←back to thread

Pope Francis has died

(www.reuters.com)
916 points phillipharris | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.232s | source
Show context
carlos-menezes ◴[] No.43749613[source]
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/pope-francis...

> According to Archbishop Diego Ravelli, Master of Apostolic Ceremonies, the late Pope Francis had requested that the funeral rites be simplified and focused on expressing the faith of the Church in the Risen Body of Christ.

Always struck me as a simple man and that likely contributed to people liking him more when compared to his predecessors. RIP.

replies(7): >>43749684 #>>43749955 #>>43750069 #>>43751768 #>>43752084 #>>43757136 #>>43757837 #
jjude ◴[] No.43749684[source]
Pope John Paul II was also extremely popular across the world.
replies(7): >>43749792 #>>43749871 #>>43749998 #>>43750048 #>>43750282 #>>43750744 #>>43757847 #
carlos-menezes ◴[] No.43749792[source]
He was, but John Paul II was traditionally conservative. I think Francis resonated with more people–Christian or not–because he emphasized compassion, humility, and social justice.

He spoke more openly about issues like poverty, climate change, and inclusion–his encyclical LAUDATO SI’ is a great read–, and he often used language and gestures that the "common man" could relate to.

Perhaps the way he dressed so simply–with the plain white cassock–also emphasized his overall approach: less focus on grandeur, more on service.

replies(8): >>43749991 #>>43749995 #>>43750044 #>>43750253 #>>43751539 #>>43751618 #>>43752699 #>>43766734 #
svieira ◴[] No.43752699[source]
He also spoke incredibly directly about abortion - "hiring a hitman" cuts right to the heart of the issue.
replies(1): >>43754424 #
lotsofpulp ◴[] No.43754424[source]
[flagged]
replies(1): >>43754527 #
bigstrat2003[dead post] ◴[] No.43754527[source]
[flagged]
lupusreal ◴[] No.43754759[source]
I sincerely hope that at some point we can develop artificial wombs and use them to render this whole debate moot. Instead of abortion we can take the fetus out, put it into an artificial womb then let it be raised as an orphan or whatever. It should make both sides happy, IF they are both being honest about their motives.
replies(5): >>43754902 #>>43755026 #>>43756399 #>>43756519 #>>43760518 #
lotsofpulp[dead post] ◴[] No.43754902[source]
[flagged]
1. lupusreal ◴[] No.43755769[source]
Both sides present the most agreeable arguments for their position, while publicly omitting other motives, while simultaneously highlighting the least agreeable motives of their opponents and omitting or flat out denying their more agreeable motives.

I don't mind being candid (not least because I am not an important person and this is not an important discussion, the stakes are low so there is no pressing need to lie), so I'll say one of the quiet parts out loud for the side I mainly sit on: I think there is plausible social benifit to aborting pregnancies caused by rapists. Not only because rapists might carry genes for aggression, but also because rape circumvents the valuable social/physical fitness selection which women normally perform when choosing who to have babies with. Pro-choice advocates will almost never admit to believing anything like this, because it essentially validates the criticism antiabortion advocates have, that their opponents are eugenicists. To be clear, many pro-choice advocates aren't, and I don't think this particular argument would make or break the debate (it doesn't for me), but it is a potential source of contention pro-choice people might have with my artificial womb proposal.

replies(1): >>43756764 #
2. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.43756764[source]
> Pro-choice advocates will almost never admit to believing anything like this,

Because it’s insane. The reasoning explained above to preserve a woman’s rights is sufficient without delving into weird stuff like eugenics.

replies(1): >>43764590 #
3. inemesitaffia ◴[] No.43764590[source]
Any selection is downstream of Eugenics though.