First “Lighten Up, Francis” joke in 3, 2, 1…
Been there, done that over in the MPSIMS thread.
Technically, the people who predicted another Italian would be elected weren’t wrong, I guess.
Probably a perfectly okay pick, but NOT one that’s going to excite anybody (positively OR negatively), and given the man’s age, we can probably expect another election in the not-too-distant future.
Francis I is not likely to have the power OR the energy to be a take-charge leader. He looks like a caretaker, a safe choice for cardinals who just want to muddle through for a few more years.
It’s exciting that he picked the name Francis, at least potentially.
It’s like beating Romney all over again.
Too late, but if you hurry you can make the first talking mule reference.
I see he called a gay marriage bill in Argentina the work of Satan. Very exciting.
If you expected anything else, that’s nuts. The church is dedicated to a lot of misogynistic and homophobic bullshit, and that’s not about to change.
On the other hand:
[QUOTE=Pope Francis I]
“The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers.”
[/QUOTE]
I expect nothing else. But I think it’s worth bringing up when people start describing these guys as reformers and modernizers.
Marley23:
And this is unexpected from an officer of a religion which considers gay sex sinful?
However much sense gay marriage might make in the secular context of freedom of religion, you can’t expect one who believes in one of those religions that condemn homosexuality to think anything else.
All it says is that he’s a faithful Catholic.
Francis is a reformer’s name. Reform doesn’t have to be in the direct you want to be reform, and it doesn’t have to even touch on any of the issues you find important. I sincerely doubt anyone in that conclave would have done anything I would find remotely positive when it comes to gay rights and marriage. But it’s possible to be a reformer while being a troglodyte.
Jas09:
Is it correct to use an ordinal number before there’s been more than one?
Since the Catholic Church has had 2 conservatives as last popes, most of the cardinals who were eligible to vote are rather conservative. What other outcome was positive. All I have to say about the choice of Francis I is that it could have been worse.
Yeah, hard to see them as reformers when their fist act as Pope is to adopt a name of some centuries old saint and add a number to the end.
Perhaps you saw that I said this earlier:
Francis isn’t European, although his parents were both Italian. Other than that I was right about the first part and pretty soon I’m sure I’ll be right about the rest. So no, I’m not surprised. But this stuff shouldn’t be forgotten either while we talk about the guy’s potential as a “reformer,” which I assume means maybe he’ll make some structural changes at the church while continuing to support policies and social views that the civilized world is leaving behind.
Hm… probably not. But from a quick search it looks like Pope John Paul I did use the First in his. Today’s news sources seem to be split - quite a few are using Pope Francis I.
ETA: Examples from CTV: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/new-pope-chosen-argentine-jorge-mario-bergoglio-who-becomes-pope-francis-i-1.1193437 and BBC: BBC News - As it happened: Pope Francis elected
How many Popes does it take to change a lightbulb?
Change? Nobody’s changing anything.
Continuing to support some of the views from which most of the world diverges. Since no one could possibly have thought we’d see a pope in favor of birth control or gay marriage, it doesn’t seem necessary to remind us not to forget that stuff. On the other hand, the Church can — without violating any of its dogma — gradually shift its focus to its other social teachings, many of which are relatively speaking downright progressive.
I don’t know what the future will hold for the Church, but it’s not useful to talk about reform without bearing in mind what reform is remotely possible (and the timeline over which it is possible).
I think he did this to be explicit that John Paul was a new name and he was not the 24th John or 7th Paul