New Pope is Jorge Hario Bergoglio of the America's

[Cheshire Cat]

Habemus Papam "We have a new Pope"

The new Pope is Cardinal  Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina of the America's.  He will be called Pope Francis the 1st. 

The Pope is 76 years old one of five children from a humble background.  Lived away from the Church rectory in a small home where he cooked for himself. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-pope-succession-idUSBRE92808520130313


From wiki:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Bergoglio

[RiversideLoki]

Yay, a new old guy to lead the pontificating prehistoric pile of papal pedophilia!

[Adam W]

Yay, a new old guy to lead the pontificating prehistoric pile of papal pedophilia!

And he's a bigot - he described homosexual adoption as "discrimination against children".

There's also his supposed connections to the right wing dictatorship that murdered tens of thousands of Argentines during the so-called "dirty war" too.

http://wwrn.org/articles/18239/?&place=argentina&section=catholic

Same old bullshit from the RC church. At least he's not a former Nazi, I guess.

[BridgeTroll]

Wow...

[Cheshire Cat]

The church has long had a "GOB" attitude about themselves and their doings.   I have been disgusted and repelled by how the church handled the issues of child rape.  I honestly do not know if the mindset of this institution can possibly change in enough ways to make up for that in my view. 

On the other hand, the new Pope knows how to "Tweet"!

[Adam W]

True, Diane. And it's not like they weren't going to promote from the senior ranks of the Church - so anyone that was selected was likely to be pretty "establishment". Especially considering which guys were making the decision.

[ben says]

Yay, a new old guy to lead the pontificating prehistoric pile of papal pedophilia!

And he's a bigot - he described homosexual adoption as "discrimination against children".

There's also his supposed connections to the right wing dictatorship that murdered tens of thousands of Argentines during the so-called "dirty war" too.

http://wwrn.org/articles/18239/?&place=argentina&section=catholic

Same old bullshit from the RC church. At least he's not a former Nazi, I guess.

+1000

The whole institution is a backwards prehistoric mess.

[Fallen Buckeye]

A couple thoughts from a Catholic pov:

• Undoubtedly the church as an institution needs some reform, but that's no reason to reject the Church and all her treasures as a whole. You have to remember that all of the Church from the pope on down are made up of fallible human beings. So while her constant teaching is protected from corruption (that's where papal infallibility comes into play) her members are not. According to the teaching of the Church even the pope is subject to same flaws of human nature like poor judgement and sin.
• Like I said, the Church has a constant teaching that stretches back 2,000 years on which she draws for guidance. Right and wrong does not change according to the whims of the present generation. "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." Just because it is hard to understand or live by does not make it wrong.
• The Church teaches us to love everyone and that all people are called to live a chaste life as appropriate to their vocation (e.g.; priest, single, married, etc.). So, yes, we are all called to love people including homosexuals and not to judge them for their homosexual tendencies. However, we cannot uphold the homosexual act just like we cannot uphold a straight person engaging in fornication or a married person engaging in adultery because they are all sins that violate the sanctity of marriage. People cannot marry someone of the same sex by the very definition of what a marriage is according to the constant teaching of the Church: the union of one man and one woman ordered to the creation of new life.We can love the sinner and hate the sin. In fact, I have many gay and lesbian friends, and although we disagree on this issue we get along great. People are so much more than just their sexual orientation.
• Also, I think it's important to note that the pope and the bishops and priests are not the whole Church. It's catholic, or universal, and it encompasses all the baptized people of God throughout the world and throughout time. The pope cannot suddenly change doctrine of Church. Again, there is a constant teaching of the Church stretching back to Christ which the pope relates and at times clarifies. So it does not make sense to think of the Church and her inner workings in the same way we think of most politics. The new pope cannot come in and throw 2,000 years of sacred Tradition out the window. At most, he can change of a few of the disciplines of the church (for instance, something like whether we receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand).

I would challenge anyone who has any animosity towards the Catholic church to put aside their prejudices for a moment and do some earnest investigation into what the Church actually believes. I think they would find a well reasoned treasure of wisdom and truth. If you have an honest question I would love see if I could answer it or at least point you to a source that could. God bless you all.

[Cheshire Cat]

What is a Catholic pov?

Can you point out exactly where in his teachings Christ edifies that marriage is "only" between a man and woman?

[ben says]

I would challenge anyone who has any animosity towards the Catholic church to put aside their prejudices for a moment and do some earnest investigation into what the Church actually believes. I think they would find a well reasoned treasure of wisdom and truth. If you have an honest question I would love see if I could answer it or at least point you to a source that could. God bless you all.

Earnest investigation into what the church actually "believes"  Actions over words my friend. I don't care what they say, I care what they do. Wait...I do care what they say (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids). I also care what they do (raping countless children).

What an f'ing joke

[If_I_Loved_you]

I would challenge anyone who has any animosity towards the Catholic church to put aside their prejudices for a moment and do some earnest investigation into what the Church actually believes. I think they would find a well reasoned treasure of wisdom and truth. If you have an honest question I would love see if I could answer it or at least point you to a source that could. God bless you all.

Earnest investigation into what the church actually "believes"  Actions over words my friend. I don't care what they say, I care what they do. Wait...I do care what they say (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids). I also care what they do (raping countless children).

What an f'ing joke

Lets see how long this post stays before the MetroCops remove it? Ben you act as if everybody in the Catholic Church has raped countless children?

[Cheshire Cat]

I would like to make one suggestion before the discourse goes any further and that is that everyone be civil to those with opinions other than our own. No need to bait or condescend.   Can we do that please?  Thanks in advance. 

If_I_Love_ you, Ben didn't say he thought all church members acted poorly and my guess is he is focused on leadership with his comment.

[If_I_Loved_you]

I would like to make one suggestion before the discourse goes any further and that is that everyone be civil to those with opinions other than our own. No need to bait or condescend.   Can we do that please?  Thanks in advance. 

If_I_Love_ you, Ben didn't say he thought all church members acted poorly and my guess is he is focused on leadership with his comment.

Cheshire Cat I like the fact that you care. I will stop here and remove my bait.

[Fallen Buckeye]

Thank you for the civility, Cheshire Cat. Off the top of my head, the passage that comes to mind is Matthew Chapter 19.

"Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” 8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” 10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted."

Notice Jesus in talking about marriage emphasizes that it is permanent, exclusive, and between a male and female.  Also, I would point out that Church has been in the marriage business since the time of Christ and has never taught that homosexual unions are licit marriages, so really the burden of proof rests on anyone who claims that Christ taught anything other that the definition of a marriage being a permanent union of one man, one woman ordered to the creation of new life.

And Ben, if you are really interested in "what they do" as you say you are, I would urge you to check a book on the lives of the saints. It's really fascinating reading.

[Cheshire Cat]

Thank you for the civility, Cheshire Cat. Off the top of my head, the passage that comes to mind is Matthew Chapter 19.

"Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” 8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” 10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted."

Notice Jesus in talking about marriage emphasizes that it is permanent, exclusive, and between a male and female.  Also, I would point out that Church has been in the marriage business since the time of Christ and has never taught that homosexual unions are licit marriages, so really the burden of proof rests on anyone who claims that Christ taught anything other that the definition of a marriage being a permanent union of one man, one woman ordered to the creation of new life.

And Ben, if you are really interested in "what they do" as you say you are, I would urge you to check a book on the lives of the saints. It's really fascinating reading.

Civility is key to a balanced discussion.

Just so you know the point of my perspective on this, I will share with you that I was christened and confirmed Catholic as a child.  My mother dragged me to church every Sunday until I was old enough to refuse. My refusal to attend had nothing to do with my beliefs at the time and everything to do with a tedious, boring Latin mass where the priest kept his back to you the entire time, as well as the absurd assertion that only Catholics could be saved and people who told lies would burn in hell for eternity for their thoughts as well as deeds.  All assertions I did and do find outrageous.

As an adult, in my wide variety of friends I include among them several priests, cardinals and bishops who have sat with me in open discussion many times in my life. I have performed ceremony with some of them.   I have also read and researched most of the well known "Holy Books" of the major religions worldwide as well as other remote writings.  I have also spent extensive time immersed in a variety of cultures and was privy to their spiritual beliefs, customs, traditions and ceremonies.  I also owned a cultural center in Lake Worth, Florida that hosted spiritual teachers, medicine people, shamans, priests, nuns,  monks, preachers of all faiths, rabbi's and representatives of many worldwide cultures on a daily basis.  Many was the time that a priest, a rabbi, a shaman, a Christian preacher, medicine man or woman and even a Buddhist monk sat at my dining room table to discuss differing belief systems and never ever was a cross word spoken among us.

First let me point out with all respect that there is no real Catholic pov (point of view) there is in fact a doctrine that has changed several times in the history of the Catholic church.  A point of view under the umbrella of the Catholic church varies from person to person, even from country to country.  For instance, Catholic men and women have divorced and still consider themselves Catholic.  Homosexuals in relationships attend the church and consider themselves Catholic.  People use birth control and consider themselves Catholics and some women even get abortions and still see themselves as Catholics.  So a firm pov, really does not exist and changes from one Catholic to another and from country to country.  For years Rome did not recognize all the Catholics in Mexico because they would not adhere to what the church directed in all things.

As to the quoting of the bible as a measure of what is true and accurate in the eyes of God, or Jesus, I must ask which bible you are quoting?  Is it the one originally put forward via the Catholic church that is missing most of the Gospels as it was eight men who decided what to keep and what to throw out?  Is it the bible that was transcribed decades and even hundreds of centuries after Christ lived and is based upon human recollections?  Is it one of the many revised editions the church has sanctioned?  Is it the one with both the old and new testament in it? The one with the old testament describing the many wars and atrocities humans have visited upon one another in the name of God?  The reality is that there are many representations and interpretations of the bible not only in the Catholic faith but others as well.   So which one are we talking about? 

I see the Bible as a document written by human beings who were later hailed as saints, an honor visited upon them by other human beings who claimed to speak for God.  Within that book are a variety of stories, parables and some actual historical events in history.  It is a book that people told others was "Holy or Sacred" in order to have them believe in it's teachings.  But the Bible itself as it is now recognized (The New Testament) was originally put together for a single reason and that was to unify what was the Church of England under the Catholic Church.  It was a mechanism to unify a group of people under one doctrine for political reasons.  That is the truth behind the fact that a handful of gospels were chosen at the same time discarding any that did not fit the specifications of this new belief system under the King of England.

The man Jesus, was not a Christian, he was a Jew.  Every religious or spiritual teacher I have ever spoken with recognizes this fact.  He went to people with a message and the message was that their behaviors and beliefs at the time were not in balance and in many ways harmful to humanity.  He had a message and taught that message, however he did not create the Catholic or Christian churches.  People created those churches in order to also claim his teachings and by extension, his power.  I often think how horrified Christ would be if he saw what was said and done in his name these days or throughout history.  I will not speculate upon his divinity in that for many he is divine and that is as it should be for believers. When it comes to biblical quotes, there are only 15 lines in the bible that are supposed to have been spoken directly by Christ. Those are generally shown in red print. The words of Matthew are just that, his words, not those of Jesus.  He is sharing what he "claims" Jesus said and taught. Can we accept that as fact?  It is up to individuals to decide that. Personally I cannot possibly accept this as accurate as the gospels are the writings of many people with different views and motives. These are writings that were not even transcribed until long after the life of Jesus.  Was Jesus the son of God as God is described today?  Yes, I believe he was, but so is every other human being who has ever walked this earth, before and after Christ. If you accept the Bible then you must also accept that everything is of God and all people are his children.   Is God a man in heaven with a long white beard and a book of judgement?  Of course not, God or what is divinity cannot be defined in human terms.

The most pure forms of divinity and spiritual expression I have ever experienced have not been in a church or under the guise of any great religion but rather among the most humble people in the most remote places on the planet.  They don't have temples, golden churches or mosques but express a love and divinity that Jesus himself expressed.  Some people must find a connection to "all that is" in a church or through a priest, rabbi or another individual who claims to speak the teaching of Christ or God.

The fact as I know it to be is that there is no distance between us as humans and the creator.  We are part of all that is and all that is remains part of us.  It is only our human expression that creates the good or bad in our world as we define it and no one book has the answers to all that is.  The answers are already inscribed upon your heart and soul in that way even non believers are still a part of all that is and blessed on their path of life.

As far as the Catholic Church as an institution, it is true there are many devoted, kind, loving and spiritually connected individuals who make up the fabric of the church.  However it is the leadership of the Catholic church by which the institution will be measured and in that way the church has much to answer for.  Pope Benedict had been the individual who was responsible for responding to the actions of rogue priests who raped children and he and his Bishops somehow prayed themselves into a direction that caused them to simply transfer these rapist priests from one diocese to another where the crimes continued.  Once exposed, the church leadership apologized and paid the victims off.  I am sorry to say that I can find no grace or excuses for those actions which are themselves representative of Church leadership, but the responsibility begins and ends with them and is not the fault of church followers. 

The truth I have found that flows through all beliefs is that to walk in balance is to walk in humility, love, generosity and kindness recognizing every other human being as a relation of oneself because that is the reality of humanity.  If it takes religion to come to this understanding than that is wonderful.  If it is instead simply ones inner belief that is wonderful as well.   I respect all views, even those of persons who have no belief in a God or divinity.  We each must live our own paths in the way that gives us most comfort and peace.