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

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

Everyone knows my reservations re: religion. But there's one thing that stands out about Roman Catholic popes; their humility. Most prominent American religious leaders are often pompous jerks.

Having said that, hope new Pope protects kids from the sex-deprived men running the church in local parishes.

If you are a victim, you may have a cause of action.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

good post jdr and thanks

Thanks brotha!

[lacuna]

George Weigel has written an article for the 'National Review' that sheds light on Vatican politics and schemes to elect a pope.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-george-weigel

From the 3rd page:

And now for the ironies.

The 2005 runner-up takes the checkered flag in 2013? Well, not really. Cardinal Bergoglio was used in 2005; he knows precisely who used him and why; and while he is a man of the Gospel who is not looking to settle scores, he is also a man of prudence who knows who his friends, and who his enemies, are. Here’s the story:

In April 2005, the progressive party (which was a real party then) came to Rome after the death of John Paul II thinking it had the wind at its back and clear sailing ahead — only to find that the Ratzinger-for-pope party was well-organized; that Ratzinger had made a very positive impression by the way he had run the General Congregations of cardinals after John Paul II’s death; that he had deep support from throughout the Third World because of the courtesy with which he had treated visiting Third World bishops on their quinquennial visits to Rome over the past 20 years; and that, after his brilliant homily at John Paul’s funeral Mass, he was indisputably the frontrunner for the papacy.

Confronted with this reality, the progressives panicked. Their first blocking move against Ratzinger was to try to run the aged Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini, S.J., emeritus archbishop of Milan, who was already ill with Parkinson’s disease and had retired to the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem. The idea was not to elect Martini pope; it was to stop the Ratzinger surge. Then, when Ratzinger blew past Martini with almost 50 percent of the vote on what was assumed to be the “courtesy” first ballot (where some votes are cast as gestures of friendship, esteem, etc.), and subsequently went over 50 percent the following morning, the panic intensified. Martini was summarily abandoned (or may have told his supporters to forget it). The progressives then tried to advance Cardinal Bergoglio — who was very much part of the pro-Ratzinger coalition; who embodied “dynamic orthodoxy,” just like John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger; who had been persecuted by his more theologically and politically left-leaning Jesuit brethren after his term as Jesuit provincial in Argentina (they exiled him to northern Argentina, where he taught high-school chemistry until rescued by John Paul II and eventually made archbishop of Buenos Aires); and who was doubtless appalled by the whole exercise on his putative behalf.

It was a last-ditch blocking move, perhaps constructed around the idea that a Third World candidate like Bergoglio would peel off votes from Ratzinger. In any event, it was a complete misreading of the 2005 conclave’s dynamics and a cynical use of Bergoglio, who would almost certainly have been abandoned had the stratagem worked — and it failed miserably. Thus it may be safely assumed that the coalition that quickly solidified and swiftly elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope in 2013 had little or nothing to do with the eminent cabal that tried to use him in 2005. Pope Francis was elected for who he is, not for taking the silver medal eight years ago.

Weigel doubts there is much celebration among Jesuits as they "perhaps fear" Francis will undertake a reform of their order.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, if there is a theological subdivision within the Church that needs one, it is they. I am also hoping he will give the American Church a solid paddling for indulging and enabling a lot of laxness. Some of that is down to scandal cynicism, most is not. It is abject failure that a majority of Catholics have gotten behind the Democrat two straight elections despite being just diametrically out of step with what is required of Catholics on life issues, and now on marriage as well.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Well, if there is a theological subdivision within the Church that needs one, it is they. I am also hoping he will give the American Church a solid paddling for indulging and enabling a lot of laxness. Some of that is down to scandal cynicism, most is not. It is abject failure that a majority of Catholics have gotten behind the Democrat two straight elections despite being just diametrically out of step with what is required of Catholics on life issues, and now on marriage as well.

Out of curiosity why do you say that, regarding the Jesuits? Not challenging, just asking.

From '94 through 2008 I attended St. Patrick's on Miami Beach, then when I moved and lived downtown from Jan. 2009 until this past September I attended Gesu Church, which is run by the Jesuit Order. Now I'm back on the Beach and at St. Patrick's again. No discernible difference to me, in the tone of the homilies or anything else.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Well, if there is a theological subdivision within the Church that needs one, it is they. I am also hoping he will give the American Church a solid paddling for indulging and enabling a lot of laxness. Some of that is down to scandal cynicism, most is not. It is abject failure that a majority of Catholics have gotten behind the Democrat two straight elections despite being just diametrically out of step with what is required of Catholics on life issues, and now on marriage as well.

So most Republicans are against capital punishment, against war except as it fits into the Just War Doctrine, for gun control, and for a substantial social safety net. Because each of these are positions of the Catholic Church.

In the end, neither party in the US lines up perfectly with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, which leads to individuals having to prioritize the issues they find most important or check out of society as a whole. Some have prioritized abortion and marriage concerns. Other people have prioritized other issues. In the end, implying that people having different beliefs based only on "laxness" is a fairly weak justification for attempting to pursue your political goals.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

So most Republicans are against capital punishment, against war except as it fits into the Just War Doctrine, for gun control, and for a substantial social safety net. Because each of these are positions of the Catholic Church.

In the end, neither party in the US lines up perfectly with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, which leads to individuals having to prioritize the issues they find most important or check out of society as a whole. Some have prioritized abortion and marriage concerns. Other people have prioritized other issues. In the end, implying that people having different beliefs based only on "laxness" is a fairly weak justification for attempting to pursue your political goals.

The Church doesn't expressly renounce capital punishment, first of all, and the reasons for which they disapprove generally are prudential matters. Abortion, for instance, is not a prudential matter for Catholics, there is no wiggle room whatsoever on when life begins or on willfully ending innocent life.

I toslly acknowledge latter day thought on preemptive war doesn't comply with JWD. But, again, you have a prudential matter here.

Nothing in Church teaching directs Catholics toward gun control. Nothing in Catholic teaching directs Catholics to support redistribution of wealth through government force. The Church explicitly renounced socialism like a hunnert fiddy years ago (Rerum Novarum is a fine read). In fact, taking people's money from them to give to others deprives them of the opportunity to be charitable.

And, again... prudential. Whatever Nancy Pelosi may convince herself or publicly misstate, the sanctity of life and how it implicates subjects like abortion or euthanasia are not really open to debate. They are not prudential teachings. And if Catholics are comfortable enough weighing their judgment on prudential topics ahead of their adherence to unequivocal Church teaching... yeah, laxness.

[RayGator]

USA Today Snapshots 3.14.2013

Roman Catholics by Continent

Percentage of the World's Catholics in:

39% Latin America

24% Europe

17% Africa, Middle East

12% Asia-Pacific

8% North America

Source: Pew Research Center, 2010 data (latest available).
Anne R. Carey and Veronica Bravo, USA Today

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Well, if there is a theological subdivision within the Church that needs one, it is they. I am also hoping he will give the American Church a solid paddling for indulging and enabling a lot of laxness. Some of that is down to scandal cynicism, most is not. It is abject failure that a majority of Catholics have gotten behind the Democrat two straight elections despite being just diametrically out of step with what is required of Catholics on life issues, and now on marriage as well.

As a Catholic I can tell you I have been conflicted, on the one hand is the clear teachings on life and marriage, but on the other is the duty to the poor and those who are disadvantaged in some way. Republicans and the Church are in synch on the former, while the Democrats and the Church are in synch with the latter.

If Republicans moved away from their social darwinism, they'd do better with a lot of Catholics.