Pope Benedict pulls an Obama

[Lunar]

This Pope is generic, don't worry everyone.  He has far less clout than his predecessor.

he is a placeholder.  a vacation between eras.  a delay in the real decision.  like a Catholic Konstantin Chernenko.

You do realize that he's been controlling the Papacy for the last 15 years or so.  Hard to label a person like that a placeholder.

The Papacy needs an effective figurehead.

The person pulling the strings isn't as important as how important the puppet is,  if that's the perspective one wants to take on it.  This old German is a placeholder for the next generation.

[Sam Spade]

This Pope is generic, don't worry everyone.  He has far less clout than his predecessor.

he is a placeholder.  a vacation between eras.  a delay in the real decision.  like a Catholic Konstantin Chernenko.

You do realize that he's been controlling the Papacy for the last 15 years or so.  Hard to label a person like that a placeholder.

The Papacy needs an effective figurehead.

The person pulling the strings isn't as important as how important the puppet is,  if that's the perspective one wants to take on it.  This old German is a placeholder for the next generation.

In a hierarchy like the Catholic Church, the person pulling the strings is the only one you care about, especially if they control the strings for a long while.  If there's a long period of control, they choose who chooses the next Pope, and nearly all of the people who have been chosen to choose the next Pope reflect the present Pope's values and belief system.  That answers a lot of questions.

[Lunar]

This Pope is generic, don't worry everyone.  He has far less clout than his predecessor.

he is a placeholder.  a vacation between eras.  a delay in the real decision.  like a Catholic Konstantin Chernenko.

You do realize that he's been controlling the Papacy for the last 15 years or so.  Hard to label a person like that a placeholder.

The Papacy needs an effective figurehead.

The person pulling the strings isn't as important as how important the puppet is,  if that's the perspective one wants to take on it.  This old German is a placeholder for the next generation.

In a hierarchy like the Catholic Church, the person pulling the strings is the only one you care about, especially if they control the strings for a long while.  If there's a long period of control, they choose who chooses the next Pope, and nearly all of the people who have been chosen to choose the next Pope reflect the present Pope's values and belief system.  That answers a lot of questions.

Well, my original point was on "clout" - influencing non-Vatican actors.

Not sure how that answers any questions.  Even if he was pulling strings before, he has a lot less influence as Pope.   

I have no idea or care about internal Papal politics though.  Only its ability as a pseudo-state actor to affect state actions.

Explain what you think about the current situation please.

[Sam Spade]

This Pope is generic, don't worry everyone.  He has far less clout than his predecessor.

he is a placeholder.  a vacation between eras.  a delay in the real decision.  like a Catholic Konstantin Chernenko.

You do realize that he's been controlling the Papacy for the last 15 years or so.  Hard to label a person like that a placeholder.

The Papacy needs an effective figurehead.

The person pulling the strings isn't as important as how important the puppet is,  if that's the perspective one wants to take on it.  This old German is a placeholder for the next generation.

In a hierarchy like the Catholic Church, the person pulling the strings is the only one you care about, especially if they control the strings for a long while.  If there's a long period of control, they choose who chooses the next Pope, and nearly all of the people who have been chosen to choose the next Pope reflect the present Pope's values and belief system.  That answers a lot of questions.

Well, my original point was on "clout" - influencing non-Vatican actors.

Not sure how that answers any questions.  Even if he was pulling strings before, he has a lot less influence as Pope.   

I have no idea or care about internal Papal politics though.  Only its ability as a pseudo-state actor to affect state actions.

Explain what you think about the current situation please.

Well, the previous Pope had "clout" until he got to the point where the best he could do was dribble saliva out of his mouth, which encompasses about the last 10 years of his life, I think.  Certainly the present Pope has more "clout" than at that point, though obviously he doesn't have the "clout" that JPII had, especially during the 80s, if that's what we're referring to when we mean "clout".

But I suspect we just see things differently here.  And I'm not particularly interested in "clout" - the RCC has never had to buy "clout" anyway.  The RCC is losing membership across the world, but then again, so are most organized religions.  Most importantly, it's losing membership in the West and not losing membership in the Third World parts.

Therefore, it seems to me to be, plainly obvious actually, that the RCC will reorient itself (and is in the process of doing so) towards preaching a message that resonates with those who are interested in the Catholic Church itself.  And quite frankly, that's the message that Benedict is preaching, whether you like it or not.

Look, the Anglican church is going to tear itself apart in the next few years because its leadership is preaching towards the declining West with a message that alienates its growing Third World membership.  I watch this first-hand as a former "sort-of" member.

[War on Want]

Is anyone here really surprised that the Catholic Church generally opposes homosexuality?

No, it's more the fact that according to the pope gays are destroying mankind, despite 4-5 kids popping out of a woman's vagina every second, somwhere on this planet ...

Are you arguing that 4-5 kids per second destroys mankind?

When lots of those kids have aids(thanks Benedict), and are born in exceptionally impoverished areas, then yes.

That doesn't answer the question.  How does it destroy mankind when some kid is born with AIDS lives in some impoverished area and dies in 4-5 years? 

Seems to me there's no net gain or loss unless he's transmitting the disease or taking foodstuffs that other healthier children would not have, these types of births don't change much as concerns mankind.

Do I really need to explain this? Areas that are impoverished and have low life expectancies due to AIDS are also very unstable. Instability leads to conflict, conflict in one area affects the world market etc. Of course it doesn't impact much of the world much if it is in a place like Zimbabwe or something but it doesn't make it any less immoral.