←back to thread

First American pope elected and will be known as Pope Leo XIV

(www.cnn.com)
606 points saikatsg | 3 comments | 08 May 25 16:30 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
afavour ◴[08 May 25 17:54 UTC] 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 #
snickerbockers ◴[08 May 25 23:52 UTC] No.43932503[source]▶
That's an interesting thought but if they're actually that concerned about it then they'd wait longer than four months. It probably has more to do with America's predominant religion being protestantism by a very wife margin for most of the country's existence. We didn't have a Catholic president until Kennedy and even then proving to the common American that Catholics aren't insane Vatican mindslaves was considered a hurdle he had to overcome.

If there's a political motive in not choosing an American pope until now it's that for most of American history it wouldn't have granted them any influence over American politics. If there's a personal motive it's that until recently they felt insulted that America went for almost 200 years before finally electing a Catholic president.

replies(5): >>43932661 #>>43932792 #>>43934802 #>>43934811 #>>43940259 #
therealpygon ◴[09 May 25 19:37 UTC] No.43940259[source]▶
> they’d wait longer than four months.

Why? Is there any reason for anyone in the world to think this behavior will change suddenly? Is there a reason the church wouldn’t think the US has a crisis of faith if those in power and their followers are so willing to commit sin against their fellow man? Clearly we all know how Jesus proclaimed, “Gather ye the masses of immigrants and send them to another country, lest they not be tortured for their grave sins of migration.”

replies(1): >>43974081 #
lenkite ◴[13 May 25 15:34 UTC] No.43974081[source]▶
Very late to this discussion, but you should read the Vatican's laws on migration and citizen-only residency, before talking about "sin against fellow man". I am not even Christian, but I find the Popes very hypocritical.
replies(1): >>43975392 #
1. AStonesThrow ◴[13 May 25 17:23 UTC] No.43975392[source]▶
Are you referring to the laws of the Vatican City State, which is a microstate-sized enclave with barely enough infrastructure to support the Roman Curia? The Vatican City State, where the vast majority of its male populace are celibate, unmarried, no wife and no children? The Vatican City State, where tourists abound and comprise a giant revenue stream by their presence? The Vatican City State, which is surrounded by an ancient and cosmopolitan city which plays host and home to thousands of refugees and immigrants?

Or are you referring to some other type of hypocrisy?

What the actual hell?

replies(1): >>43981806 #
2. lenkite ◴[14 May 25 07:23 UTC] No.43981806[source]▶
Yes, I am referring to that Vatican city. Immigration is extraordinarily harsh and strict - your cherished principles of Christianity do not apply. Hence the hypocrisy.

If you believe the city too small, then please consider Italy - which require asylum applications to be submitted while in a third country, the "Cutro Decree", limits on number of non-EU citizens who can enter, non-EU citizens need work permits, nothing given for "family reunification" - laws that are strictly applied or you are kicked out with little fanfare and 1000% less drama than in the USA.

Yes, the hypocrisy is mindbogglingly astonishing. I can say even more firmly: What the actual hell ?

replies(1): >>44018104 #
3. therealpygon ◴[18 May 25 00:43 UTC] No.44018104[source]▶
Italy? You mean where it is illegal to immediately deport someone to their own country if they can show they would be in danger due to EU and International law, and if safe, will be sent to a third country or back to their own country and allowed to apply? Or were you just trying to throw out an example hoping no one would know better about the difference between this, and sending people to third-world torture camps?