new Pope

(86 Posts)

he's a scientist apparently. does it give us hope?

ProphetOfDoom Wed 13-Mar-13 19:16:09

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

I'm an athiest. but I feel like the Catholic Church affects all of us good or bad.

MechanicalTheatre Wed 13-Mar-13 19:19:29

Wait, how do you know who new pope is? I thought no-one knew new pope yet?

MechanicalTheatre Wed 13-Mar-13 19:22:14

Oh right, it's on BBC. Is not on Guardian. Weird.

I've got friends in high places
<wink wink nod, touches nose>

MechanicalTheatre Wed 13-Mar-13 19:27:35

He's not a scientist though confused

the coverage I'm watching said he was confused

MechanicalTheatre Wed 13-Mar-13 19:39:46

Wiki says he studied philosophy.

they also said this guy has spoken out against people refusing to baptize children of single mothers!? I didn't even know that was an issue confused. Why would people punish babies for any perceived "sins" of their parents.

No I dont see anything about him being a scientist either.. not sure if i totally misheard or if it was over enthusiastic reporting since it was mentioned as soon as he was named

Hmm. He's against gay married because children need mothers and fathers. hmm

He sounds really progressive and all.

AbigailAdams Wed 13-Mar-13 19:59:56

Oh goody hmm

MechanicalTheatre Wed 13-Mar-13 20:11:36

The gay marriage thing pisses me off. He does say we should respect and be kind to gay people though, so that's a start.

What pisses me off most is the condom thing. When the hell are the catholic church going to get their stupid heads out of their behinds and just say it's fine? It is KILLING people.

Mrsrobertduvall Wed 13-Mar-13 20:13:27

The word "progressive" and Catholic don't really go together.

TeiTetua Wed 13-Mar-13 20:14:59

Oh yawn.

I take it he's a male Catholic?

Hassled Wed 13-Mar-13 20:17:15

I don't know why I'm so disappointed - I'm not religious at all. Good that he ticks the "contraception OK to stop disease" box and good that no link with any scandals, but he's not the progessive I naively hoped they'd come up with. Guardian site says:

The archbishop of Buenos Aires is a Jesuit intellectual who travels by bus and has a practical approach to poverty: when he was appointed a cardinal, Bergoglio persuaded hundreds of Argentinians not to fly to Rome to celebrate with him but instead to give the money they would have spent on plane tickets to the poor. He was a fierce opponent of Argentinas decision to legalise gay marriage in 2010, arguing children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother. He was created a cardinal by John Paul II on 21 February 2001.

Hassled Wed 13-Mar-13 20:17:49

Sorry - I do know why I'm so disappointed. That was a stupid thing to say.

Weissdorn Wed 13-Mar-13 20:20:29

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MechanicalTheatre Wed 13-Mar-13 20:22:09

I know what you mean Hassled. I am a little disappointed too. I would like someone to change the way the catholic church does things, cos it has such a massive influence (1.2 billion catholics in the world, after all.) But I am not religious at all, no connection to the catholic church.

But he seems a lot NICER than the old pope, so that's a start.

Mitchy1nge Wed 13-Mar-13 20:32:41

he is quite progressive though, has a social conscience, thinks women should have more senior Curial positions, and although not pro gay marriage speaks against homophobia

it is a good outcome

SheepCantFly Wed 13-Mar-13 21:39:16

He is linked to the kidnapping and torture of two priests in the 80s and the torture and murder of many people in Argentina. Oh joy. hmm

scaevola Wed 13-Mar-13 21:42:33

Sheep do you have a link for that?

At the moment the telly is highlighting his good points (appropriate for today), but it'll be interesting to see what else comes out after the time for initial celebrations passes.

SheepCantFly Wed 13-Mar-13 21:45:01

It's on Wikipedia not very reliable I know under the pre papacy section. There is also a book about it apparently.

mostpopular Wed 13-Mar-13 22:02:33

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

scaevola Wed 13-Mar-13 22:43:03

This is the article that Wiki quotes. It says that his intercession probably secured their freedom.

Interesting too that he campaigned to permit the baptism of the children of single mothers, and that he has spoken against clerical hypocrisy, giving a reminder that Jesus dined with lepers and prostitutes.

Sausageeggbacon Thu 14-Mar-13 08:17:33

PMSL scaevola does this mean we have a Pope who is more liberal then rad feminist re the Prostitutes?

scaevola Thu 14-Mar-13 08:27:58

I took it to mean that he's against the trappings of clerical life especially where it leads to hypocrisy; he didn't live in the Palace and continued to work hands on with the destitute.

If reminding Catholics of their obligations to help the sick and those on the margins of society is risible, then yes I suppose there is no reason to hope the changes he has supported to date will bring positives either to the Church or to society.

Of course, it's far too early to tell how far he will bring his existing attitudes into the Vatican.

noblegiraffe Thu 14-Mar-13 09:05:07

I wonder how a Pope who is so against social inequality will deal with sitting on a golden throne surrounded by priceless artworks.

Mitchy1nge Thu 14-Mar-13 09:23:54

that is hardly his fault is it!

The Jews seem pleased with him anyway, jpost

noblegiraffe Thu 14-Mar-13 09:32:38

The golden throne isn't his fault? No, it's not, I'm just wondering if he'll preach against poverty while sitting in it, or refuse and continue to live a more frugal life, or whether he'll sell it all off and give the money to CAFOD.

Mitchy1nge Thu 14-Mar-13 10:10:01

nooooo they mustn't sell all their treasures shock

am sure it is not his personal property to dispose of anyway

I find it immensely disturbing he had to campaign for the baptism of children of single mothers. sad But as with the golden throne, I'm not blaming him, just being depressed by the situation.

I wish they'd let more people into the Vatican library, but we'll see ...

Mandytm Thu 14-Mar-13 10:43:24

All the popes look the same to me.

At least this one wasn't in the hitler youth.

Well this Jew isn't pleased with him hmm. If there must be a pope, I suppose he'll do as well as any other. But the whole papacy is just a cess-pit of bigotry, misogynism and abuse-covering-up. It makes me sick and needs to be completely dismantled and rebuilt into something with at least a vague connection to the real world.

Mitchy1nge Thu 14-Mar-13 10:53:50

LRD - did you go to the secret archives exhibition last year, lux in arcana? Only a tiny selection but it was fascinating

Sadly not, mitchy, would have loved to.

I think I agree with annie. I do hope he will bring some big changes to the role. There need to be some.

Mitchy1nge Thu 14-Mar-13 11:00:42

sorry Annie, seemed like a plus - considering the other candidates

MechanicalTheatre Thu 14-Mar-13 11:47:39

Mandytm, you know that people didn't have any choice but be in the Hitler youth, right? It was forced on them. An aunt of mine is German and she was in them. No choice.

Yeeessss, but your aunt isn't the main representative of a very powerful religious organization (I am guessing).

Mind you, if the account of Pope Benedict's election is true (in the Guardian), he initially said 'no', so I don't think he was an arrogant man. It was just a rather arrogant choice, IMHO.

MechanicalTheatre Thu 14-Mar-13 15:18:47

Actually, she is LRD. Weird.

My point is that he didn't have a choice. It was the law. Not joining could have meant his entire family being prosecuted. He was a 14 year old boy. People made difficult choices and I think it is very wrong to judge people on things like that. It is like blaming child soldiers for being conscripted, and we don't do that. I hope.

Wow. Is she the queen?!

I do take your point, but I don't think this is about judging, and I don't think it is the same as child soldiers. At all, actually.

MechanicalTheatre Thu 14-Mar-13 15:27:09

Really? I would like to know how you see the difference, because I honestly can't see one, except in people's perception of Hitler's Germany and everyone in it as somehow inherently evil.

TheNebulousBoojum Thu 14-Mar-13 15:36:10

I'd be far less bothered by his membership of a near-compulsory organisation in his teens and more on the choices he's made as an adult.
What has he done in a practical, active sense to improve the lives of the poor in his country which is largely Catholic.

TheNebulousBoojum Thu 14-Mar-13 15:37:56

Have you read 'The Book Thief' MT? It altered the opinions of several readers in my class from the simplistic stance of 'All Germans in WW2 were Nazis or victims'

No, that's not why I think it's different.

As I understand it, Pope Benedict did not kill anyone. I am sure that being in Hitler Youth was a horrible and traumatic experience for him, and I am aware he lost family members. It is terrible. I do not think it is the same as being forced to kill your own loved ones, and then many, many, many other people. I just don't.

I don't think it is a matter of judging. I think Benedict was quite a humble man, because it seems he didn't want to be pope right from the start, and I am glad he's got some time to rest now. So I am not judging him as a person. But, I cannot help feeling uneasy about the fact that the Catholic Church - which has a long history of anti-semitism going back way before WWII - elected someone who was in the Hitler Youth. Maybe that is wrong of me. But it's not as if he even wanted to be Pope. So I cannot help feeling they might have chosen someone else. Not as an indication of guilt at all, but just because it would send a better message.

I know I may well be wrong about this. It is quite knee-jerk for me, so probably wrong.

MechanicalTheatre Thu 14-Mar-13 15:39:11

I don't think it was near-compulsory. I think it was compulsory. As far as I can make out, your name was automatically added to lists. I know this isn't the point of the thread, it's just a bone of contention with me that the people who lived in Germany are not viewed as victims too. People do not blame the women of Afghanistan for going along with the taliban rule, but they are happy to blame the Germans for not standing up to Hitler - and I think that that is damaging and unfair to both countries.

actually I have always found the Hitler youth comments very unfair as well. There are so many genuine reasons to not like him, why pick on something that was in no way his fault

TheNebulousBoojum Thu 14-Mar-13 15:52:24

I think the Catholic church's long history of persecuting any individual or body that opposed them in any way is well worth investigating and challenging both over historical events and contemporary ones.

I do think people in Germany were victims - please don't think I don't. And I don't want to pick on it.

But, what I think is important is, this man was a figurehead. He is not an ordinary citizen, and he is the head of a Church which has a really specific theology of sacrifice and witness to the truth. As a person, no, he's not to blame for being part of Hilter Youth. As God's vicar on earth, theologically, I do think the question has to be, was he strong enough to represent all of that? He himself didn't think so. He didn't refuse to be part of Hitler Youth. No normal person would. But, he was the Pope. It's a higher calling. If you are going to subscribe to a theology where someone is given such a huge weight of authority - enough to ban condoms in countries where AIDs is rife, for example - I think you must expect to take the flack with the positives. If he is God's representative on earth, do we really believe that God would not have object to the Hitler Youth? And if we judge him on human grounds as a victim who didn't have the super-human strength to fight that such a small number of people exhibited - are we not then saying something very problematic about the theology of the Papacy?

My issue is not primarily with demonizing members of Hitler Youth and I hope to God that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying, there is a theological problem here, and it is very likely (to me, as a non-Catholic) that the issue is to do with according far too much to an ordinary human being. But it is an issue.

It is appalling (IMO) that we are expected both to treat the Pope as an ordinary human, not an extraordinary saint like those who spoke out against Nazism, and we are expected to accept him as God's vicar on earth.

MechanicalTheatre Thu 14-Mar-13 15:56:54

I see what you mean, LRD, but Catholics were persecuted in Germany too. The Holocaust was not purely about Jews.

Nebulous, I haven't, but it sounds interesting. I know that when I was doing GCSE-equivalent German, we watched a video of a modern secondary school. There was some graffiti on a wall that said "Nazis Raus" (Nazis Out). When asked what we thought it meant, the majority said "Yay Nazis" or "Nazis are great" or whatever.

MechanicalTheatre Thu 14-Mar-13 16:01:33

But he was a fourteen year old boy! And beyond that, I really don't think they had ANY choice. As far as I've read, their names were automatically stuck on a list.

Dictatorships are so far from black and white. If he resisted what would have happened? His family are persecuted, dragged off to a camp somewhere and exterminated? More catholics are prosecuted because one stood up and said "no"?

Do you really think that people would have said "thank you so much for your moral courage!" I doubt it. I think they'd have damned him. It is very easy to stand here today, with freedom of speech and freedom of choice and say "why didn't someone say something?" But the choice between good and evil is really not always clearcut.

I do know that mech. But it's not the point I'm trying to make.

My issue is that this theology behind the papacy just isn't something that makes sense of atrocities. Maybe it was once, when the world was a lot smaller and more violent and we knew less about what was happening elsewhere, but it doesn't make sense now.

I got taught about WWII by a really excellent teacher who was very keen to explain to us how it was not simple, there were many complications and many Germans who were in hugely difficult positions (as well as many people in the UK who were very anti-semitic). We were taken to listen to a woman who'd been in one of the death camps as a small child, and she told us how anti-semitic her experience of them, later, growing up in the UK had been. How people had told her (when they didn't realize she was Jewish) that Hitler had had the 'right idea' about the Jews. sad

I think it is all horribly sad, but I do think it really throws into relief how the theology doesn't work any more. How can someone know about what goes on in the world, and not speak out?

mech - but that's the point. The choice betwen good and evil isn't clear-cut. The theology of the papacy is that this is the one human being on earth who can make those differences clear cut. That is why it is so problematic.

MechanicalTheatre Thu 14-Mar-13 16:07:34

OK, but then what is the solution? To not have someone who has any sort of moral quandary in their past be pope? That's not going to happen. There's already stuff about the new pope, and there was stuff about John Paul II. There will always be moral quandaries in everyone's life.

I don't think the catholic church claims that the pope knows inherently the difference between good and evil.

I find it quite odd to be in the position of defending the catholic church, here, by the way! I can't stand religion! But at the end of the day, we have a pope. People believe in God. And since I don't see any of that going away any time soon, I think that whoever we do have should be judged as fairly as possible.

I think the solution is to get rid of the theology surrounding the Pope. To adapt, and to give one person less power. To say, no, this person isn't Christ's vicar on earth.

That's just my view.

I do get where you're coming from, btw. I've just been trying to think about it a lot, and what I keep coming back to is that it is fundamentally unfair and irrational - both for the Pope and for the Catholic world - to keep trying to maintain this situation.

sorry to sound a bit dim, but isn't he only god's voice on earth during his Pope-hood (papacy?) otherwise god would have 2voices now anyway as ratzinger is still alive?

grimbletart Thu 14-Mar-13 16:44:30

Going back to the new pope... I was listening to the World at One today and how it went on about Pope Francis caring about the poor and how he used to visit the poor districts and spend time with the people etc. and help them, I couldn't help thinking that his compassion for the poor would be far more useful and enrich many more lives if it led to the Catholic Church changing its stance on contraception......

*atheist and out of my depth as I'm sure is totally obvious

hairy - he's only Christ's vicar during his papacy, yes. I just feel it is increasingly difficult to explain how ordinary, fallible humans are granted so much power, and this is just one example to make us think. But thatis only my opinion.

grimble - as I understand it he belives condoms should be used to stop the spread of disease. That is a start, I suppose.

AnnabelKarma Thu 14-Mar-13 16:55:18

As an atheist feminist I have so many fundamental problems with organised religions per se and even more with catholicism. For all the reasons already mentioned - abuse of women and children, accumulation of immense wealth whilst turning a blind eye to poverty and AIDS, misogyny , blind, unquestioning following .

Hmm, best not get me started.

thecapitalsunited Thu 14-Mar-13 17:39:34

I could be wrong but don't Catholics believe that becoming Pope gives you Holy Spirit superpowers? So it doesn't matter to them if the guy isn't perfect because God will guide them to the right decision regardless, just as God guided the cardinals to choose the right man for the job.

I don't believe in any gods and am not Catholic so I could be wrong.

Catholics believe that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, and is the Vicar (which means, person acting as stand-in) of Christ. The idea is that God guided the cardinals, and that the Holy Spirit guides the pope.

The Pope has authority to give a definitive view. He doesn't just express his opinion as an ordinary human being who happens to be working for the Church - he's God's representative on earth.

Since Vatican II, there have been quite important changes within the Church, and over the last century the office of Pope has been associated with less and less ceremony. So I think it would be a natural process to lessen this still further.

FairPhyllis Thu 14-Mar-13 17:59:53

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'the theology of the papacy' LRD. Do you mean the administrative authority of the Pope over the rest of the RCC, or do you mean something like the view that he is Christ's primary representative on earth? (which of course isn't the view of many Christians anyway)

If it's the latter, then I think it is quite harsh to expect any pope to be a totally morally pure figure, and in fact St Peter would fail your test - you don't get more compromised than denying Christ publically. Yet Jesus still chose him knowing he would do this.

I mean, isn't the whole theology of priesthood that God uses imperfect people to share in Christ's priesthood and represent Him? Can't God call people who are seriously flawed and work through them?

I suppose my view is that God will work through the Church if He chooses despite the people.

FairPhyllis Thu 14-Mar-13 18:00:26

Crossposted. Will come back to this in a few minutes.

I mean the theology that concerns the Papacy.

I accept it is harsh to expect any pope to be morally pure. I don't expect any pope to be morally pure. The Catholic Church accepts that one may be deeply sinful, and then redeem oneself. What (IMO) the Catholic Church does not really have a theological provision for, is a situation where one might be aware of horrible inequality and oppression in the world, and yet one might be unable to make a meaningful stand against it.

IMO this is different from the idea that God works perfection through imperfect humanity. I think that is a powerful idea, but I think the idea behind the papacy is really rooted in the assumption that the pope will be able to make meaningful statements about the whole Church. The Pope cannot - in this day and age - do this. Hitler Youth is only one example of why.

MechanicalTheatre Thu 14-Mar-13 18:18:55

I do like this new pope more than the old pope. He seems to genuinely live a very humble life, baptises the children of single mothers when others wouldn't, goes out into the slums, campaigns for social justice...OK, he is not perfect. But to have compassion for the poor, to speak up for those who are shunned and to eschew a lavish lifestyle are more than a lot of people do.

Honestly, it just makes me a bit sad that some people's first reaction (not on this thread, it's been very measured) is to try to find the bad/immoral stuff. My first impulse is to always look for the good in people - maybe I'm just naive/wildly optimistic.

I like this new pope too.

I like to look for the good in people.

I think as an individual, he may be great. And I am holding out hopes that his papacy will see great strides forward. But, I feel uncomfortable with the idea that a pope who's got a history of objecting to other priests refusing to baptise the children of single mothers, is a positive thing. Surely it is a huge issue that anyone has ever thought it was ok not to baptise the children of single mothers? I don't know the Catholic doctrine that says that is an acceptable viewpoint, and if it exists, it is disgusting.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, sure, I want to look for the good, but there's the individual man (who may pretty impressive and saintly, or may be misguided, or may be both), and then there's the office. I find it hard to celebrate the filling of that office.

MechanicalTheatre Thu 14-Mar-13 18:38:16

I see what you mean LRD, but I am a hopeless optimist (Sagittarian, you know) and would at least be happier to have a good and nice pope since we seem to have to have one.

Oh, optimism is good! I should be less of an Eeyore-type.

I do hope he proves to be a good pope. I see no reason not.

MechanicalTheatre Thu 14-Mar-13 18:47:06

I get Eeyore-ish very quickly because I am continually disappointed after my optimism though. Hurrah hurrah hurrah OH NO OH GOD.

grin

I know exactly what you mean. And how you put it.

But let's hope optimism has a cause here, you're right.

TeiTetua Thu 14-Mar-13 20:28:09

"A good pope". Umm. What would a good pope do?

Open all church offices to everyone. Cease making pronouncements about sexual matters (contraception and homosexuality notably). Prepare to discuss possible links between priestly celibacy and child molestation. Make an honest appraisal of the Inquisition. Explain the real theological significance of the so-called Virgin Mary, justifying same by biblical references. But then explain the lack of real female religious figures (no St Bernadette doesn't count) throughout history. Advise Catholics on how to proceed from this point. Sounds like a plan.

Precisely, tei, Let's hope.

FairPhyllis Thu 14-Mar-13 20:45:43

But LRD you seemed to be saying that Benedict personally (and perhaps Francis too if the stuff about his actions under the junta is true) was irreversibly tainted by his compromise with Nazism and shouldn't have been Pope because of it. You're still saying that making the choice he made is a qualitatively different kind of sin/evil which is so bad the RCC shouldn't have touched him with a bargepole because otherwise it would compromise its own moral purity.

My difficulty with this is that it just wholly clashes with my conception of sin and what the church is. I don't think there are special kinds of sin, I don't think any church is an inherently holy institution, and I think that attempting to “buy” institutional moral innocence, or the appearance of it, is a doomed enterprise which can have terrible results.

None of this makes any sense from a Catholic point of view anyway, because talking about whether Benedict/Francis is morally fit for office is projecting a Protestant attitude of 'authority by personal virtue' onto Catholic structures of governance. RCs don't believe bishops and popes have authority because they are personally morally worthy of it - they believe they have authority by virtue of their divinely-instituted office, and are as likely as any of us to sin in any kind of way. And in the worst cases bad bishops and popes can obstruct the will of God and damage the Church's reputation. But ultimately Catholics don't think that matters because in their view nothing can wholly derail the Church or prevent God's will from ultimately being done.

IMO we do have a way of dealing with the sin people and institutions commit in the face of oppression. It's called confession and repentance – and that is something the RCC and Christians in general are not good enough at.

No, I'm not saying that, fair, I may well not be being very clear, though. I'm not that clear in my own mind.

I don't think I am projecting a Protestant structure. Honestly, I don't. I'm probably not expressing what I mean very well, but I don't mean that.

The Papacy developed in a world where martyrdom was normalized, and where knowledge of large-scale event such as Hitler's persecution of Jews and other groups, was impossible. I think that is really important. I do not think this is a Protestant viewpoint (and FWIW, it is also quite a common Orthodox viewpoint, and there is a reason why the Orthodox Church has a different theology relating to the patriarch).

I am aware that it isn't entirely my business to comment as I'm not a Catholic, but it's hard not to have a view. If I'm offending you, I'll stop trying to hammer out what I think, as I don't want to treat on any toes.

I hope you don't mind - as soon as I posted I started trying to work out a less useless answer and so I've gone through quoting your post and trying to say what I think. Please do skip if (when!) it's boring.

'You seemed to be saying that Benedict personally (and perhaps Francis too if the stuff about his actions under the junta is true) was irreversibly tainted by his compromise with Nazism'

- No, not necessarily. No-one is irreversably tainted, and certainly Benedict's actions (I don't know enough about the new Pope) are things that we can easily understand why he did.

'You're still saying that making the choice he made is a qualitatively different kind of sin/evil which is so bad the RCC shouldn't have touched him with a bargepole because otherwise it would compromise its own moral purity.'

- No, not even a little bit. But, if the church is being a political entity, why did it choose Benedict? If the Church wants to uphold the idea that the Pope is somehow authorised to make hugely important moral choices, then how do they reconcile that with other choices made? The reason Benedict's membership in Hitler Youth matters is not that anyone thinks he did something appalling - but rather, because it illustrates that morality is extremely complicated, and that it can be very hard to separate events from the public perception of those events. Nazism has a stature hugely in excess of what happened (which is not to diminish the impact of what happened). Popes in the past have not had to deal with the concept of a 'world war'. Genocide has always happened - but our perception of it shifts. Yet the theology - the idea that the Pope can make a moral judgement all on his own - has not really changed. I am not sure that this is right or sensible.

My difficulty with this is that it just wholly clashes with my conception of sin and what the church is. I don't think there are special kinds of sin, I don't think any church is an inherently holy institution, and I think that attempting to “buy” institutional moral innocence, or the appearance of it, is a doomed enterprise which can have terrible results.

None of this makes any sense from a Catholic point of view anyway, because talking about whether Benedict/Francis is morally fit for office is projecting a Protestant attitude of 'authority by personal virtue' onto Catholic structures of governance. RCs don't believe bishops and popes have authority because they are personally morally worthy of it - they believe they have authority by virtue of their divinely-instituted office, and are as likely as any of us to sin in any kind of way. And in the worst cases bad bishops and popes can obstruct the will of God and damage the Church's reputation. But ultimately Catholics don't think that matters because in their view nothing can wholly derail the Church or prevent God's will from ultimately being done.

'IMO we do have a way of dealing with the sin people and institutions commit in the face of oppression. It's called confession and repentance – and that is something the RCC and Christians in general are not good enough at.'

I take the point, but both confession and repentance are retrospective. Ideally, we need a new theology that pre-empts. There is plenty of precedent. The Church has changed hugely. Confession and repentance became immensely more importance concepts after Lateran IV. Before that, the whole understanding of how they worked was different. I say this to stress that the Church can change and adapt, it doesn't have to be static.

BettyBlueBlue Fri 15-Mar-13 11:18:02

Haven't read anywhere he's a scientist. It would be so good to have someone progressive, who is really involved with the situation of women around the world, and fights for their plight. However, I don't think I'll live to see that.

Most of them are anti abortion, advocate for having women under the will of men, like three hundred years ago, don't care of single bit about the day to day lives of women around the world, as long as they breed and obey.

I have said in this forum before that I cannot understand how any woman in Britain can consider herself a Tory. By the same token, I cannot understand how any woman in the world can be a church goer, follow what these cardinals, priests, popes have to say without questioning.

The pope and his gang are just another eternal club of powerful, in many cases, misogynist men, who have no real understanding about what it means being a woman and therefore have never done and will never do anything to improve their situation.

The worst thing is that the set the rules for women and keep telling them what to do, but they refuse to accept women in positions of power in the Church.

So I wouldn't be surprised if this new one just turns out to be a copy of what we had in the past.

I'd be interested to see how he deals with the sex scandals and child abuse cases within the Church. The previous one didn't do one single relevant thing about it.

AuntieStella Fri 15-Mar-13 12:22:14

He is a scientist - his degree is in chemistry.

We'll have to wait and see what he does as Pope. But there are promising signs given his record in eg anti-poverty work.

alexpolismum Fri 15-Mar-13 14:36:04

"Most of them are anti-abortion"

I thought they were all anti-abortion, that it was, in fact, a requirement of the Catholic faith.

LRD I see what you are trying to say. It's hard to look at the Papacy today and put it in the light of the historical context of its instituting, however.

vesuvia Fri 15-Mar-13 14:53:53

How is being a scientist relevant to being Pope?

vesuvia Fri 15-Mar-13 15:17:59

scaevola wrote - "Jesus dined with lepers and prostitutes."

Sausageeggbacon wrote - "PMSL scaevola does this mean we have a Pope who is more liberal then rad feminist re the Prostitutes?"

I think you are confusing Jesus with the Pope, and prostitutes with pimps and johns. I think radical feminists would have no problem dining with prostitutes, but not pimps or johns.

vesuvia Fri 15-Mar-13 15:32:08

My previous post is directed at Sausageeggbacon not scaevola.

Mitchy1nge Fri 15-Mar-13 17:04:08

alexpolis - not all catholics for choice

alexpolismum Fri 15-Mar-13 19:07:13

Mitchy That does come as a surprise. I genuinely thought that abortion was regarded as a sin in Catholicism. I thought they regarded it as murder of an unborn child.

Nice to see there is some grassroots movement the other way!

noblegiraffe Sat 23-Mar-13 23:09:59

Well I wondered how a Pope who was against social inequality would deal with sitting on a golden throne.

This is how:
i.imgur.com/SlwdAjA.jpg

Some respect for him there at least.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now