←back to thread

606 points saikatsg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
afavour ◴[] No.43929124[source]
> "Cardinal George of Chicago, of happy memory, was one of my great mentors, and he said: 'Look, until America goes into political decline, there won't be an American pope.' And his point was, if America is kind of running the world politically, culturally, economically, they don't want America running the world religiously. So, I think there's some truth to that, that we're such a superpower and so dominant, they don't wanna give us, also, control over the church."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-pope-could-it-be-american-c...

replies(6): >>43929272 #>>43930430 #>>43930746 #>>43932503 #>>43932802 #>>43934298 #
bbor ◴[] No.43929272[source]
For what it’s worth, I was just reading that Leo wasn’t seen as “completely” American due to his many years in Peru — he’s even a citizen. Take that as you will.
replies(9): >>43929321 #>>43929934 #>>43930040 #>>43930174 #>>43930642 #>>43931332 #>>43931534 #>>43931541 #>>43933011 #
rootsudo ◴[] No.43929321[source]
For what it's worth, Peru is in South America. Still American, Technically.
replies(3): >>43929441 #>>43929507 #>>43930610 #
bitshiftfaced ◴[] No.43929441[source]
From reading online comments, I'm starting to believe that those who reside outside the US are more strident defenders of the idea that "US citizens only" = "American" than US citizens themselves.
replies(6): >>43929514 #>>43929600 #>>43929616 #>>43929735 #>>43930377 #>>43930422 #
bee_rider ◴[] No.43929735[source]
I think most people worldwide basically know what you mean when you say American, but are actually referring to a person from the US, via context. It is pragmatic label. They aren’t from the US so they don’t have to worry about some identity based thing or feeling like they are stealing the name from two continents, for their one country.

On the other hand, some of more conscientious people in the US are feeling a little awkward about the name these days. So it isn’t surprising that we’d be the ones objecting.

replies(3): >>43929794 #>>43930185 #>>43930627 #
1. ◴[] No.43930185[source]