E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLIVE VIDEO — NBC News Special Report: Live coverage from Vatican City as white smoke pours from the Sistine Chapel, signaling a pope has been chosen.
As the papal conclave continued in Rome, wrapped in mystery and secrecy, there was no indication that the 115 cardinals will be deciding between just a couple of front-runners in choosing a successor to Pope Benedict XVI.
Milan's Cardinal Angelo Scola and Brazil's Cardinal Odilo Scherer are names that keep cropping up on the lists of papabili, but NBC News Vatican analyst George Weigel says no fewer than 20 men could get votes when balloting starts Tuesday in the Sistine Chapel.
They come from the traditional bastions of Italy, from growth areas like sub-Saharan Africa, even from the United States. Only time — and a puff of white smoke — will reveal which one will emerge as leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics.
Here, in alphabetical order, are the princes of the church who Weigel says could be considered for the top job:
AFP - Getty Images
Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco
Angelo Bagnasco: The archbishop of Genoa, he also heads the influential conference of Italian bishops. Considered an intellectual heavyweight with a teaching background in metaphysics, he was described as a "pragmatic centrist" by the National Catholic Reporter. Bagnasco, 70, received death threats after hard-line remarks against same-sex marriages in 2007.
AP
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Jorge Mario Bergoglio: The archbishop of Buenos Aires is the Argentine-born son of an Italian railway worker. Seen as a compassionate conservative, he reportedly came in second during the 2005 balloting that ultimately elected Benedict XVI. The 76-year-old Jesuit prizes simplicity and humility and would encourage priests to do shoe-leather evangelization, his biographer says.
AFP - Getty Images
Cardinal Giuseppe Betori
Giuseppe Betori: The archbishop of Florence, he has been a cardinal for just a year. As secretary-general of the Italian bishops conference, he "built a reputation for himself as a 'bridge builder' in relations between the Vatican and the Italian government," the Italian daily La Stampa reported. Betori, 66, survived a 2011 assassination attempt by an emotionally disturbed person.
Getty Images
Cardinal Thomas Collins
Thomas Collins: The archbishop of Toronto was made a cardinal last year. A biblical scholar, he told an Italian newspaper that the biggest challenge facing the church is persecution in an increasingly secular society. Known for his media savvy and rousing sermons, Collins, 66, helped investigate the sex-abuse crisis in Ireland and sits on a Vatican council on education.
AP
Cardinal Timothy Dolan
Timothy Dolan: The ebullient archbishop of New York is among the best-known cardinals in America and heads the important U.S. bishops conference. Dolan, 63, doesn't run from political controversy or the cameras. The Vatican has been impressed with his dynamic style, conservative chops and missionary zeal, but others may be wary of his effervescence.
AP
Cardinal Dominik Duka
Dominik Duka: Talk about a dramatic back story: the archbishop of Prague was forced to work secretly as a priest during 15 years of Communist rule — spending his days as a designer in a factory — and was even jailed for a year during an anti-religion crackdown. Duka, 66, has been active in getting church property returned in a nation where secularism reigns.
Reuters
Cardinal Willem Eijk
Willem Eijk: The archbishop of Utrecht in the Netherlands has two doctorates — one in medicine, one in philosophy — and is considered an expert on bioethics. Eijk, 59, issued a strong apology in 2011 after a commission found the Dutch church had bungled sex-abuse allegations in past decades.
Reuters
Cardinal Peter Erdo
Peter Erdo: The archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest in Hungary "has been on the ecclesiastical fast track his entire career," the National Catholic Reporter says. A canon lawyer, Erdo, 60, heads Europe's Catholic bishops and sits on key Vatican committees. In Budapest, he was known for encouraging lay missionaries to visit every home in a parish to invite the lapsed back to the church.
Getty Images
Cardinal Sean O'Malley
Sean O'Malley: The archbishop of Boston wears sandals and a hooded Capuchin monk's cassock and says he doesn't expect to trade them in for red shoes and white robes. But O'Malley, 68, has gotten high marks for his cleanup of Boston's sex-abuse mess and heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' high-profile pro-life committee.
Getty Images
Cardinal John Onaiyekan
John Onaiyekan: The archbishop of Abuja in Nigeria was hailed as "the Timothy Dolan of Africa" by the National Catholic Reporter for his big personality. Onaiyekan, 69, also has intellectual and moral heft and successfully pushed for Democratic elections in his homeland. "There's nothing to stop an African from being the pope," he said in Rome last week.
Getty Images
Cardinal Marc Ouellet
Marc Ouellet: The former archbishop of Quebec and current head of the powerful Congregation for Bishops, this Canadian cardinal is on many conclave short lists. A scholarly theologian who is fluent in six languages, Ouellet, 68, has plenty of experience in Latin America, where he taught, and the Vatican, where he essentially serves as a staff director.
Getty Images
Cardinal George Pell
George Pell: The son of pub owners, the archbishop of Sydney is seen as a straight-talking conservative with fans in the Vatican hierarchy. Pell, 71, raised eyebrows when he questioned Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI's decision to resign and suggested he was a better theologian than leader. He gets poor marks from sex-abuse victims' groups.
AFP - Getty Images
Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith
Albert Malcolm Ranjith: The archbishop of Colombo, Sri Lanka, he has strong Vatican ties and was close to Pope Benedict XVI. But the National Catholic Reporter said that Ranjith, 65, may be too traditional; he's against taking communion in the hand and is a fan of the Latin Mass.
AFP - Getty Images
Cardinal Leonardo Sandri
Leonardo Sandri: He was born in Argentina and worked as a parish priest there, but Sandri, 69, spent years trotting the globe as a Vatican diplomat. From 2000 to 2007, he was the Vatican chief of staff and he now serves as prefect for the Congregation for Eastern Churches. He's well-liked but may be seen as a better No. 2 than pope.
AP
Cardinal Robert Sarah
Robert Sarah: The former archbishop of Conakry, Guinea, Sarah, 67, now heads Cor Unum, the Vatican's charitable arm. He's described as progressive on social justice issues and very conservative on hot-button topics like gays, contraception and abortion. Despite his Roman credentials, he isn't seen as a mover and shaker.
Reuters
Cardinal Christoph Schonborn
Christoph Schonborn: The archbishop of Vienna is "the closest thing to a wild card this time around," the National Catholic Reporter said. One of the more moderate candidates, Schonborn, 68, made waves a few years ago when he criticized powerful Cardinal Angelo Sodano for blocking a sex-abuse investigation. He comes from a noble family and speaks seven languages.
AFP - Getty Images
Cardinal Angelo Scola
Angelo Scola: More than one list of papbili has Scola, 71, at the top. He headed the church in Venice, is now the archbishop of Milan, and has ties to the influential and conservative group Communion and Liberation. He's an expert in bioethics and has worked extensively on Catholic-Muslim relations. But he may lack the charisma to seal the deal.
AFP - Getty Images
Cardinal Odilo Scherer
Odilo Scherer: Born in Brazil to German immigrants, Scherer is archbishop of Sao Paulo but has solid Roman experience from his time as prefect at the Congregation for Bishops. The 63-year-old takes the subway to work and is active on Twitter. He's got moderate-conservative credentials but Catholicism is being challenged by Protestant churches on his home turf.
Reuters
Cardinal Luis Tagle
Luis Tagle: The archbishop of Manila has charisma, a preaching style that brings people to tears, social-media know-how and ties to Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI. But Tagle is only 55 years old and became a cardinal just four months ago so Asia's rising star might have to wait until the next conclave.
AFP - Getty Images
Cardinal Peter Turkson
Peter Turkson: The former archbishop of Ghana now heads the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Energetic and easy-going, Turkson, 64, has talked openly about the possibility of becoming pope — too openly, perhaps. He also lost points for clumsily screening a controversial video on Muslims at a Vatican synod. Despite all the attention he gets in the Italian press, Weigel says he's not likely to be a vote-getter.
The Associated Press, Reuters and the National Catholic Reporter contributed to this report
Cardinals from around the world gather in the Vatican to elect the next leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
Related:
Conclave smoke signals a bit of a gray area
From crucifixes to bottle-openers: Memorabilia vendors prepare for new pope
Full coverage of the papal abdication from NBC News
This story was originally published on Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:59 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
Dear Tracy, I believe Cardinal Dolan is 63 years old not 69 .
I didn't see my picture. There must be some mistake.
Hummmmmmm~~~~~ Cardinal Antonin Scalia didn't make the list? ... lol
Pervs
Pope "Tom" Collins? Cheers!
Too bad they can't vote in a "wise Latina" like Sonya Sotomayor!
Imagine how those illegals would loot the Vatican!
I have to be the first!
What Obama's not on the list? I thought he would have had his Main Stream Media proclaiming him already Pope Obama. The he can run the whole world.
I wonder how many Muslim terrorist plots to kill as many Cardinals as possible will have been foiled by the end of the Conclave?
Now that is an insightful remark. However, eventually a new Pope would be elected. Most of the true action in the Church is done away from Rome in the great variety of evangelistic trenches.
ruh ro.... 2 possible popes named Peter.....
NBC."news".................PS WE DO not care who the next child molester sympathizer will be...............PS. I was a Catholic and the past test explains a lot. Who is the next Pope does not matter one big s**t
Yes, there have been bad priests, a very small percentage relative to the number of priests, most molestation's were done to post pubescent males, so perhaps the priests were gay. They should have screened more carefully. To attack the religion that I love is no different than attacking a person because he or she is black or gay or whatever. You are a bigot.
Hello I'm Bill and I need help it's been one day since I drank the Kool Aid. A SMALL PERCENTAGE? The catholic church is hell bent on protecting it's child abusers to the estimated amount of five billion dollars. Please give me some stats on any organization who has paid this much with so few going to jail.
And most were done to prepubescent males? Are you saying gay men are pedophiles? You are not a bright man, as a matter of fact you are disturbingly ignorant. That's like saying lesbians molest prepubescent girls. No wonder the Catholic Church is still around, people like you.
Last comment, I'm glad you posted in BOLD.
"To attack the religion that I love is no different than attacking a person because he or she is black or gay or whatever. You are a bigot."
The Pope and his minions have ostarcized Blacks and Gays every day, they are the bigots and you are a member of their clan. With that you are the bigot. Good day and wake up tomorrow with the smell of some fresh coffee in the air.
OBX1234
I find you offensive and stupid...I'm not even Catholic.....Do you understand that there are over 400,000 Catholic priests in the world? Do you know of any organization that big that does not have any bad apples? You are an ignorant moron....
Michigan727B
Are your assumptions based on anything? Please clarify with facts....Is this like the little green men visiting with the government or ghosts living in your walls? Sounds like conspiracy crap to me......I really do not think you know what you are talking about...
Michigan727B
You didn't notice the black men on the above list?...
Please Peter, how many black popes will their be? Also the 5 Billion in payouts is conservative considering the lawyer fees. Do you think a Cardinal from Ghana or Nigeria will ever get the white guy vote? As far as my "assumptions" well they are facts. Something you people don't deal with. While you divert the conversation it's apparent that the catholic religion is an abhorent practice with a goal of keeping the masses at bay while they enjoy the profits of its insanity.
Go to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com for an education. Not my site just a realistic approach to what you see as real. If that doesn't work go to www.biblicalnonsense.com for more of a reality check.
The funniest part of your post is asking me if my assumptions are based on anything. Well yes they are, they are called court records, you know, legal documents. Now go bury your head in the sand and believe that the church has equal interest in taking your money and protecting child molestors under the guise of eternal salvation.
lolz....you must believe everything you read on the internet.....Let me guess the 12/21/12 end of the world website is in your book marks as well?....Try history genius.....
moonbeamracer wrote this.
Hummmmm ~~~ You don't have to believe in Catholicism or religion to respect the value it has had to the human race & societies as a whole, around the world ...
Where do you think mankind would be without the principles it has evoked?
How can you condemn the basic tenants that it initiated and codified into law across the world; essentially the same values, imbued in different faiths?
Don't confuse the inherent substance of religion; with its prostitution in individuals quest for self aggrandizement, power, and greed ...............
PS I went to your hack website....Not really impressed and they tried to sell me something....and I received a tracking cookie......seems like a reliable source of factual information to me.....lol
Who cares about that USELESS position, Pope, what a joke, we live in the 21st century.
all religeons MUST GO
along with the Democrats and Republicans in office. This country has seen enough of the bs.
and take those evolusionists with you.....Bring on the sensible, reasonable and realistic people please!
This entire process is nothing but a bunch of hocus-pocus, superstitions and meaningless 6th century ritual.
Apparently YOU do Roger...Since you took the time to read and comment on the article...
@Roger------I'll take that useless position. It pays more then my job. How about yours.
The American so-called news media certainly has driven the latest non-story chapter of this medieval criminal cult of pedophiles into the ground. One hopes these corporate news organizations pay the same non-stop attention to Buddhists, Agnostics and Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, and the local wacko mega church bible banger in my city. Oh, if only Christopher Hitchens were alive and still could hold accountable the lowest common denominator brain dead media. One suspects that it is the clown suits and architecture that make for good video.
@littlechanges
Atheism is not a religion.
Roger so is it just religion and political parties that you don't believe in has to go. You're not a very accepting person are you? I think I will stick with my religion and political beliefs over your ways of thinking. Have a good day!
Atheism is ABSOLUTELY a religion. You definitively believe that a supernatural being who created the Universe does NOT exist. You can not back that belief up by scientific or logical argument. It is a matter of faith. If you were an agnostic, who was not sure or reserved judgement on the existence of God, then perhaps you would not be a religion.
I'm with you. I also don't see why NBC givies us these breathless reports on the Pope horse race. If this were the 16th century it would matter, but in the US in the 21st Century it doesn't matter much at all. We've all seen that the RCC is an institution dedicated to remaining in the Dark Ages, that it has been a protector of child molesters (on an enormous scale) and a supporter of homophobia and misogyny. Maybe MSNBC will give us similar excitement when the Klan elects a new Grand Wizard or whatever they call the guy who gets the fanciest sheet.
If NBC were to really serve their readers, they would tell us how much real estate the RCC owns in the US, its value, and how much property taxes the RCC escapes by being a religious organization. Also how much they avoid in payroll taxes. And then a report on how they avoid paying those taxes while still meddling in the country's politics.
I was born, raised and attended catholic school for 8 years. I went off to the Army and lost my religion. I attended Luthern church (the happy singing version) for a couple years. I'm second gerneration German Irish so there is a connection to the church still there. Recent events and my transformation from being a victim of Obamas Narxist regime or taking a the role of a patriot makes me want to go back to the church. Why? Because it pisses off liberals progressive liberal socialist. And I love confrontation!
Oh Please - I'm a progressive liberal, and I find nothing wrong with turning back to the church or one's perspective religion. I am a proud Catholic, although I actively fight the church for the way they've handled the abuse scandal and their hesitation in allowing females/married men to become priests. Every single progressive I know is in the same line of thinking as me: one may choose what is best for him/her . . . . . so I'm left pondering on why you believe liberals don't believe in religion? Yes, a lot of them don't, but that is certainly not the vast majority. Just like the far right has a bunch of frothing, fanatical lunatics, so does the far left have several nut-cases. Please refrain from categorizing all of us progressive liberals in such light. Peace.
Hummmmm ~~~ You don't have to believe in Catholicism or religion to respect the value it has had to the human race & societies as a whole, around the world ...
Where do you think mankind would be without the principles it has evoked?
How can you condemn the basic tenants that it initiated and codified into law across the world; essentially the same values, imbued in different faiths?
Don't confuse the inherent substance of religion; with its prostitution in individuals quest for self aggrandizement, power, and greed ...............
I'm tired of all this about the pope, who heads a religion that violates even the Ten Commandments (thou shall make no graven images of anything in Heaven to worship).
It will be interesting only if they come up with the first African/Black pope.
I think O'Malley would be interesting. He's done a good job cleaning up the abuse scandal in Boston, and it would be nice to see a pope wearing a Capuchin monk robe, and some sandals, and actually acting a little more like Jesus than an Emperor.
I'm rooting for John Onaiyekan - not because I care about the color of his skin, but because I would prefer a pope who's been Hitchslapped.
In 2009, the BBC televised an hour-long debate on the motion that "The Catholic church is a force for good in the world." Onaiyekan and British conservative Ann Widdecombe supported the motion while Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry opposed it. The audience was anonymously polled before and after the debate.
Before: 678 supported, 346 undecided, 1102 opposed.
After: 268 supported, 34 undecided, 1876 opposed.
The 52-person increase in voting can be explained by a handful of people not being in their seat and ready to vote before the debate started.
So, after Onaiyekan debated Hitchens, 410 people no longer felt the Catholic church was a force for good, while 774 more were convinced it was NOT a force for good.
The full video is available on Youtube, and is must-see viewing no matter what you think your view is on Catholicism.
I believe that the tooth fairy does NOT exist. Is that a religion too?
1.2 Billion Catholics care who gets that useless position. But since you feel it is irrelevant, feel free not to follow this story.
Atheism is not a religion because there is not a set definition of ways to practice "it." There is no "it." Atheism may have some faith deep at its core, but it holds no organized set of rules or rites or customs. Agnosticism is different from it because they have no opinion one way or the other, but agnosticism is not any less of a religion than atheism, because there is no way to "practice" agnosticism either.
The only belief that matters is that there is nothing supernatural out there controlling our lives or the laws of the universe or the way the universe was created, etc. It does not advocate for science or any other schools of knowledge on its own: atheism is the lack of belief in any gods and that is all it is. A lot of atheists then turn to other means to explain the happenings of the world, but those natural means are the only thing that will matter to them once they do.
When it all comes down to it, either deities exist or they don't, and it's much more likely and probable that they do not when you consider how science has changed our view of the world in the last 500 years. When you consider how many deities have been found in literature and mythologies since the dawn of mankind, you'd best be sure you find the right one, because if not, you've surely pissed him/her/it off.
Believing there is no God is a faith. It is not a religion though because, unless you were part of Stalin's USSR, Pol Pots Cambodia, or Mao's China, there is nothing you have to follow in terms of a set of rules. Just as many people believe in God, but do not follow a church or traditions (such as myself). There are gnostic atheists, and agnostic ones. More hard line ones could be considered following a religion, but the vast majority depend on faith alone and dont follow any type of rules.
I just hope they choose a cardinal that tried to fight against child abuse. There were some Bishops and Cardinals who tried to help the children, and condemned the horrible abuses, not all of them cared more about the image of the church than the children. I see some of those men up for Pope. If it is not one of them, they will continue to see people flee from an organization that cares more about gay people marrying, than a trusted priest destroying a child's life forever.
"Roger-521043
Who cares about that USELESS position, Pope, what a joke, we live in the 21st century.
all religeons MUST GO
along with the Democrats and Republicans in office. This country has seen enough of the bs.
and take those evolusionists with you.....Bring on the sensible, reasonable and realistic people please!"
Roger, quite clear you don't care about the Pope. Although I have to disagree with your view of His being useless. Quite clearly your standards of useless are substantially less than most as evidenced in your spelling capabilities and your understanding of how useful your spelling teacher could have been. Religions and evolutionists are not spelled "religeons" and "evolusionists". Perhaps a little less arrogance and a little more self restraint could be in order. To some the Papal position is highly respected and seen as a very instrumental component of every day living.
sam-298381 - The tooth fairy (by definition) is the magical being who replaces a child's fallen off baby tooth with cash when the child leaves the tooth under their pillow at night. There is definitive and documented evidence against the existence of this being by the fact that the parents are the ones who replace the tooth with the money. Do you have such definitive evidence that God does not exist? Think not. If anything, the Universe attests to the complex and intelligent design of a Creator, and not to random acts of materialism that have no purpose. The existence of intelligent alien life is something more akin to the God debate. Certain people believe there is (by probability), and others do not. There is no scientific proof one way or the other. Thats why I'm agnostic about Alien life.
Atheism = hatred and nothing more. It reflects ignorance and fear of the unknown, hiding behind science to explain everything and that which cannot be explained by science is considered to simply not exist. It's a narrowed, two-dimensional view of the world, much like when people believed the world was flat.
ProFreedom - Atheism = not believing in any kind of "God" or other deity and nothing more.
Seems like your projecting!
So using science to learn about things and explain phenomenon is "ignorance?" Really? What's really ignorant and intellectually lazy is saying "god did it" and then not bothering with any further explanation.
Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in any god/s.
A logical fallacy: you can't prove the non-existence of something. Where's your definative evidence for a god?
That's merely your belief and a false presumption.
But it's quite mathematically probable.
And not smoking is a vice, right?
InmyDays: And which religion follow the 10 commandments? How much people was killed in the name of God by the 'Western' religions (all of them, no exceptions)...
moonbeamracer
Most intelligent comment on these threads....Where would the world be without the Pope's stabilizing presence in western Europe after the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire? Ignorance is bliss I guess....and there is very little understanding of the effects this church has had on world history......AND once again I am not even Catholic.....It's called history...
gordy327 - So is your belief that something is false unless it can be proven scientifically? If so, then I pose this question - 500 years ago there were no such thing as high powered microscopes that could see atoms. Alot of people believed that there were 4 elements, and not all the ones on the periodic table. So are you saying that 500 years ago that a person who believed in atoms would be wrong to do so, even though they were right? Moreover, 500 years ago did atoms NOT exist because it was scientifically unprovable?
Did I say that? No! Don't try to put words in my mouth. Unless a claim can be proven scientifically, it has no validity and can therefore be dismissed.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? Belief is irrelevant to empirical evidence or fact! What it boils down to is, extraordinary claims require extraorrdinary evidence. You can believe whatever you want. But if you're going to posit that belief as fact, then you have to back it up with something substantial.
So gordy - So you really are an agnostic and not an atheist? There's a big difference. An atheist definitively believes that God does not exist. An agnostic just isn't sure. If you're the latter we can have a conversation. If you are the former, you are liable to call my beliefs (and the beliefs of billions of other people stupid.
One question though you have pre-defined a set of rules on what should be considered fact:
I guess two things. 1) True love is an extraordinary thing. Should it not also require substantial proof? How much is necessary? Afterall, my girlfreind might tell me she loves me, treats me well, and always has kind things to say. Maybe consciously she does believe she loves me, and therefore would pass a lie detector test. But subconsciously, maybe she's really attracted to my bank account. 2) I am assuming its Ok for you that I believe that my girlfriend loves me. So, what constitutes positing that belief as fact? Just telling my friends that she loves me? With God, what constitutes positing my belief that he is real as fact? Am I not allowed to tell anybody? What types of activity relating to my belief in God are acceptable to you, and which are not?
The christian god is a personal god. What that means is you keep the delusional stupidity to yourself.
BTW all gods are imaginary.
Really Greg - stupidity, huh? Lets take any any Theisitic Philosopher (Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, Anselm, Descartes) and match them up against whoever you think your "heavyweight" is. They would blow the snot out of you, Christopher Hitchens, Neitzche, or whoever else you can come up with. Who made you the Judge over Epistemology? Arrogance, plain and simple. It is not enough to say that you are not sure that God does not exist, or that he can not be proven scientifically, and that this is matter of personal experience, and that you choose not to believe. No, you have to belittle everyone who believes in God, and trys to live according to their conception of how he wants us to live, and delegate them to the category of fool or delusional whacko. Arrogance...
Where did I say that? I see you continue to misquote or presume to speak for me, which is as good as lying!
That's correct. However, an atheist will also consider any empirical evidence for a god, for which there is none.
We can have a conversation either way.
I couldn't care less what you believe. i simply challenge the validity of claims based on that belief.
Love is a biochemical reaction within the brain and it can be imaged and documented. That would be proof.
Then she's not really in love with you and only puts up a front.
The evidence you have to predsent to support that position.
you can claim god is real all you want. But unless you camn prove it, your claims is summarily dismissed.
Again, I couldn't care less what you believe and you're perfectly free to tell people god exist, just as others are free to call BS on it. I'd say the line is drawn when you try to push your beliefs onto others or into the governmentor law, where it doesn't belong.
gordy - Unless I can PROVE God exists my claim is summarily dismissed???? There is evidence of God's existence through the design of the universe, altough not conclusive proof. Now Stephen Hawkings is an Atheist and he argues the THEORY that the design we see in the Universe is inevitable due to the laws of Gravity. It is a theory though. He can no more prove that then I can prove God's existence. So why, according to your epistemology is his theory fine, and mine is "summarily dismissed"?
Ignorance about what a scientific theory is. To add a "god" is only adding complexity. Now we have to say who created this god. Are you really that blind?
I'll vote for that !
$2 on the nose of Schoenborn, and a second bet across the board on Dolan (to win, place or show).
Betting on the pope?? I thought it was more of a BINGO game! Maybe they can do a pope-idol show, or vote (no texting) them off the island(oops..out of the vatican). Doesn't the letters in the popes title add up to 666 anyways? Vote for the dark horse.
I agree with poster Roger.
Religion has no practical nor useful purpose in modern day society.
Besides the Vatican is just as corrupt as any business
We need religion now more than ever; this world is going to hell in a handbasket and fools like you and Roger are going right along with it. I'll take my religion and My GOD thankyouverymuch.
I am anxious to see who our new pope will be.
Poor Sheryl
How delusional you are.
Science flies you to moon
Religion flies planes into buildngs.
Yes, Sheryl you need religion for you need some old dude to tell you how to think, how to act, how and what to believe. I pity you and others like you who need an institution to do the thinking for you
WOW !!!
Morons like you shoudn't even read these articles. Your negative words gets U no where.
nogodnomaster, hold tight to your beliefs and I will mine. God Bless and a good day!
I will agree that we need some sort of spiritual guidance in our lives but organized religion is not the answer. I don't agree that we have to go to church on a weekly basis to be a good person. But we do need some sort of spiritual guidance to make our world one of Love, Peace, And Hope.
Bacon, Benoist, Mendel, Ockham, McNally, Mayer. Look up Jesuit Scientists and Roman Catholic Cleric-Scientists. But you're probably right. Ockham's Razor and Mendelian Genetics are clearly not in use at all today, atheists.
I agree that "religion" is not the way to live. Many terrible things have been done in the name of religion, and this perversion of practice continues.
Instead, I think spirituality, faith, the love for God and the love for neighbor are far more important than religion.
Religion is spiritual fast food.
"Instead, I think spirituality, faith, the love for God and the love for neighbor are far more important than religion"
"Religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" - MerriamWebster.com.
You are talking in circles, inMYday.
"Religion is spiritual fast food."
That doesn't even make any sense, Mr. Burns.
Most people find religion to be tedious, hard work that prohibits a lot of that which is natural and fun to do (similar to bad habits, free sex, amoral and unlawful behavior, etc., etc.). You are making it sound as if sinless living is the easy way out.
If its all that easy, then how come your name isn't on the list?
Perry,
It doesnt make sense if you just cry and miss the entire point. Religion prepackages spirituality and gives it to people in bite size pieces. It gleams over healthy things like doubt and questioning, and simply says if you disagree, you are wrong and go to hell. I never said sinless living is the easy way out. But it is easier for people to just believe some dude talking on stage, then to find their own meaning and understanding in life. Get the stick out of your rear.
It sounds to me that you have a particular subset of religion in mind, and are drawing a caricature of religion in general. Doubt and questioning are regarded by many religious folk to be integral aspects of faith. Not all religions teach that those who disagree with them go to hell. I don't blame you for not liking religions, if this is all you have known. But maybe there is good religion, too.
When you can sin all week long then repent and ask forgiveness on sunday, then rinse and repeat for the rest of your life, than yes "sinless" living is the easy way out.
No i am not a non believer, i just dont believe in the evil cloaked by sheeps that is the catholic church....
I would never criticize another persons religion, no matter what is is, because unlike you I am not a bigot.
Organized religions were invented to oppress the revolts of peasants. The Vatican should be torn down and all that money used to maintain the lavish lifestyle of the Pope and his cronies should be used to help the poor. That's what Jesus would do. Believe in the message, not the Church.
EXACTLY Tiredofthebs, believing in GOD has NOTHING to do with a religeon, religeon IS manmade for prophet....pun intended
Thank you, Roger. This is the first time I have seen the phrase "pun intended" or "pun not intended" in these posts, where an actual pun was referenced. Well done, although, as with all puns....groan!
If you all feel the Church and God himself are so unimportant to life in the 21st century, WHY did you take the time to read and post about it?
For Those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't, no proof will ever be enough.
it IS religeon that is useless janine, nowhere in the bible does it say to follow a religeon or pray to any statues. but it does say, all mens hearts are evil!
Clearly poster Janine has not heard of something called the 1st Amendment.
i have to disagree, nogo. janine seems to be properly execising her first amendment rights, and neither infringing upon, nor encouraging the removal or anyone else's. are you suggesting that she is the government, who "shall not infringe..."?
Thank you Single. I'm not saying that they have no right to speak their minds. Just asking why they bothered.
Roger, maybe religion is useless to YOU. Not to many others who truly believe. We all make our decision of what faith to believe in and how we practice that faith. It could be in a church with statues and gold trimmings, or it could be at home praying by ourselves.
God isn't in a building. HE is in our hearts.
You have to look deeply into some of the things Jesus said: apparently you missed His "the poor will be always with us" chide (an onlooker who criticised Mary Magdelene anointing His feet with expensive ungents was corrected when that apostle noted the practical, as you did, that the cost would "feed" hundreds). It was an allusion (more words excluded here) about preparing Him for death. It's about long view, insight, things not immediately apparent...You're right and wrong all at the same time. The church couldn't possibly "feed them all" and like any welfare program would wind up funding black marketeers, middlemen, beaurocracy, users, takers, slugs and succubi of all types and still not wipe poverty out, or even make a dent. It falls grossly short of administrating effective programs to train, educate and raise the poor where it has them - -how about that decision to close Catholic schools in poor areas. DUH. The only last gasp of decent some of the later arrivals will listen to and the only atmosphere that can be controlled enough to keep the kids "children" longer and make them believe in themselves as effective, upright citizens of the future (no drug deals in the back corridors or at the unlatched side door, or yeilding to "it's OK if you act like a slob"). Not to mention connections with little Catholic colleges for those who could use a leg-up for 4 additional years. We have needs that sometimes we don't have the sense to honor. Thank God someone had the foresight to include Central Park in New York City's plans. An oasis! It influences a lot of the surrounding more beautiful surrounding space too: less density, architectural beauty, museum row. We're influenced by it's presence. Sometimes in this century it takes a 2X4 to the b__s to make people stop and smell the roses, or think of tomorrow as it should. Ozone layer? Polar icecap? Fossil fuel? Arms race? They're (church) fallible - -considerably short of wise in some things - -but they represent and remind of much and put the brakes on some changes that, face it, need time and consideration. They err - -as in the abuse scandals - -but we've done that before and come back from it. Coming back, righting the ship, in itself is gut strength. I was raised a Christian (Roman Catholic) believer, but I think the various religions depict the civilizations that spawned them, without the influence of others, remember the world was more isolated when they formed, and interestingly represent the same "longing" or "search" but with the preparation materials of each race. We're early in the game of comparing notes. I'd stay tuned for at least one more century. Who are you going to replace it with. Donkey Kong? Lifetime network?
Well, except -- how to put this gently? There never WAS a "Jesus". He was an invention of the emerging Church, necessary to compete with those pesky Mithraists for Rome's attention in the great monotheism derby. More Xian blood was shed through the first 5 centuries of the Church's existence at the behest of rival internal "godman legend" sects than the Roman Empire ever thought of extracting through exercise of its "spectacles". There's your "Bible history" lesson...
All of this drama deserves a Broadway musical -- how about "Giuseppe in the Bright Lights of the Sistine Chapel", with the following headline ditty (and an Alvin Ailey signature solo romp)?
"Oh, who gets to wear the pointy hat, the pointy hat?"
"I want to wear the pointy hat, the pointy hat!"
"I'll look SO GOOD in the pointy hat... that..."
"The third world will just LOVE me!" <frenetic spins and tapping, followed by a cross-stage aerial>...
jhoopy you are just plain loopy! Did you forget your meds today? And there certainly IS a Jesus he died on the cross for mine your sins.............we shall see at the end of time who is right and who is wrong. For me and my house will serve the Lord.
Actually JHoop there IS Historical fact that Jesus DID Live.
He is spoken of by the Jewish historian Josephus in the first century. Josephus lived around the same time as Christ and spoke of his life and death and deeds.
The Roman historian Tacticus also spoke of Jesus and his crucifixion under Pontius Pilot.
Considering that he lived 2000yrs ago these few references of his life are truly significant, when you think that very few people would have been identified at that time.
Nice try though.
Sheryl....did it ever occur to you that YOU might appear 'just plain loopy' because you choose to "serve the Lord"?
The 'Holier-Than-Thou' attitude demonstrated by most Christians (and Roman Catholics in particular) is, in itself, the most UN-Christian attitude anyone could ever demonstrate.
I was raised Roman Catholic, so please don't attempt to get into any 'spitting contests'. I just feel that most religious people are much better at pointing fingers at others while ignoring the same 'sin' in themselves.
Nope. No secular acknowledgment of a Jesus character -- merely notice of a movement. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews was emended by Eusebius in the 4th century (clumsily, at that) to include a stray reference which was complete forgery. We know this by: 1) differential analysis of Josephus' own Jewish War (which predated Antiquities and never mentioned Jesus), 2) parsing Antiquities with an eye to style (and noting the step disconnect the particular phrase invokes), and 3) the early Church's redhanded attempt at doctoring Jewish War in similar fashion -- which, as Frank Zindler notes, unfortunately resulted in disparate copies of the text being left -- one with an interpolation exactly as was done in Antiquities and another pristine version with no such ham-handed historical manufacture. A better question is: why would the Church feel like it had to doctor secular history? Could it be that Eusebius' boast that "Any lie in the service of God is a good lie" fairly well describes Church ethic with regards to historical accuracy?
Why yes, it does...
Jet. Reading your post it seems like YOU are the one pointing the fingers.
Just an observation.
"Spoke of" Janine? There is no contemporary historical record of the Jesus described in the bible, it is all hearsay. There are many problems with the Jesus story. He would have had to pass through large centers in his travels that aren't even mentioned in the bible. Only small centers are mentioned because it's easier to tell the lie this way. The census where everyone was required to return to their home town certainly never happened. Major political events like this are known about and this did not happen. It has never happened, it makes no sense to do it, especially back then when travel was so difficult and slow. Jesus was a common name back then but the Jesus described in the bible almost certainly did not exist.
Absolutely not, Janine...simply making observations and stating the obvious.
Don't forget what the Bible says about casting the first stone (or does that only apply to non-believers?)
Certainly, that is part of the problem....the religious types are entirely too judgemental.
I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of your statements...sorry if it hurts, but there ya go.
That's nice. Prove it!
No you won't. We'll be dead, period!
Why anyone would subject themselves to indentured servitude is beyond me.
And no proof to the contrary is accepted.
There is currently no proof to begin with! But then, proof is not based on belief, nor does belief equal proof!
Jet, it doesn't hurt me at all.
But you're the one still pointing fingers.
Leroy, there IS Contemporary writings of Jesus as I listed above. Josephus for one.
Anyone that believes there is no Creator is truly ignorant. Accepting your (and my) very limited intellect as being superior to this Superior is pride and blindness to the extreme.
Aside from any aspect of religion, as I progressed through my education, including advanced degrees, I realized that while my knowledge increased proportionately, my realization of how much I (and others) did NOT know increased exponentially. If you have not reached this truth, you need more education and understanding.
Man has never, and will never create anything. Show me one person or group of people that can start with nothing and produce anything. Remember, you did not produce the environment you live in, the air you breathe, nor the ground you walk on. Even our talk is not producing anything from nothing, as we breathe the air around us to survive.
Thank God He loves us in spite of our sin.
Roger, I wouldn't believe in something I couldn't spell either. It is "religion" not "religeon". I will live my life, give my money to whomever I choose. If you don't believe then don't go, easy enough to fix the issues you have.
Ok, prove there is a creator then!
Your ad hom attack aside, you also presume from a flase premise.
But assuming "god did it" is the epitome of intellectual laziness!
immaterial and has nothing to do with any god, much less proves there's any god.
Sin is just a silly religious concept and you still have to prove there's a god to begin with!
Dr. Larry, thanks for the well-written post. I had a similar epiphany in college when I postulated that realization of and quantification of one's ignorance was necessary to achieve wisdom. (I don't think it's possible for someone to measure the magnitude of his ignorance--no matter how educated.)
Gordy, you make some valid points, but no one will be able to prove or disprove the existence of a deity.
Sure, there are many examples of self-appointed followers of Christianity who have ignored scientific proof. My favorite example is the story of Galileo and the trouble he got into because his "heretic" findings were contrary to the misguided Catholics--who had interpreted the Bible as they saw fit. Now, many Christians don't want to hear anything about evolution--because it disagrees with how THEY (mis)interpret the Bible.
When I finally espoused atheisim, it was the greatest disappointment in my life. To seek God you must first have an open mind. Look for your own proof and you'll find it.
When I recalled my higher education in Physics and my knowledge of the Bible from my upbringing in Christianity, I found it. I'll spare you the details because I can't prove anything to you, but based on the first couple of verses in Genesis it was obvious to me that no one living at that time it was written could have written a story so similar to our modern model of cosomology (assuming that many modern "believers" have misinterpreted the Bible to say things that just aren't in the passages and their interpretation is simply wrong). And how could that be, that Moses or whoever it was had ignored his contemporary education such that none of the Egyptian model of the universe made it into the text? That is a remarkable coincidence, in my opinion.
Steven Hawking claims he has disproved God's (subjunctive) existence by using Physics and thermodynamics, because God would have necessarily existed before time existed, which cannot occur in a physical universe. Where Hawking's argument fails is in the premise that an omnipotent being had created the universe itself, and "time" is simply a fundamental dimension of the created universe, the same as length, mass and current are. In other words, God would have had to create time itself, which requires that God be independent of time. Funny thing is, even the Bible verses written millennia before modern thought state that God is not bound by time. How could that have happened?
Seek and you will find. He who has an ear, let him hear. All you need is a miniscule amount of faith, about the same size as the tiny mustard seed.
Which makes you a preferential liar, Janine (and therefore, Xian?). Or did you not understand the plain rebuttal I posted which patently eliminates Josephus as a secular historical reference for Jesus? Deal with that before another bleat that Josephus somehow underpins the historicity of Jesus. Josephus never knew of any Jesus.
Dr. Larry:
Yours is THE classic "God of the gaps" argument -- i.e., "We can't know everything -- so therefore... GOD!" How very silly -- especially for a supposed man of letters. What science delivers against this plaintive assertion is a relentless, progressive elimination of supernatural agency for what we inevitably determine to be natural mechanisms. God does not send the sun around the earth, fire lightning bolts nor select football teams for championships. Physics and the vagaries of probability shape our existence, nothing more.
Once you grasp this simple truth (and the attendant laundry list of examples), it becomes easier to shed that intellectually embarrassing endorsement for supreme agency that left Epicurus metaphorically chuckling and shaking his head...
Logical FAIL. One is not on the hook to disprove an assertion to special agency. The onus is strictly on those who assert such as fact. Shame on you for this canard. Prove then, that "God" is not a flying spaghetti monster...... Ah, there we go, the dawning light...
Jhoopy, my point was that no one can prove it either way--to anyone who is unwilling to examine the argument objectively.
No one is on the hook to prove anything either way about a deity. Believe what you wish.
BTW, you have a few logical fails yourself, but it would be unproductive to enlighten you of their weaknesses.
But, I'll pray for you.
Which has only the potential of making you feel better. For my part, I will continue to appeal to that part of your intellect not preoccupied with the logically bankrupt, emotionally steeped defense of voodoo nonsense :)
Jhoopy, I'm curious why you are so vigilant in your efforts to disprove the existence of God. Why is this so important to you? You appear to be on a campaign to set the world straight. Who appointed you to this task, or what is your motivation?
@Janine-1645002 as to your point about proof, quoting Romans 12:2 "And
do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of
your mind, so that you may "prove" what the will of God is, that which is good
and acceptable and perfect." NASB Version BTW, what's not to like about
Cardinal Dolan, the perfect Pope for a new era.
The onus of proof is one the one making the affirmative claim. one cannot disprove the existence of something, as that is a logical fallacy.
That's nothing more than convincing myself of something, and it's subjective and anecdotal. It is not actual, empirical proof of a god.
yes, to you. However, Genesis is just a story and nothing more.
Prof. Hawking never made such a claim. He simply said a god wasn't necessary.
You go under the false premise that there is a god to begin with.
Then that creates a bias, as empirical evidence or proof is not dependent on any faith, nor does faith equal proof.
Except those making the claim for a deity.
Why are you guys and gals arguing when you cannot understand the difference between faith and religion? One is subjective, and will not change not matter how hard you want to demistify it. People will never comprehend the level of faith of any individual because it is subjective, it pertains to each individual and only that individual understand the level of connection between him or her with the divinity. Religion on the other hand is the institutionalization of the faith with the means to obtain power over people. Once they achieved that power, seldom they will try to relinquish that power.
Jgordy,
"The onus of proof is one the one making the affirmative claim. one cannot disprove the existence of something, as that is a logical fallacy."
Then why are you so adamant that God does not exist? Your premise is contradictory.
Not at all. What exactly is contradictory? It seems you still don't understand what a logical fallacy is, as you use it again. There is simply no evidence for any god. By all means, provide evidence for a god and I'll consider it.
My religion is Karma, if you help people and are kind to them, good things will come your way. That's why the Catholic church is crumbling down. I believe this will be the last Pope because people are opening their eyes and seeing this religion for what it really is. A joke. I don't remember any stories of Jesus preaching from a penthouse balcony!
The Catholic Church is hardly crumbling. In the Year of Grace 2013 there is more catholics (about 1.2 bllion) and more catholic priests (about 500 thousand) on this planet than ever before...
Tired: Is it your religion or your faith?
It does not matter who becomes the next CEO of the largest corporation in the world; the Catholic Church will continue to be a backassward organization.
That was an assbackward way of saying assbackward!
haaaa, i get it. Bigfoot made a funny.
lol....we always said 'bassackward'....
the contributor is such a holy person. imagine, the Holy Spirit revealed to the contributor of the article who are the 20 favored cardinals.
Really tired of this being the only story on TV and on online.
If you turn the station off of EWTN you won't have to watch. Also I have seen more articles to read that about the conclave, you just like to complain.
The next Pope will be an angry old white guy that hates gays, women, atheists, science, and reform. The next Pope will, however, defend the status quo at all costs and shield pedophiles regardless of the magnitude of their crimes. The next Pope will likely have connections with organized crime.
To all you atheists out there, paybacks are a bitch.
No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
Rich, 'god' is an idiotic idea promoted by immoral people to control and pacify the weak minded.
You might be interested in an article I posted to Newsvine a while back:
http://thelunatic.newsvine.com/_news/2012/07/06/12598359-im-a-believer
lunitic, don't tell me you believe we evolved from animals?
talk about an idiotic idea, even Darwin himself discredited his own theory, talk about weak minded people.
hop along now, nothing to see here!
"don't tell me you believe we evolved from animals?"
Ahhh...last time I checked we ARE animals.
"talk about weak minded people." Indeed you are Roger.
P.S. The Earth is older than 6000 years.
To poster Rich
Payback for what? For influencing social progress?
To poster Roger:
Last time I check no credible, reliable and no verifiable evidence has been presented to support that we just appeared nor is the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.
If neither of you want to be part of the 21st cnetury, then find an isolated island and live there
For all you non-believers, no wonder there is so much hate in the world. No wonder there are so many crazy ppl that blow up buildings, go on murder rampages! People that don't have GOD in their life...are really missing the boat. I actually feel sorry for them. Just my honest opinion. Which I am entitled too...
@Mikeswifee...don't forget all those religious minded people that bomb women's clinics, shout lies and filth at those they don't agree with, (and I'm pretty sure there's a lot more examples of religious intolerance and ignorance to go around).
You are, however, entitled to your 'holier than thou' opinion.
Hey Mikeswifee
Missing what boat? The boat of being ignorant to social progress? Did it occur to you that it was the influence of religion to caues someone to blow up buildings? Or to fly planes into buildings?
Organized religion is opposed to social change and social progress
Is that supposed to be some kind of threat? Lame!
No he didn't. By all means, cite your source for that claim!
You do realize humans are animals, right? And we did evolve and the evidence proves that.
Speak for yourself! I'm perfectly happy and content with my life and I never needed god to achieve that.
You can save your false pity!
When the pope is having sex with a bishop, is that what's known as doing it "dogma style"?
That's nasty... lol
Who cares?
Do they get bonus votes for being black?
@ Mr. Binkie..another race based moron.. don't you PPl get tired of being just MORONS..how do you PPL sleep at night without DRUGS..
Its not a secular government, so they probably dont give bonus points for being a minority.
Janine, the reason we post about sheep who follow these people is about education. God killed over 2.8 million people in the Old Testament yet said Though Shalt not Kill. We, on the sane, or "atheist" side, are tired of old white pedophiles pushing society the wrong way. Let's get this straight, God made the Heavens and the Earth then came down and blew into some dirt and made Man? Then he took a rib from the Man and made Woman?
I'm a little skepticle on the story. There was this great man named Thomas Jefferson who said; Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Our founding fathers knewof the dangers of organized religion 250 years ago, and it is important that we continue to speak to their vision.
it is interesting that a man has 1 less rib than a woman isn't it?
God made man from dust not sand, glass is made from sand...hahahaha
Michigan.......Well said!
Michigan,
The chronologies that were, and I believe God breathed in the bible of what He thought to be the important recordings of history for this age are more credible than we evolved from a fish and some how walked out of the sea, or that we evolved from an ameoba after some big bang from nothing. As we will soon discover that was one of the biggest LIES perpetrated on mankind.
You obviously don't know anything about anatomy!
That's nice. Prove it!
If you are referring to evolution, it's been proven. your god however, has not!
Our founding fathers were religious, if you can call Anglican a real religion.
Thomas Jefferson was a Christian as an FYI.
And John, if evolution and our dating of the Earth and Universe are wrong, why would God put so much evidence that it occurred? Is he lying to us or trying to trick us?
But Michigan, what is death to God? If when you die you go to Heaven, why would death bother God at all, or any of us if there is eternal happiness?
Gordy,
You do know that Spock is a metaphor for a rabbi, right ?
"Fascinating." :)
Thomas Jefferson was a deist not a christian. Read your history books. He was more inline with American Indian beliefs than the insane Christian beliefs.
John, keep drinking the Kool Aid, no sane person can dismiss evolution. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Supreme Deities are for children.
Roger, women and men have the same number of ribs. It's no wonder you turn your eyes to Prada shoes wearing child predator protectors.
Gordy,
Where's the proof? Remember, it's only a theory.
You don't seem to know the difference between a scientific theory (which is the highest standard in science) and the generic use of the term. Evolution is proven by DNA, fossil evidence and progression, anatomical similarity among species, and goegraphical distribution among species. Plus there is not one shred of evidence which discredits evolutionary theory in the least.
So, by all means, feel free to discredit evolutionary theor with your own set of empirical evidence, if you can. I'll bet you'll win a Nobel prize if you can.
Wish I had a dollar for every ignorant myth believer that said that.
I happen to believe that there is a time difference between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and that the earth is perhaps millions or billions of years old as we understand time. I also believe that God renewed the earth in 7 days from a state of decay as is plainly stated. God is Eternal and not limited to time. However, to say that a creation is witout a creator is lke saying the Ford car appeared from nothing without Henry, or the Hoover vaccum cleaner without James Spangler, or the Sears tower without an architect and a builder. It is very plain, simple and basic. All inventions require an inventor. Also, interestingly enough every product comes with an assembly and/or an operator's manual.
Adding a creator adds undo complication. Who created the creator? Like you said everything needs one. Hey it's ok when you spouted about "it's only a theory" I knew you were beyond reason. Why? You haven't even taken the time to understand the basics of science. Yeah go believe in the man made myths and get off the PC science has given you.
How many votes does God get?
God gets one vote - and His is the one that will choose the pope.
You asked, Leroy.
You gotta love it!!! Good one, benedictineacc!
This is the Catholic church. God left that mess a long time ago.
I hope they chose one of the black guys.
That would be good. Kind of an Anti-Obama.
But most importantly, in my view, he has to defend, strengthen and propagate the faith.
" I hope they choose one of the black guys" LOL. Being black should be the only requirement?? Kind of like when you voted for president, OhhhPinnn??
Then he can be a celebrity Pope and spend more time working on his image than leading.
How about a woman Pope? There has not been one since Pope Joan in the 10th century. Before anyone tells me that there was no woman Pope, please do your research first. It's a fact that the existence of Pope Joan was considered common knowledge for centuries and that many statues and writings of her and about her still exist. Around the 14th or 15th century the Church decided that they should squash any reference to her, but that does not mean that she did not exist.
Reading these comments - obviously they are not focused on the article.
Wonder where kids get their flip mouth and their disrespectful attitudes? From their parents and other adults around them.
it's hard to stay focused on bogus hocus pokus...by focus
I believe (and I could be wrong) that the point has not been missed.
Seems from the descriptions of the 'front runners' for the title of Pope, whoever is chosen will pretty much be the same as the one he replaces. Different face, different color (possibly, but don't hold your breath)..same old party line.
When you have the same ones choosing, why would anyone believe that the choice would be any different than the last choice?
Jet-1092441, why would you want anyone any different? God's message doesn't change.
The Church does not have political parties - they are not a political organization. How can they have a party line?
What makes you think that the reason they are electing a new Pope is because they want change? Haven't you been following the news?
Change is good. Everything must evolve, or face the possibility of extinction. This is true for animals AND institutions.
Jesus was crucified because he threatened the status quo - today's Church is all about KEEPING the status quo of, say....1500 years ago? Jesus threatened the status quo by preaching CHANGE.
The Catholic Church must change and evolve - somehow while keeping with core beliefs - or find itself woefully out of touch with those it wishes to lead.
It is disgusting that the wealthy Catholic Vatican can afford some Madison Ave. type advertisement that has been seen recently on television. About a website called "Catholics come home"! So the Vatican is getting desperate about losing money and it's current base that funds the money machine. Religion and politics do have a common bond. It's called fear. Both of them(Vatican and Congress) headed by and controlled by, wealthy men. The masses have grown smarter and less trusting of them and it's panic time. They can't control the scandals or the fact that what they have to offer isn't working anymore. The trust is gone and the patience has worn thin. You have pissed off the wrong crowd and no one is buying what you have to offer anymore. It does not mean we are atheists or unpatriotic, it means we are becoming wiser about your utter bull sh_t and your lies. Funny thing is...neither of these two entities can reform and will ultimately end up going away because of their love of money. Who says there is no God.....
So poverty is where its all at, then?
You know, the reason that North Korea has all those border guards isn't because they don't want immigrants — its because they don't want emigrants. You are free to go there.
While people from all over the world are coming here to the United States for the chance to be rich, you can go to North Korea for the chance to be around people you profess to enjoy the company of - the destitute and famished. You are a North Korean at heart!
Why is it that the leaders of a political ideology that is anti-wealth, such as Kim Jong-un, and Chavez, always look like they spend a fortune on food?
Hey, good luck on finding a country who isn't run by rich people. Neither the Soviet Union nor China were run by poor people, even.
Its not about 'money' or 'wealth'....its more about 'holier than thou' and 'do as I say, not as I do'. Spiritual povery run rampant in today's Catholic Church.
Priests (and Bishops, Cardinals and Popes) do NOT take a vow of financial poverty. Only nuns are required to do so. Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes all have NO problem sucking off the teat of the religious, and taking every penny that they can get away with (while preaching about things like humility, etc.). Roll up, roll up....pay your Church dues with PayPal!
The Catholic Church has evolved, but not in a good way. Pretty soon, they'll be buying a few Senators and Congressmen and vying for 'personhood' just like any other corporation.
They just need to spend more money on good PR people.
It must be a very slow news week if the headlines are still about a non-existent pope.
Honestly, is this what is important in the world? How about some more secular news???
Enough.
It's important to the worlds 1.2 billion Roman Catholics. That's more than the number of whacked-out freeloading leftists.
We can only hope Perry.
well... on the fashion front, I did see a well known media slut and political whore wearing her Cardinal red coat on the news last night,
is that secular enough for you???
I still hope for the Catholic Church that it is someone who isn't so young as to hold that post for 20-30 years. Especially if the Pope sets the church back 100 years in progress. You cannot remove a Pope from office. Do NOT pick a Pope who is power hungry. Pick one who has the interest of the FLOCK at heart.
Women serving as Priests is a good thing. Priests should be allowed to marry (after all how can a Priest who has never been married give advice to couples about to be married or are married).
Get with the 21st Century.
Yeah… How can a doctor who has never had cancer possibly treat a cancer patient? </sarcasm> Also, FYI, the whole women-as-priests issue isn't a "good" thing, it is an impossible thing!
I vote for Honey Boo Boo. Let's have headline stories about that for a few months. Or the Easter Bunny.
At least you believe in Christianity's greatest Holy Day.
Which was borrowed from Pagan origins.
Gordy, most traditions are, religious or otherwise.
This constant front-page, headline coverage of this death cult is surely putting off a number of NBC's readers.
Bagnasco looks confident, and seems to be aligned with power. I don't like Robert Sarah, but Turkson seems like a nice guy. If "god" were selecting the next pope via a magical computer message, Luis Tagle would become the next pope.
Never on the list a papabili in the mainstream media is Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis and currently Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. He's been mentioned on blogs and Huffington Post. In his early 60s, he is American, but with Roman Curia experience unlike O'Malley and Dolan. He has a sheriff mentality when it comes to cleaning up the Church's mess, but also has a pastoral side and is highly devotional. I wouldn't rule him out.
This is clearly my opinion, and I wouldn't expect anyone to accept it, but I think that Burke (and I live around St Louis, so I'm familiar with his nonsense) is a clown. Once again, just my opinion, you can look into where he's gone with the church's doctrine for yourself, and form decide what you think.
They all look creepy to me, However, i'm biased, i'm an ex altar boy. and ex Catholic