BREAKING NEWS: POPE FRANCIS I - Jorge Mario Bergoglio - Argentina

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Stomach in knots. This may affect the rest of my life.

How so? He's just a creepy old man in a cape.

As disgusted as I am with this comment, memphis' provincial sentiment is sadly common. 

Still, this is really exciting.

How do you think this pope will "affect te rest of your life?"  He's not going to cure cancer or anything. I stand by my comments.

Harry identifies with the religious group of which this gentleman is the earthly leader, you see.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Stomach in knots. This may affect the rest of my life.

How so? He's just a creepy old man in a cape.

As disgusted as I am with this comment, memphis' provincial sentiment is sadly common. 

Still, this is really exciting.

How do you think this pope will "affect te rest of your life?"  He's not going to cure cancer or anything. I stand by my comments.

Harry identifies with the religious group of which this gentleman is the earthly leader, you see.

Obviously. However, it has yet to be explained how it will effect his life. Perhaps this new pope will innovate. Maybe he'll declare that one should say prayers while standing on one's head or whatever. And we'll have a few Mel Gibsons who refuse to do so. There's still no impact on real life.

Religious people's religious beliefs (and, especially, practices) are part of their real lives, you see.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm ok with everything but the Jesuit part.

He doesn't sound like the crazy Jesuit kind though. He's "doctrinally conservative."

Which I do like.

Stomach in knots. This may affect the rest of my life.

How so? He's just a creepy old man in a cape.

As disgusted as I am with this comment, memphis' provincial sentiment is sadly common. 

Still, this is really exciting.

How do you think this pope will "affect te rest of your life?"  He's not going to cure cancer or anything. I stand by my comments.

Harry identifies with the religious group of which this gentleman is the earthly leader, you see.

Obviously. However, it has yet to be explained how it will effect his life. Perhaps this new pope will innovate. Maybe he'll declare that one should say prayers while standing on one's head or whatever. And we'll have a few Mel Gibsons who refuse to do so. There's still no impact on real life.

Religious people's religious beliefs (and, especially, practices) are part of their real lives, you see.

Indeed, Pope John XXIII certainly affected plenty of Catholic lives.

By giving up the crown and having the priest turn around while saying the mass? Doesn't impress me much. If we could find a Pope who could effectively purge the child rapists, that would be something. Not be molested would be meaningful. I'll give you that one. I won't hold my breath on that though. He also seems to be a troll per wikipedia:

"He strongly opposed legislation introduced in 2010 by the Argentine Government to allow same-sex marriage, calling it a "real and dire anthropological throwback".[14] 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."[15] He has also insisted that adoption by gay and lesbian people is a form of discrimination against children."

Which I agree with Francis I on totally.

His Holiness is probably going to disappoint you, JCL, for very different reasons than why he's going to disappoint a bunch of other people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Francis may offer institutional change insofar as he may reform some of the more flagrantly corrupt elements of the Vatican hierarchy, such as its staggeringly shady bank. But he won't offer the kind of institutional change the lack of which is part of what prevents me from being Catholic.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Free market economics is inherently un-Catholic, JCL, so I don't understand why that surprises you enough to be disappointing.

What is the significance of Francis being Argentinian? The last time there was a non Italian Pope, it had quite an impact on his home country.

Relations between Church and State in Argentina are, at present, unbelievably terrible. I'm not sure about Church and civil society.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Free market economics is inherently un-Catholic, JCL, so I don't understand why that surprises you enough to be disappointing.

Think we can extend that to Christianity in general, with the exception of some of the more openly bats American fundamentalist churches.

I did originally type 'un-Christian', but then remembered JCL is a member of one of said churches.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

'Should have been taken care of decades ago'? Do you have any understanding whatsoever of how these people think?

I understand dismay that any new pope was inevitably going to hew to a very conservative line on homosexuality and female ordination and so forth, but people who act like this is some sort of betrayal, or letdown, or surprise of any kind, or like any of this is somehow particular to Bergoglio/Francis, baffle me.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

'The only things most of us care about'? You need to define either 'only' or 'us' or both for me to know whether or not that makes any sense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, close enough

I take a certain amount of pride in having priorities that don't always or usually align with the demographic Progressive Realist is describing, honestly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What's up with the outrage about rational people speaking out against the irrational and inhumane views someone in a position of power holds? The new pope, the last one, and probably the next one, deserve to be criticized for their oppressive views on gays and their harmful views on contraception. He may care more about the poor than previous popes, which is great, but he manifests that by criticizing capitalism? Wealth creation should be encouraged along with redistribution to the needy. I don't really see what there is to like about him and why he should be shielded from criticism.

It's the shocked and scandalized tone that some of the substantively legitimate criticism has taken--not on Atlas as such, but definitely elsewhere on the internet--that's...bizarre.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What's up with the outrage about rational people speaking out against the irrational and inhumane views someone in a position of power holds? The new pope, the last one, and probably the next one, deserve to be criticized for their oppressive views on gays and their harmful views on contraception. He may care more about the poor than previous popes, which is great, but he manifests that by criticizing capitalism? Wealth creation should be encouraged along with redistribution to the needy. I don't really see what there is to like about him and why he should be shielded from criticism.

The Catholic Church actually teaches respect of homosexual people, that simply being gay is not a sin, and that it's not a choice. They just view the sex is wrong, for the same reason they view masturbation is wrong and condoms are wrong. It's all related to one issue, the belief that all sex must be open to life. And it really does make no sense to criticize the new Pope for believing what probably 100% of the other cardinals believe.


Also, this new Pope has said in the past that contraception, when used by married couples to stop the spread of disease, is NOT sinful. And that's already a soft but significant shift.

One can criticize the Church hierarchy as a whole for it, certainly. It's just the criticism of any given individual (as opposed to whom?--is the question one is tempted to ask) that's a little odd.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Criticize Church teaching.

In the way Pope Francis is different than previous Popes, it's for his more progressive views. So he shouldn't be criticized for saying in the past that he strongly supports current Church teaching. It just isn't right or logical. It's not like his opening sermon was about condemning gay people to hell.

I think we're in agreement here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Like I said, those were the relevant issues for those of us not involved in the nuances of intra-Catholic goings on. I didn't see that stuff about killing priests or whatever and I have no particular interest in going back and looking at it because I don't care. The "wedge" issues, things that should have been taken care of decades ago, are the only things I find really relevant and until they make any progress on them I won't care who the pope is. Those are the things they can really change by coming into the 20th century let alone the current one.

No denomination of Christianity supports abortion, so I don't know what you could have possibly expected there.
Very few support gay marriage (Episcopals are moving toward gay blessings, and there are a few small denominations that have it), but how is that a 20th century issue?  Gay marriage was a fantasy in this country until 2003, which is clearly in the 21st century.

Again, that's exactly why their coverage worked well for me. Until the church does make any forward progress towards de-bigoting their teachings, then it doesn't matter much to me what other nonsense they're going on about. Gay marriage wasn't a real issue until recently largely because of major religion, obviously particularly Christianity in the US, are so dead set against even considering it that they dominate politics until they bend to the will of the church. If they were to stop force-feeding tiny, politically motivated positions that were inappropriate even 50 years ago, then I might care a little about whatever else it is they talk about that affects non-members.

Independently of your self-admitted lack of interest in other issues, you're presenting a strongly ahistorical and synchronic view of the LGBTQ movement itself.