Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA minds are blown they are so mad lol
This is fantastic

I'm so lost here. Why are MAGA mad about the new pope?

Well, first of all because they are dumb. But more specifically:

Because Trump wanted Cardinal Dolan as Pope and they feel affronted that the cardinals chose an American but not the one Trump told them to pick (look, I said up front that they are dumb).

Also, the new Pope has (fairly gently) rebuked the position of Trump and Vance on immigration issues, and Vance on a statement he made about Christianity. MAGA are thin skinned babies, so the idea that the pipe would simply agree with church doctrine and with former Pope Francis's teachings on migrants and humanity is enraging. They expect the Pope to be like Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, set aside all principles, and fall in line behind Trump.

Also, the announcement of the New Pope took attention away from Trump for like 3 hours on a Thursday when Trump was engaging in his weekly few hours of presidenting. Rude! The Cardinals should have waited until later in the day or Friday when Trump was done working and entered his usual 4-5 day golf weekend. Then the Pope wouldn't step on Trump's cable news coverage and also Trump could have tweeted more extensively about the new Pope, this making the new Pope all about Trump.

That about sums it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA minds are blown they are so mad lol
This is fantastic

I'm so lost here. Why are MAGA mad about the new pope?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the cardinals considered in the conclave but it will be jarring for American Catholics to hear the Pope speak in American English. It will have a different effect on them, including all the American and English speaking world leaders who will meet the Pope in years to come.

Why would it be jarring? Genuine question.

- non-Catholic

Anonymous wrote:MAGA minds are blown they are so mad lol
This is fantastic

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.

The Church has also been worse that JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries. It is one of the things I comfort myself with when I get depressed about the state of the country. At least I am not living in medieval Europe where the Church leaders were crazy but also believed to be chosen by God.

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.

The Church has also been worse that JD Vance and Donald Trump over the centuries. It is one of the things I comfort myself with when I get depressed about the state of the country. At least I am not living in medieval Europe where the Church leaders were crazy but also believed to be chosen by God.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the cardinals considered in the conclave but it will be jarring for American Catholics to hear the Pope speak in American English. It will have a different effect on them, including all the American and English speaking world leaders who will meet the Pope in years to come.

Why would it be jarring? Genuine question.

- non-Catholic

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the cardinals considered in the conclave but it will be jarring for American Catholics to hear the Pope speak in American English. It will have a different effect on them, including all the American and English speaking world leaders who will meet the Pope in years to come.

Why would it be jarring? Genuine question.

- non-Catholic

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I largely agree with you. When I was first googling yesterday, before news stories were overtaken by the selection (so looking back at prediction news stories) he was considered a dark horse candidate on just a few lists. He was also described as "the least American of the Americans." He was definitely not chosen to go toe to toe. But I also believe that his election is a strong rebuke to Trumpism. Or at least as strong a politcal statement could be made in a non political framework. And frankly a rebuke to Vance's absolutely terrible interpretation of Catholicism, too.

(side note but I believe Vance acted horribly toward Pope Francis / the Vatican on what was the Pope's last day on earth. I doubt the Vatican will forget that; I certainly never will.).

Trump and Vance have broken your brains and you can only see the world through that paradigm. The church isn’t choosing a leader for 20+ years to rebuke a POTUS or VP who have less than four years left in power. There are far more important issues to deal with (Eastern Europe and Gaza, to name two).

I think you're not getting what many posters are writing: that of course Cardinals considered the wider issues of the Church, in terms of missionary work, that Pope Leo cited today in his Mass, helping the poor and vulnerable everywhere and particularly in conflict zones. But they can walk and chew gum at the same time, these men - they're the most intelligent and functional people in the Catholic Church, those who have risen through the ranks thanks to their capabilities. It will not have escaped them that Pope Leo is a rebuke to the distorted value systems of neo-fascist governments, particularly those who seek the legitimacy of Catholicism, or Christianity writ large. Italy, Hungary, the US, and other governments come to mind. Pope Leo is not what Giorgia Meloni's or Victor Orban's governments had in mind either, or any of the very Catholic far right Le Pen groups or others.

In terms of oppression of women, however, they're all in agreement. So it's not all cut and dried.

It's so heartwarming that across countries, cultures and religions, people can still be united in their hatred of women.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what the cardinals considered in the conclave but it will be jarring for American Catholics to hear the Pope speak in American English. It will have a different effect on them, including all the American and English speaking world leaders who will meet the Pope in years to come.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I largely agree with you. When I was first googling yesterday, before news stories were overtaken by the selection (so looking back at prediction news stories) he was considered a dark horse candidate on just a few lists. He was also described as "the least American of the Americans." He was definitely not chosen to go toe to toe. But I also believe that his election is a strong rebuke to Trumpism. Or at least as strong a politcal statement could be made in a non political framework. And frankly a rebuke to Vance's absolutely terrible interpretation of Catholicism, too.

(side note but I believe Vance acted horribly toward Pope Francis / the Vatican on what was the Pope's last day on earth. I doubt the Vatican will forget that; I certainly never will.).

Trump and Vance have broken your brains and you can only see the world through that paradigm. The church isn’t choosing a leader for 20+ years to rebuke a POTUS or VP who have less than four years left in power. There are far more important issues to deal with (Eastern Europe and Gaza, to name two).

I think you're not getting what many posters are writing: that of course Cardinals considered the wider issues of the Church, in terms of missionary work, that Pope Leo cited today in his Mass, helping the poor and vulnerable everywhere and particularly in conflict zones. But they can walk and chew gum at the same time, these men - they're the most intelligent and functional people in the Catholic Church, those who have risen through the ranks thanks to their capabilities. It will not have escaped them that Pope Leo is a rebuke to the distorted value systems of neo-fascist governments, particularly those who seek the legitimacy of Catholicism, or Christianity writ large. Italy, Hungary, the US, and other governments come to mind. Pope Leo is not what Giorgia Meloni's or Victor Orban's governments had in mind either, or any of the very Catholic far right Le Pen groups or others.

In terms of oppression of women, however, they're all in agreement. So it's not all cut and dried.