worst of it.

Except that you are changing the question in to one that wasn't asked, they simply asked whether they should do more (Get tougher) - not whether it should define them, be their biggest priority or whether things are getting better. And if a guy like Mahony is allowed to stay within the hierarchy despite protecting pedophiles, the "wiser" Catholics may have some additional reading to do.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-conclave.html

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by oragator1

Except that you are changing the question in to one that wasn't asked, they simply asked whether they should do more (Get tougher) - not whether it should define them, be their biggest priority or whether things are getting better. And if a guy like Mahony is allowed to stay within the hierarchy despite protecting pedophiles, the "wiser" Catholics may have some additional reading to do.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-conclave.html

Well, no, I am analyzing the answer. If it is 81% who didn't say that, I would wager it isn't because 81% don't think it is important, but probably because some large number therein think the Church is coming out of the shadow of that scandal as it is. A question about course of action presupposes prioritizing the issue.

[MichiGator2002]

Or put another way, there are probably many who see the question itself as "are you still beating your wife?"

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Well, no, I am analyzing the answer. If it is 81% who didn't say that, I would wager it isn't because 81% don't think it is important, but probably because some large number therein think the Church is coming out of the shadow of that scandal as it is. A question about course of action presupposes prioritizing the issue.

To answer a survey question doesn't presuppose anything other than having an opinion they are willing to share. Had they been asked whether the church should loosen up on birth control or allow women priests, they would have also answered but that doesn't mean they prioritize it any higher or lower than a whole host of issues.
But your second argument makes my point, if they think they are coming out of it and don't need to do more, they are at best uninformed, because a man like Mahony shouldn't even be on the continent for that vote. And it isn't even that it's just Mahony:

They include cardinals from Belgium, Chile and Italy. They include the dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, who is accused of taking large monetary gifts from a religious order, the Legion of Christ, and halting an investigation into its founder, the Rev. Marcial Maciel — who was later exposed as a pathological abuser and liar.

Even one cardinal frequently mentioned as a leading candidate for pope has been accused of turning a blind eye toward abuse victims. A Canadian, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, issued apologies to the many victims of abuse in church boarding schools in Quebec Province, but left behind widespread resentment when he reportedly refused to meet with them.

In Chile, sexual abuse survivors and their advocates have aimed the spotlight on Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz, a former archbishop of Santiago. They say that for years he ignored their accusations against one of the country’s most prominent and influential priests, the Rev. Fernando Karadima, and refused to meet with the victims or to conduct an investigation.
After the victims publicized their claims, court and church investigations against Father Karadima found him guilty of the abuses, and in early 2011 the Vatican ordered him to retire to “a life of prayer and penitence.” But Cardinal Errázuriz is expected to vote in the conclave.

There are a number of additional examples in the article, but 4 paragraph rule prevents posting them. So if anyone can legitimately make the argument that they shouldn't "get tougher", I would love to know what it can be rationally based on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/wo...anted=all&_r=0

[MichiGator2002]

To be blunt, whether you are a lay Catholic, and especially if you are a non-Catholic, it is not your business what process or review is involved in a cardinal participating in the conclave. It is governed by canon law, not by "armchair commentators in America's casual observer opinion" law.

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

To be blunt, whether you are a lay Catholic, and especially if you are a non-Catholic, it is not your business what process or review is involved in a cardinal participating in the conclave. It is governed by canon law,

And it's quite possible that there's nothing in canon law against pedophiles participating in conclaves. (Judge Roy Bean set free the killer of a Chinese worker because Bean "could find nothing in the law books against killing a Chinaman.")

Besides, what happens in the Vatican stays in the Vatican. (This motto in Latin was stolen by the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce.) And when there's no pope around, you can imagine what happens. (Or apparently even when there is one.)