Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

Pope Leo IV has been in active ministry for about 40+ years. 25 of those years have been spent outside of the USA. His most impactful ministry has been in Peru where he would have his deepest connections to the state. His roles in the USA were relatively low profile where he wasn’t deeply interacting with secular leaders (in the way, say, a Bishop would). In other words, he is not well-connected in the USA. He chose to become a Peruvian citizen.

He comes from the Augustinians. An order that was originally a mashup of a bunch of hermits in Italy (not actually founded by St. Augustine). Augustinians are respected academically but they keep a relatively low profile focusing instead on community service. There charism (crucial to understanding PLIV’s formation) is one of seeking truth and service.

He chose to speak three different languages at his first address: the traditional Latin, a shout out in Spanish to his diocese he served in Peru, and Italian. With those choices, he went out of his way to signal that this is not about America.

He is a canon lawyer by education. A curious educational choice for a young novice/deacon, but canon lawyers are rarely firebrands in the Catholic Church. Typically canon lawyers are people who are awesome no. 2 guys and gals serving behind the scenes. The cardinals know this.

He wore the traditional, ornate vestments for his presentation from the Basilica balcony. Pope Francis famously eschewed those vestments. Read into that what you will.

The Church is in greater crisis in Europe, right now. Particularly in Germany. If the Cardinal electors were looking for a political appointment to connect with the broader society, Europe is more important right now. Growth is in Asia and Africa, right now. That is more important. The Cardinals and Church do not see the world in polarities and the Church probably doesn’t view the USA as any particular special status or threat right now worthy of a response like the USSR in 1978. If the Church is going to wade into politics so blatantly like with the election of JPII, it will be over more than just the movement of migrants. Yes, the Church will advocate for migrants, but the threat needs to be more existential.

If they really wanted someone to send a message to Trump and conservative American Catholics there were better American candidates available for that. Make no mistake, Cardinal McElroy being moved from San Diego to DC earlier this year was a clear message from the Church to Trump.

To me, I just don’t see it. This screams to me that the Cardinals were looking for a unity Candidate who would also slow down change as a slight course correction to Pope Francis. I don’t think his status as an American citizen had anything to do with it. But time will tell.

The first big signal to watch for is if he does anything with the TLM. The TLM is a hotbed of conservative Catholicism in the USA. If he further cracks down on it, then you may be right. If he relaxes the restrictions put on the TLM, then you’ll know this had nothing to do with MAGA.

I never said it had anything to do with MAGA. Please actually READ my post.

I don't think they picked him because he was born in the US or has challenged Vance or Trump on immigration issues.

But I also don't think they were totally unaware of the significance of choosing someone who would be the first Pope born in the US with significant ties to the US. They are always aware of that. And with the US, the significance is large enough that it has been previously discussed by people high up in the church as to why there had never been a Pope from the US and why some thought there might never be. So it is simply not credible that they voted for Prevost with no thought given to his connections to the US. They knew, it had to factor into their decision in some way, even if the way it factored in was for them to decide it was acceptable to have an American pope right now whereas in previous conclaves (based on comments from previous cardinals) that would have been a mark against him if not wholly disqualifying.

And yes, I think the fact that he hasn't lived in the US for a long time and conducted the vast majority of his ministry in Peru where he is also a citizen, would have been a factor as well, taking the edge off of his Americanness and allowing them to select him as a truly "international" pope, which is different that the message that would be sent if they had chosen one of the American Cardinals.

You are arguing that they simply didn't consider his American heritage or his vocal opposition to Trump/Vance at all. That is not credible. They of course know he is American, they know choosing a Pope born in America will be viewed as significant both among American Catholics and those from other nations, and I am certain that many of the cardinals (especially those from the US or Western Europe) knew of his vocal opposition to Trump's immigration policies, which dates back to 2017, and either viewed this as fine and appropriate or at least did not find it disqualifying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

Pope Leo IV has been in active ministry for about 40+ years. 25 of those years have been spent outside of the USA. His most impactful ministry has been in Peru where he would have his deepest connections to the state. His roles in the USA were relatively low profile where he wasn’t deeply interacting with secular leaders (in the way, say, a Bishop would). In other words, he is not well-connected in the USA. He chose to become a Peruvian citizen.

He comes from the Augustinians. An order that was originally a mashup of a bunch of hermits in Italy (not actually founded by St. Augustine). Augustinians are respected academically but they keep a relatively low profile focusing instead on community service. There charism (crucial to understanding PLIV’s formation) is one of seeking truth and service.

He chose to speak three different languages at his first address: the traditional Latin, a shout out in Spanish to his diocese he served in Peru, and Italian. With those choices, he went out of his way to signal that this is not about America.

He is a canon lawyer by education. A curious educational choice for a young novice/deacon, but canon lawyers are rarely firebrands in the Catholic Church. Typically canon lawyers are people who are awesome no. 2 guys and gals serving behind the scenes. The cardinals know this.

He wore the traditional, ornate vestments for his presentation from the Basilica balcony. Pope Francis famously eschewed those vestments. Read into that what you will.

The Church is in greater crisis in Europe, right now. Particularly in Germany. If the Cardinal electors were looking for a political appointment to connect with the broader society, Europe is more important right now. Growth is in Asia and Africa, right now. That is more important. The Cardinals and Church do not see the world in polarities and the Church probably doesn’t view the USA as any particular special status or threat right now worthy of a response like the USSR in 1978. If the Church is going to wade into politics so blatantly like with the election of JPII, it will be over more than just the movement of migrants. Yes, the Church will advocate for migrants, but the threat needs to be more existential.

If they really wanted someone to send a message to Trump and conservative American Catholics there were better American candidates available for that. Make no mistake, Cardinal McElroy being moved from San Diego to DC earlier this year was a clear message from the Church to Trump.

To me, I just don’t see it. This screams to me that the Cardinals were looking for a unity Candidate who would also slow down change as a slight course correction to Pope Francis. I don’t think his status as an American citizen had anything to do with it. But time will tell.

The first big signal to watch for is if he does anything with the TLM. The TLM is a hotbed of conservative Catholicism in the USA. If he further cracks down on it, then you may be right. If he relaxes the restrictions put on the TLM, then you’ll know this had nothing to do with MAGA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

Pope Leo IV has been in active ministry for about 40+ years. 25 of those years have been spent outside of the USA. His most impactful ministry has been in Peru where he would have his deepest connections to the state. His roles in the USA were relatively low profile where he wasn’t deeply interacting with secular leaders (in the way, say, a Bishop would). In other words, he is not well-connected in the USA. He chose to become a Peruvian citizen.

He comes from the Augustinians. An order that was originally a mashup of a bunch of hermits in Italy (not actually founded by St. Augustine). Augustinians are respected academically but they keep a relatively low profile focusing instead on community service. There charism (crucial to understanding PLIV’s formation) is one of seeking truth and service.

He chose to speak three different languages at his first address: the traditional Latin, a shout out in Spanish to his diocese he served in Peru, and Italian. With those choices, he went out of his way to signal that this is not about America.

He is a canon lawyer by education. A curious educational choice for a young novice/deacon, but canon lawyers are rarely firebrands in the Catholic Church. Typically canon lawyers are people who are awesome no. 2 guys and gals serving behind the scenes. The cardinals know this.

He wore the traditional, ornate vestments for his presentation from the Basilica balcony. Pope Francis famously eschewed those vestments. Read into that what you will.

The Church is in greater crisis in Europe, right now. Particularly in Germany. If the Cardinal electors were looking for a political appointment to connect with the broader society, Europe is more important right now. Growth is in Asia and Africa, right now. That is more important. The Cardinals and Church do not see the world in polarities and the Church probably doesn’t view the USA as any particular special status or threat right now worthy of a response like the USSR in 1978. If the Church is going to wade into politics so blatantly like with the election of JPII, it will be over more than just the movement of migrants. Yes, the Church will advocate for migrants, but the threat needs to be more existential.

If they really wanted someone to send a message to Trump and conservative American Catholics there were better American candidates available for that. Make no mistake, Cardinal McElroy being moved from San Diego to DC earlier this year was a clear message from the Church to Trump.

To me, I just don’t see it. This screams to me that the Cardinals were looking for a unity Candidate who would also slow down change as a slight course correction to Pope Francis. I don’t think his status as an American citizen had anything to do with it. But time will tell.

The first big signal to watch for is if he does anything with the TLM. The TLM is a hotbed of conservative Catholicism in the USA. If he further cracks down on it, then you may be right. If he relaxes the restrictions put on the TLM, then you’ll know this had nothing to do with MAGA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Did you see the movie Conclave?

Did you watch the movie Airplane to learn about the airline industry works?

DP but that's not fair. Conclave was fiction, but most people familiar with the conclave process agree the movie got the process pretty correct, including the way politicking works behind the scenes and the fact that spiritual concerns still influence the process. The twist at the end was unrealistic, but the rest of the movie is considered to have a lot of accuracy.

So a bit different from thinking Airplane accurately reflects how airlines work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Why wouldn’t the divine be steering towards someone who could operate most effectively in the current geopolitical climate? It doesn’t mean it’s a political decision. Just means the conclave might be led to choose one who can perhaps help bring the most peace to our current world.

DP: I think the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Under Francis the Cardinals were less familiar with each other than one would expect. There were stories about the Vatican providing conclave voters with directories so they could get to know each other.

Then Cardinal Prevost, as the head of the Dicastery of Bishops actually served in one of the few roles that would have broadly exposed him to the worldwide church in a particularly administrative /operational role. As such, he came in probably better known to the Cardinal electors than many of the other Papable candidates.

The other scuttlebutt was that, for better or for worse rifts opened up in the Church under Francis, and the Cardinals were looking for more of a mender.

There were clear choices available as a known sort of continuation of the Pope Francis project—particularly Perolin. This is not to suggest that Leo will or will not continue the Francis project. Only that he is more unknown on that front. The one interesting wrinkle is that synodlaity was a new (some would say revival of an ancient practice) project throughout the entire church started by Francis that largely fell flat with the laity, but Leo is known to support it.

I don’t think they gave any thought to his status as an American or to Donald Trump.

The man was tweeting about jd Vance et al on the regular-it’s hard to believe that the views he expressed were not at least part of the thought process.

Leo’s views on immigration are hardly a differentiator among Cardinals. 99% of Cardinals share his views. I honestly don’t think that his status as an American entered the equation. Note that in his first Papal address he chose not to speak in English.

I understand the desire to apply our constructs to worldwide events. But the Catholic Church has dealt with much worse than JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries.

I disagree people are applying American political constructs to this. At least I'm not -- I don't think Pope Leo is a political animal chosen to go toe to toe with Trump.

But I think both his Americaness and the fact that he has vocally criticized Trump and Vance (who, like it or not, is now a prominent American Catholic who recently criticized the Vatican) played into the choice. There is no way the cardinals weren't aware of electing an "American Pope" (in quotes because I doubt they see him that way) at this moment in time.

I agree that a desire to continue the legacy of Francis was likely the overriding concern, and that Prevost's connections to Francis (not just personal connection but also both coming from South America and having similar approaches to ministry) were paramount. But there's no way the Cardinals weren't aware of the American political angle. And it is significant that it didn't disqualify him and may even have swayed some Cardinals in Prevost's direction, or at least factored into their decision to support him over other candidates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why anyone would be happy given this: "In picking the 69-year-old Prevost, the papal conclave looked past allegations that he had mishandled or failed to act on sexual abuse cases involving priests in both Peru and the United States."

Do any cardinals care about sexual abuse.

Do any religious men with power anywhere care about sexual abuse? I have yet to see evidence of that, anywhere in the world.

That's not true and shows you haven't done research into the massive reforms that started decades ago.

Massive reforms? Show your work. More like minor reforms that have been unevenly applied.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why anyone would be happy given this: "In picking the 69-year-old Prevost, the papal conclave looked past allegations that he had mishandled or failed to act on sexual abuse cases involving priests in both Peru and the United States."

Do any cardinals care about sexual abuse.

Do any religious men with power anywhere care about sexual abuse? I have yet to see evidence of that, anywhere in the world.

That's not true and shows you haven't done research into the massive reforms that started decades ago.

Massive reforms? Show your work. More like minor reforms that have been unevenly applied.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Did you see the movie Conclave?

Did you watch the movie Airplane to learn about the airline industry works?

DP but that's not fair. Conclave was fiction, but most people familiar with the conclave process agree the movie got the process pretty correct, including the way politicking works behind the scenes and the fact that spiritual concerns still influence the process. The twist at the end was unrealistic, but the rest of the movie is considered to have a lot of accuracy.

So a bit different from thinking Airplane accurately reflects how airlines work.

NP. Very few people are involved with the conclave process and really understand how it works. Hollywood is always doing things like Oliver Stone's JFK, and some viewers always take it as gospel, so to speak.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why anyone would be happy given this: "In picking the 69-year-old Prevost, the papal conclave looked past allegations that he had mishandled or failed to act on sexual abuse cases involving priests in both Peru and the United States."

Do any cardinals care about sexual abuse.

Do any religious men with power anywhere care about sexual abuse? I have yet to see evidence of that, anywhere in the world.

That's not true and shows you haven't done research into the massive reforms that started decades ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to those who say he’s a liberal, what about this?

https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/08/pope-robert-prevost-lgbt/

He is a liberal Catholic. Pro-Latin America. Which is a very specific thing.

He is pro-choice of course. Also anti-IVF and any reproductive technology.

Anti-LGBT and Gay marriage. Both of these are not optional for someone who is in that kind of a position of power within the Church.

He is also someone who likely has a Latin American sensibility about distribution of wealth and does not love the new power we have deemed billionaires worthy of.

He holds the position that the Catholic Church long has on immigration, on meeting the needs of the poor and on the environment and the need for Peace.

None of this puts him out of step with the Bishops of the world, with the US Bishops' Conference or with the Vatican.
The fact that he has navigated the Vatican for so long means that he won't be easily tripped up.

I think it's a great choice. And yes, most definitely a choice meant to put a check on any of the US Conservative Catholics (Supreme Court Justices, anyone?) who think that they are called by their faith to affirm immigrants being sent to concentration camps. Obviously.

According to MSN, he's also a registered Republican, something that has been verified by other news sources (e.g., NewsMax).

I'm the PP who wrote this. It doesn't surprise me that he's a registered Republican. That doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Liberal Catholic is not at all the same thing as progressive.

+1 lots of registered Republicans in my Catholic family. None have voted for a Republican candidate since Bush, some not since Reagan, and many of those voted for Carter.

Same with my family. Lots of registered Republicans who never vote that way. My father, who would be in his 80's if he was alive, identified as a Republican his whole life, in part because he never got over the Democrats and their support of segregation during his childhood. Every single election, going back to at least Carter, he'd vote for Democratic candidates.

Today, I also have family members who keep their Republican registration so that they can vote in primaries and try to stop MAGA candidates, but when they fail, they vote Democratic in the general election.

So, no, keeping his Republican registration, without evidence that he voted that way, doesn't bother me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Did you see the movie Conclave?

Did you watch the movie Airplane to learn about the airline industry works?

DP but that's not fair. Conclave was fiction, but most people familiar with the conclave process agree the movie got the process pretty correct, including the way politicking works behind the scenes and the fact that spiritual concerns still influence the process. The twist at the end was unrealistic, but the rest of the movie is considered to have a lot of accuracy.

So a bit different from thinking Airplane accurately reflects how airlines work.

In fact it was reported many cardinals, including Leo!, watched the film to learn more about process due to its reputation for accuracy. This was the first conclave for the 80% elected by Francis, including Leo, so the majority were trying to prepare as best they could.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is so exciting!!

They probably said ‘we need an American to get those American idiot politicians in line’…

Joking aside, I think this is absolutely true. 6 months ago, he would not have gotten this vote. It is expected he will go head to head with current admin. He seems like a great leader!! I’m so excited.

Do they really look at it like this? Were there similar messages sent in the past? I know there are Vatican politics among them, but how does the decision concern worldwide politics? And why do people think the choice means something about US power (that it means we are in a decline, for instance)?

No, the political lens is wrong, IMHO. The cardinals aren’t making a political decision, or sending a message about particular countries, or particular politics — the choice is steered by the divine, as it always has been. People who claim to be believers who second-guess the conclave on political or worldly grounds are so crass.

Did you see the movie Conclave?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why anyone would be happy given this: "In picking the 69-year-old Prevost, the papal conclave looked past allegations that he had mishandled or failed to act on sexual abuse cases involving priests in both Peru and the United States."

Do any cardinals care about sexual abuse.

Do any religious men with power anywhere care about sexual abuse? I have yet to see evidence of that, anywhere in the world.