E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Reuters; Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Left, Pope Benedict XVI blesses the faithful for the last time. Right, his namesake Pope Benedict XV, circa 1915.
The first clue about what kind of leader the next pope will be — liberal or conservative, reformer or by-the-book — will come only minutes after the smoke clears at the Sistine Chapel.
From a balcony at St. Peter’s Basilica, the world will learn not just who has been elected but what he chooses to call himself, a decision steeped in centuries of church history — and a good indicator of the new pope’s vision and inspiration.
Until the sixth century, popes went by their given names. There was a Pope Sylvester, a Pope Julius and a Pope Victor. Then, in 533, a priest named Mercurius was elected to lead the church and decided that a pope named after a pagan god — "Mercury" — just wouldn’t do.
He chose to go by John II. Since then, most popes have abandoned their birth names and adopted tributes to saints, popes and even relatives who have gone before.
“You’re trying to pick up some of the glow of your predecessor,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, Vatican analyst for the National Catholic Reporter.
It is a solemn decision. Newly-elected popes are asked only two questions by the senior cardinal inside the chapel. The first is whether he wants the job. The second: “By which name do you wish to be called?”
The 115 cardinals were back behind closed doors this morning for two more unsuccessful secret votes to select who among them will be the new leader of the Catholic church. NBC's Lester Holt and Keir Simmons report.
When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope, in 2005, he chose Benedict XVI as a tribute to two men. One was the previous Pope Benedict, who guided the church through World War I. But Benedict XVI said that he also meant the choice as homage to St. Benedict, an intellectual like Ratzinger and one of the patron saints of Europe, for his “powerful call to the irrefutable Christian roots of European culture and civilization.”
In particular, Benedict XVI prayed to his saintly namesake to help Catholics keep Christ at the center of their lives.
“Benedict saw Europe as the key problem and the place where we really needed to focus,” Reese said.
But the choice is not always a nod to papal history. The reformer Pope John XXIII, elected in 1958, said he picked the name it part because it was the name of the small parish church where he was baptized. John is by far the most popular name for a pope to choose, making it difficult to predict what a John XXIV would be signaling by taking the name.
In 1978, Cardinal Albino Luciani declared himself Pope John Paul I, the first pope to choose a double name — and the first to declare himself “the First.”
On purpose and by chance, Americans join crowd in St. Peter's Square to watch for signs of a newly elected Pope.
He said that he meant the name as a tribute to his two immediate predecessors, John XXIII and Paul VI. They had led the church through the Second Vatican Council, which modernized the church’s relationships with the rest of the world and other branches of Christianity.
When John Paul I died just 33 days later, he was remembered so adoringly that Reese recalls making a bet with a colleague that the next pope would take the same double name.
“He just caught everybody’s imagination,” Reese said. “This smiling pope. It was just a whole month of very positive response to him.”
He won the bet, and Pope John Paul II led the church for the next 27 years.
This time around, only one bet would be a sure loser. No pope has chosen to be called Peter II. There’s no rule against it, but it is seen as poor form — an honor reserved for the first pope.
Church analysts say there are several names to watch for as hints to the new papacy.
The choice of Leo XIV could be a call for social justice, said Matthew Bunson, senior correspondent for the Catholic publishing nonprofit Our Sunday Visitor. Leo XIII, who served at the turn of the 20th century, and sought to help the world understand the dignity of workers.
Choosing Pius XIII, on the other hand, would be a more conservative choice, and a “statement of determination to defend the teachings of the faith,” Bunson said. Pius V led in opposition to the Protestant Reformation, and Pius VI and VII both died prisoners.
One-third of Americans who grew up in the Catholic Church have left, but the percentage of U.S. Catholics has held steady at 25 percent, largely because of Hispanic immigrants. NBC's Lester Holt reports.
John Paul III, even if only as a tribute to the beloved, globetrotting John Paul II, might be seen by the world as a repudiation of Benedict, Reese said.
Of course, the new pope could always choose to be called Benedict XVII — certainly a possibility because Benedict XVI appointed most of the cardinals who will choose his successor. But such a selection might disappoint Catholics who are hoping for a reformer after a papacy marked by a sexual abuse scandal, other missteps and shrinking membership in the United States and Europe.
Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess. The new pope could choose to make his mark and choose a name never used before. Reese said he has always wondered why no one has adopted the name Pope Joseph.
Or he could set 1.2 billion Catholics around the world scratching their heads.
“The new guy,” Reese said, “could be John Paul Benedict I.”
Andrew Medichini / AP
Cardinals from around the world gather in the Vatican to elect the next leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
Related:
Full coverage of the papal abdication from NBC News
This story was originally published on Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:29 PM EDT
Leave a Comment:
You can call me AL?
I think the New Pope likes Paul Simon and Chevy Chase.
How about Pope Sandusky I?
You know... show a little love towards Catholic youth.
STFU you 2 POS. get a life ya MSNBC losers . your lives revolve around commenting here ya scumbags , damn dirty democrap scumbags . I hope life ( karma ) sh!ts on your heads .
LOL... did we touch a nerve there, Cliff?
No harm intended. Sky fairies are a common delusion suffered by billions.
How about "Bill"?
"Pope Bill I" kinda has a nice, homey ring to it, dont'cha think?
Anyone up for Pope John Paul Georgeandringo?
All we need is love man.
Seriously, folks...I knew that when Pope Benedict chose that name, he was completely out of touch with Americans...for whom Benedict Arnold is the greatest villain.
How about Pedephile Pete?
@saneless
Better to believe in something then nothing . but then again you bow at the alter of Odumbo ! now get back to going down on Old Piggy there ya scumbag democrap! woot woot !!!
"Civilization will not attain to it's perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest". - E. Zola
@cliff... Wow, VERY Christian of you. BTW, I didn't realize all Catholics were Repubs. Thanx for the insight. lol
If Italian: Pope Guido I
If African: Pope Marcus I
If Southern American: Pope Billy Bob I
If South American: Pope Jesus II
If Eastern European: Pope Plumber I
What if he decides to call himself Pope Lucifer?
Can they impeach him?
Only if 2 thirds of the Cardinals are Repubs.
They wear fancy dresses, shoes and jewelry, go by fake names, have a fondness for handsome boys -- Pope RuPaul!
We have a winner!
Pope on a rope
"Predator" !!! God save the children !!!
Pope Peter of Rome, the awaited false prophet. The antichrist will soon take his place on the world stage.
Isn't Peter just another name for Dick? Pope Dick I... how fitting.
How about:
Pope Peter Pulimov Moe Lester
Pope Waffles.
How about Pope Pedro Phillip. As in Pedophilia.
"You can call me Ray."
"Or you can call me Ray Ray."
"But you doesn't has to call me....."
This is especially towards 'cliff'. What is your first name? Could it be jumpoffa?
Cassandra,
If he was going for the greatest American villain, Benedict would have chosen to be known as Pope Barack.
Pope Anti-Pedophilia I.
Lets hope he does not choose Chester !
It never ceases to amuse me when religionists talk about 'reform'. How is it that previous beliefs (handed down by 'God' if any of these people are to be believed) are now open to debate? The Catholic church is one of the worst offenders, with their claim of the Pope's 'infallibility'; if he's never wrong, why do you need 'change'?
While the basic core message of nearly all religions is the same ('do unto others... etc'), the 'reforms' are always about dogma and church power, and retaining their grip on power in the face of knowledge.
If anyone thinks that the name selected by the new pope will bring major change to the church, dream on....
Pigotry: We don't know the name of the new Pope yet how can you know what he likes?
Actually, "by what name do you choose to be called" is the second question the new pope is asked. The first is "do you accept election". Although I guess one could argue until he answers the first question, he isn't actually the pope.
I prefer the history of the world famed nom de guerre "Bigguth Dickuth".
Obama Paul Benedict
Pope Tyrone I, "the church aint yo bitch no mo sucka, pony up brotha and be leavin them little boys alone, find you some womens man".
Pope Eggs Benedict?? :)
Love the "Pope Eggs Benedict" and others.
Some of these suggestions have been very clever and funny - other remarks just unnecessary.
Thanks! I am known at work as having a goofy and creative sense of humour! :)
Well -- if he's an Italian -- Pope Tony.
If he's Chinese --- Pope HopSing.
If he American --- Pope Bubba.
If he's Irish --- Pope Guinness.
If he's Hispanic --- Pedro
you people have no respect for anything or anybody
I'm wondering if they allow multiple voting from dead people for the new Pope. They allow democrats to do it in Presidential elections in the USA. Does Mickey Mouse get a vote for Pope? Interesting questions for the libbies... lol
Wow SteveH, got collapsed pretty early didn't you? Must have struck a nerve with our 'progressive' friends, eh?
and the republicans have never committed voter fraud either ?
nope frank . they all good men . unlike the democraps !
Hey KMofLA:
Not true! I'd probably have a lot of respect for a... "Pope Bill I".
cliff-1955574
hey cliff, do not agree with you, but I will respect your opinion.
I don't think any political party or adminstration did not have its faults...heck even Washington had his detractors, guess that is what makes America a democracy,,the first amendment, and the right to speak ones mind. In a communist country, or a fascist one like Nazi Germany, or nationalist like Japan pre WW2, alot of us would probably be in gulags, or concentration camps.
Duh KM ... Is water still wet?
I respect a lot of people. But people of faith don't automatically get my respect because they have "excellency" in their title! There is a place for ridicule in society.
Ridicule is, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
The respect for the Catholic Church was lost by the Catholic Church itself. What we are doing here is not right but considering the pain they have dished out for the past 200 plus years it is acceptable. If they had any sense they would shut down and reopen with none of the nonsense that brought them to this mess. No more dresses. Put the reds, the pinks away. Wear a suit and tie, let priests get married. Hey you know priests have gay marriage now so... On second thought they won't bite. They want it to remain the perverted way. Children!!!! These same men handled our babies at Baptism. Our children at Holy Communion and then again at Confirmation. Then there is Marriage and the cycle starts over. Now if you knew that priest was a pedophile would you allow him to touch your baby?? And to boot when he got caught some bastard bishop transfered him to another location so he could continue his sick ways. Think about it!!!
I see that the Catholic haters are out in force.
mary p, the libbies and atheists hate all religions and generally feel if they don't believe in it, no one should!
Benedict selected most of the current cardinals.
Therefore the new pope will be conservative as Benedict was.
The new pope will be Pope Romney I or Pope P'Ryan I
Hello folks, the Pedophile Conclave is in a bit of a dilemma, it appears that they are having difficulty finding a cardinal who isn't tainted by pedophilia. Now that it is globally known how rampant the sex abuse is inside the church all Catholic members are complicit by their support and knowledge of the pedophile crimes against humanity. Recently like in the last week, the LA diocese got hit with another 10 million payout to pedophile victims. In 2007 they paid out 660 Million to 500 pedophile victims. This continually happens all around the world.
The argument that these are isolated incidents, that ship has sailed long ago!
By Nick Squires | Telegraph.co.uk
Only two of the dozen cardinals in the running to become the next Pope are “clean” in terms of their handling of scandals involving sexually abusive priests, a prominent association of victims of clergy sex abuse said on Thursday.
The damning indictment came as it was claimed that there were up to 20 moles inside the Vatican prepared to leak more confidential documents in order to expose corruption, following the example of Pope Benedict XVI’s butler, who was jailed for theft after handing a stash of stolen papers to an Italian journalist.
The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests said the vast majority of cardinals are tainted by having ignored cases of predatory priests or by having actively covered them up and impeded efforts by police and prosecutors to bring the offenders to justice.
The only two “papabili” or papal contenders who have a credible record on sex abuse scandals are Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines and Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Austria.
The network of victims named a third member of the Church who had a laudable record – Diarmuid Martin, the Archbishop of Dublin.
"I see that the Catholic haters are out in force."
Again -- people confuse hate with disagreement. I was raised Catholic -- spend 12 years in Catholic schools. My sister in law is a nun and my uncle was a priest. Respect is earned and can be lost after it is earned. And the Catholic church has LOST respect over the last 40 years because of their cover-ups, hypocrisy and their outright arrogance.
Charlie - perhaps they have lost your respect, that is your choice. Others may have a different view and you have no right to disrespect them.
The Church has given up any claim they had to any "respect". Jesus Christ would have nothing to do any of them !
Hello Daisy Do, the sexual abuse that has been perpetrated by the Catholic Church on tens of thousands of innocent children is on a scale that lends itself so that even the casual observer has to wonder if it is an accepted ritual within the church. Recently, as in the past week, the Vatican paid pedophilia victims of the LA diocese 10 million dollars and in 2007, 660 Million dollars. This is happening all around the globe. Many people come to the defense of the church stating that it is the celibate role that has lent itself to the wide spread abuse. If so, why are the majority of victims boys?
So if you are supporting the Vatican you are just as complicit as those that perpetrate the heinous acts against innocent children!
The argument that these acts are isolated incidents, that ship has sailed long ago!
Pedophile priests have molested innocent children in the Roman Catholic Church probably since the beginning of the church. These pedophiles have been protected and their horrendous crimes against children have gone unpunished. It is amazing to me that there are over a billion Catholics. I guess acceptance of pedophilia in the church is the cost of "salvation"!
Daisy, who specifically is that poster "disrespecting"? The church deserves no such respect. It deserves our contempt. It's a relic of an age where men feared lightening and superstition ruled.
It's a relic of the time of Adolph Hitler, who, thanks to Catholic teaching murdered 6.5 million people in the name of this superstition.
Some people today see the church for exactly what it is, not what it professes to be.
Pretty sure that the next Pope won't be named Obama. After all, Obama likes science, health care, gender equality, and gay rights. The Church stands firmly for ignorance, hate, and death.
You have point there.
Obama likes to party not be a leader and hates Christians, not sure the Catholics care what he thinks...
Obama is not anti-Christian. He is against the sad excuse for Christianity that is practiced in America. There is a big difference.
"Not God bless America, God damn America" - that's what obama knows about Christianity.
He can't be Pope Barack I. Barack is a Muslim name. I'm NOT denigrating Muslims, I'm just saying it's a Muslim name, like Eli is a Jewish name, and Patrick is Irish...
pope bob...why not...
I like that - Bob is a great name !!
Not exactly Mark from Tahoe, Obama is and always will be a charlatan! Getting votes by giving free stuff works for him... so that's his platform. The bigger government gets the richer Geo. Soros gets along with Barry's other 'bundlers'... that's the system he's built.
Obamacare will actually be more painful for the fools who voted for him than the 1% Barry 'claims' to hate. Not sure even the new Pope can fix the damage he's done!
Buttermy Page is Obama's Monica. Wipe your chin dear.
Last time I heard so much disrespect toward a name, they were yelling "Barabbas! Barabbas!"
I'm rooting for Pope Festus I.
@Butterfly Mage: I'm pretty sure Obama's ideal version of Christianity involves zero commitment whatsoever... just claim the name of Jesus and do whatever the heck you want.
The conservative view isn't perfectly biblical either (i.e. we are obligated to help the poor, wealth is ungodly, and self-righteousness is wrong). But still, tearing down the convicting view of Christianity Obama's opposed to might as well be tearing down American society as a whole.
I keep waiting for a Christian to tell me about a passage where Jesus DIRECTLY opposed homosexuality, abortion, science, and environmentalism. And don't give me the crap about "he didn't come to abolish the old law", since he obviously dud (I haven't seen bulls sacrificed in church lately, and Christians are allowed to eat at Red Libster)
edog: your insults are not very effective. Considering that you copy/paste "wipe your chin" at every thread I contribute to, your insults are also lazy.
Just so as you know, I am a liveral/progressive, so why would I be ashamed to hold liberal/progressive views?
I think it's kind of neat you make clothes Mage! Haven't heard the store called a "Livery" for quite some time though.
Butterfly Mage...Jesus didn't come to 'abolish the law' but to fulfill it. Big difference.
Also, 'Conservative view' does not by nature make it an entirely Biblical view either.
A couple goodies:
1. It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail. - Sam Harris
2, Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music. -Sam Harris
As a an ex-Catholic, I have a hard time accepting that there are almost a billion of them in the world. Surely these numbers come by way of babies, not adults! I'm glad to have escaped. You don't need Yahweh to be good! Of course, there is no evidence for Yahweh, or Jesus, or Lord Vishnu.
As a Catholic, I'm glad you escaped too.
DavCramer - I'm not. As a Catholic it saddens me deeply that our faith had been so misrepresented by a few as to not only drive someone out of the Church, but completely away from our Lord.
And Atheist-6939529 - you are certainly welcome to believe whatever you choose. That's your choice. But there is so much more that is gained from religion then morality. One doesn't need a church or a God to tell them it's better to be nice to people. What religion gives people is hope. Hope that the pain of this world has a meaning. Hope that things will be okay when there is no reason to believe they will. It gives people meaning to their lives, a sense of belonging to a community, a comforting ritual when confronted by stress, a framework in which to celebrate life's milestones and your children's coming of age. Religion is the frame that allowed civilization to grow. To not acknowledge the very real, very important part it has played in the development of mankind is to be ignorant of anthropology and history. You may feel that it has played it's part and is no longer needed. Perhaps that is true for you. But to presume to say the same for the rest of the human race is more than a little presumptuous. For many, particularly those who are poor and afflicted, there is very little in the material world that gives them reason to rejoice. Who are you to say that if they can look forward to an afterlife where they have no pain, no hunger, no fear - that they are wrong for clinging to that hope? It's easy to dismiss God and religion when you have all your needs met and living in relative luxury compared to the rest of the world. Some people still need God. Some people still need hope. Don't take that away from them.
Hi Xina,
I don't have beliefs (that's a common misunderstanding of atheism). You know that your faith is often misunderstood, please know that you misunderstand me. I am not a person of faith. Rather, I have reasonable expectations based on prior evidence. I have a LACK of belief in a god, or the supernatural. I hope that clears that up. I am very unlike you who is a person of belief. One who, bizarrely imo, accepts claims for which there is no evidence.
Thank you for being so generous as to allow me to have my own thoughts! That's very kind! You do know your own Church would have killed me not long ago for saying faith is silly, right?
Regarding history, the Catholic Church has a wonderful history of obstructing scientific progress and it continues to this very day.
I strongly disagree with your assertion that people NEED religion because it provides hope. That is nonsense. Religion teaches lies, it really does. It makes claims about the nature of the universe for which it has ZERO evidence. It teaches children there is a place of torment for those who turn away from Yahweh. Just think about that, will you? These are lies.
You are simply one of those people who choose comfort over truth. I am not like you. I would rather know facts even if they might make me uncomfortable. That's the difference between me and you. I think your position is actually condescending because you presume that even those in poverty should rather have the FALSE comfort of faith, instead of actual knowledge.
You're kind of part of the problem Xina. Please think about what I've said.
If one choses to believe in God, then just let them and quit pushing your non belief on others! Live and let live!
Yeah, but Jeepgal66, what about all of the religious zealots who push THEIR beliefs on others? Is that ok?
Atheist - Of course I am aware of some unsavory periods in history of the church. One would have to be willfully ignorant not to be aware. Much the same can be said of the United States of America which participated in institutionalized slavery, genocide, wanton destruction of natural resources and the subjugation of women for most of it's history. Even today we have a government (hierarchy) ripe with corruption and hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, the secrets in DC would shock Oliver Stone. Yet most Americans are still proud to be called American, still embrace the American Dream and even though they may see many things that we have done and are doing wrong, they still want to believe that we are capable of being the greatest nation on earth. As far as the Catholic church obstructing science, I don't see that at all. The Catholic church has long since embraced evolution. They acknowledge global warming. The Catholic church as been called "probably the largest single and longest-term patron of science in history."
As for the semantic argument of whether you "believe" versus that you "know" - I thought that I had addressed you in a courteous manner and tried very hard not to offend you. Apparently I must not have succeeded because I cannot think of any reason for you to come back at me in such a condescending manner. Please allow me to apologize for presuming that you believe anything. It might be worth noting that most people, even those of faith, have what they consider to be reasonable expectations based on previous experiences. Perhaps my previous experiences simply differ from yours. Clearly what I think to be true differs significantly from what you
thinkknow (sorry!) to be true. I can be honest and say that I don't understand everything. I don't think that religion has everything right. My experience is that religion in general and Catholicism in particular can be a beautiful expression of the human experience and holds intrinsic value. My experience has led me to make spiritual discoveries that would be impossible to convey in a public forum. You have your experience of the world, I have mine. Neither is more real or more true than the other, they are simply different. Somehow I doubt your statement that you would rather know truth even if it made you uncomfortable. I suspect, that any experience presented in conflict with what you claim to KNOW to be true would be instantly dismissed as a lie or a hallucination or a fantasy. You are very comfortable in the paradigm you live in, you just don't believe that others have a right to comfortably exist in their own.You say I'm part of the problem, presuming of course that faith of any kind is a problem that must be fixed. Yet you profess to hate the church in part because they felt the lack of faith was a problem that needed to be fixed. How very hypocritical of you.
You're kind of mean. And something of a bigot. That, IMO, is a problem worth fixing.
MrsWilbert - Of course that's not okay. But since when have two wrongs ever made a right?
Atheist-6939529 You say you don't have a belief system but you very much do. It is a belief in the things of this world and only those things. You denegrate anyone else who has a belief system you haven't approved of and yet say, sarcastically, why thank you for letting me have my non-belief. However, while you are trying to so hard to be critical of Xina saying you have a right to your opinion, you are trying to bully her into abandoning hers. You and Mrs Wilbert say bad things have been done in the name of religion so EVERYONE who is religious must be bad. I would say that every single group out there, no matter how you seperate them, has more than a few bad apples. This would most likely include aethists so stop with your, pardon the pun, holier than thou attitude. You truly are part of the biggest problem the human race has right now. You are judgemental, self-serving and determined to police everyone else's thoughts. If you cannot have an intellectual discussion without the bullying, and stop with the innocent "how did I bully" crap before you start, please feel free to remember that saying about not saying anything at all.
Atheist is just a lost soul troll.
I think atheist believes in things for which there is proof or at least some actual evidence. Religion does not meet those criteria. Religion is based on blind faith and blind faith alone.
I guess it all depends on what someone would consider to be "evidence". But, then, one would actually have to READ the Bible, and then take a look at the world around them to see ANY "evidence". READ what the Bible says about how the misinformed view God's word, and then LISTEN to the misinformed speak about it. It's all the "evidence" I need.
There are definetly things happening in the world and here in America that the Bible does quote! Just have to read it and see for yourself, but alot of the bad that is happening is in there!
Xina,
You've been led to believe the Catholic Church accepts evolution. You're wrong. The Catholic Church believes in theistic evolution. That is saying Yahweh "started" evolution. The problem is, that's a faith claim that is not supported by observation, evidence let alone plausibility. Fail.
The Magisterium utterly rejects the scientific understanding of evolution by natural selection because Darwin's theory shows there is no need for a God to direct speciation. Natural selection does it (or humans do it in the case of artificial selection like dog breeding). The Church lobbies to stop stem cell research on the belief that a blastocyst has a soul and the interests of a few cells outweigh the interests of a young girl with spinal cord damage. That's immoral. There are countless examples of faith claims based on imaginings effecting real harm upon those living in reality.
You, yes you Xina, continue the lie that the Church is a patron of science. Please stop it now that you know better. You really don't know what you are talking about here.
Lastly Xina,
You're goofy American Dream/Vatican comparison is a false dichotomy. The Catholic Church boldly claims in every age, even today, that they are in sole position of the full deposit of the faith. They are the moral arbiters for all humans now and forever.They supported slavery. Moral failure. All done, stick a fork in your analogy.
The secular American government makes no such claims to be a moral juggernaut. There is a very logical history that explains slavery and our climb out of it. Through no help of the Bible where slavery is really cool to Yahweh, and Jesus is down with slavery big time too. He loves it.
Pride in being an American is a little silly. I had no control of where I was born. I am happy to be an American, for sure. There are way worse countries I could have been born into, that's for sure! And I think the godless US Constitution is one of mankinds wonders. I think the Bible is a pile of immorality, pornography, evil and genocide that one has to cherry pick to find the good bits. Of course, again, that makes sens if you understand it was a human book(s). It makes no sense to want to be proud of gods who love slavery, killing children, and forcing women to marry their rapists.
Do you even READ the thing! Oy.
Brenda, you and Xina can't seem to wrap your head around the difference between belief and knowledge. Like Athiest, I don't "believe" anything. I know it; or I don't know it. I don't believe that man evolved instead of being created in God's image; I know it. I don't believe that the Earth was formed over millions of years; as millions of pounds of rock and dust condensed to form the planets in the solar system, then cooled into the worlds we see today. No, I don't believe that; I know it. I don't believe that the catholic church is responsible for child molestation, or that the Christian faith is responsible for some of the most horrific crimes the world has ever known; I know it. Do you believe that you are a person, of course not, you KNOW IT. Do you believe that the Earth revolves around the sun? Of course not; you KNOW IT. But you believe that God created the earth and the heaven and all living creatures and the day and the night and land and the sea and the sun and the moon and the trillions of starts and finally man and then woman and he did it all in just a week. You don't know that; you BELIEVE it. And you believe it because you're delusional parents, or grandparents, or maybe just a minister told you to believe it. You believe it because you can't think reasonably when it comes to God. You believe it because you're blinded by the fear that they have put into your head of what will happen to you if you don't believe it. But you don't KNOW any of it. That's the difference between religion and atheism. We don't believe anything; we KNOW IT. If we don't KNOW it; based on tangible, indisputable proof, then we don't consider it a fact. Perhaps it's true, perhaps it's not, we don't know. You on the other hand; will swear on all you have, in the face of indisputable, tangible, inescapable proof to the contrary, that God is the creator and the master of the universe and all that lives within it. That my dear; is the very definition of delusional. But for some reason, just because it's a "religious" belief; we allow billions of people to walk around in public every day with this obvious mental defect; an obviously psychotic mentality that tells them something is real when all the facts say otherwise. Think about that for a second; if someone walked around telling others that the Eqyptian sun god told them that the world is ending in 6 weeks and that everyone must follow their lead and give 10% of their income to ensure a place in paradise after the end of the world; they'd be locked up in a padded cell. But because it's religious, and billions of people have been ignorant enough to fall for it for thousands of years we just let these people do and say whatever they want; even when they're poisoning society with prejudice and hatred; or abusing children by telling them they'll be tossed into a lake of fire. That's the kind of things that gives kids nightmares. It's abusive, it's wrong, it's delusional. Those are facts; that's not from some book written by some ignorant egotistical moron that made it up as he went. Those are facts. I KNOW those are facts. That's the difference; do you see it now?
Heh! You don't even know enough to call our God by his name. His Name is Jehovah! Which means he causes to become! Read Psalms 83:18! But you might have one of those bibles that has changed his name LORD or GOD...
theohwy & sherron,
Thanks for cleaning up some of my sloppier replies.
Just a simple observation - I have no problem with people believing in their version of God - whatever that version may be - as long as they don't use their beliefs to regulate my life. I don't pretend to know everything, but I do know that I have many friends, who encompass many belief systems, and we long ago agreed to disagree where religion and politics are concerned. My only argument with religion is with those that believe their way is the only way, and spend an inordinate amount of time pressing to bend the rest of society to their will. You can't deny that this happens with almost every religion. Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism....they all demand adherance to THEIR interpretation, and there is very little tolerance shown. Even the Agnostics and Atheists get on their high horses. I say believe what you want, practice your beliefs in your own home, but keep them there. All major religions have one key theme - "do unto others", "first, do no harm", etc. We will never be able to coexist in this world until we all recognize that we humans aren't really "built" to comform to a single standard, but we might be able to learn to accept others without embracing their particular beliefs.
You need to understand that there are a lot of unintelligent people in this country who need the moral compass given by Bible. Can you imagine the mayhem if no one believed in thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not steal? Of course there's a lot in the Bible that doesn't apply today, but that's because it was written many centuries ago. We've evolved since then. Unfortunately these unintelligent people can't understand that, although they do tend to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they want to follow. Illegal immigration is a prime example because Leviticus 19:33 & 19:34 clearly states that you should allow all foreigners onto your lands and allow them to live. That tends to interfere with their blind hatred of anyone who isn't exactly like them.
To Atheist: I 've followed your thinking and have this to say. You prove it. Can't be done. Darwin couldn't.
@Atheitst: You've been led to believe the Catholic Church accepts evolution. You're wrong. The Catholic Church believes in theistic evolution. That is saying Yahweh "started" evolution. The problem is, that's a faith claim that is not supported by observation, evidence let alone plausibility. Fail.
Actually, you're the one living in Fail: Darwin never said that evolution MUST be exclusive of a Creator. That's something that you are tacking on!
Worse, you are abandoning the scientific method by inisting on the use of the wrong tool for a job! Faith, as you say, cannot be observed. You must have had a hard time in your science lab, trying to use a centerfuge to light the bunsen burner!
Science studies the material world through observation. Faith studies the spiritual (or moral, if you like) world. To use one for the other is like using a yard stick when you need a flashlight.
Even more interestingly, the RCC made the statement that there is no conflict between the Church and Evoluion in 1950... 3 years before DNA was discovered.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575447493644515142.html
I'm also unsurprised that you went for Evolution and not the Big Bang. You know, because that particular scientific theory came FROM a Roman Catholic Priest, Georges LeMaitre!
The Magisterium utterly rejects the scientific understanding of evolution by natural selection because Darwin's theory shows there is no need for a God to direct speciation. Natural selection does it (or humans do it in the case of artificial selection like dog breeding). The Church lobbies to stop stem cell research on the belief that a blastocyst has a soul and the interests of a few cells outweigh the interests of a young girl with spinal cord damage. That's immoral. There are countless examples of faith claims based on imaginings effecting real harm upon those living in reality.
Patently false! The RCC supports stem cell research. It does NOT support the death of viable life: that is, embryonic stem cell research.
You, yes you Xina, continue the lie that the Church is a patron of science. Please stop it now that you know better. You really don't know what you are talking about here.
If she's a liar, all you've done is raised the stakes in a game of liar's bluff!
How about Pope A Mau Mau? As in Um Pope A Mau Mau? How about The Pope formerly known as Cardinal? How about Pope Arey?
Now that is funny!!!
I am partial to Pope Pedophile I myself as a tribute to the Pope's of the past 60 yrs who all knew and allowed pedophiles to abuse boys and did nothing to put a stop to it, except tell them to keep it out of the press. And that includes the highly revered Paul II, who immediately hired the guy from Boston to a cushy vatican job when it was proven beyond a doubt he protected priests who abused for decades.
Mike-1643354,
Hundreds of millions of lay Catholics paid to protect those who protected pedophiles. But it wasn't the whole institution or so we are told! Those Catholics are not unlike Hitler's willing citizenry who turned the other cheek at evil or participated directly in it. They are also like Muslims who don't speak up against throwing acid on women or killing cartoonists. Any child with a sore bottom from being penetrated by a priest needs protection, love, and a voice. NOT SILENCE.
The next Catholic you see with an amulet around their neck, ask them, "why do you remain silent about child rape and the cover up?" Why do they protect immorality?
Catholics be they devout grannies or nominal Catholics, are a HUGE part of the problem. Shame on the lot of them! They are silent killers of childhood innocence.
As a Catholic convert, I was molested by a child by my uncle, a Protestant. I'm sure there are atheist pedophiles, Jewish pedophiles, and Muslim pedophiles. The problem with pedophiles isn't their religious affiliation, it's the fact that they harm children. I suspect that pedophilia is only an excuse for anti-Catholic bigotry.
Dav, you are now on ignore.
DavCramer,
My sympathies to you who suffered molestation. And kudos to you for pointing out the obvious to Athiest and his ilk: pedophilia is only an excuse for anti-Catholic bigotry. Amen, amen!
Now I've heard it all. Being angry at Catholic pedophiles means I have anti-Catholic bigotry.
Are you insane? Off to ignore you go.
Atheist,
The ONLY reason these stupid Catholics ridicule you is because they have no recourse! They have nothing but rhetoric to spew because in the Catholic church you are not permitted to think for yourself, which is why I got out!
Atheist the Ignore oops I'm mean Atheist the Ignorant.
DavCramer, you actually have a point. Not all child molesters are catholic. But the Catholics are the ones that went to great lengths to cover it up. That's the point Atheist is trying to make. Protestants, atheists, baptists, when they get caught by their peers they usually get arrested, convicted and punished. But Catholics, they get to sweep it under the rug. Sprinkle some holy water on it and watch it disappear.
If that scandal had involved any other church but the Catholic church it would have blown the roof off the entire church; most likely to the point that it never recovered. But there they are, still living in their plush mansions and wearing their fancy robes and jewels; even though the entire worlds knows what goes on in those mansions.
That's why, as an atheist, I have a particularly intense hatred for the Catholic church. Nor for its individual members; I don't believe all of them are evil, abusive, sexual predators. But for the organization as a whole. Even the pope, the "holiest man on the planet", knew what was going on and he covered it up.
As for judging all Christians for the acts of a few; it's the message that leads to things like the Salem Witch Trials, the holocaust, the Crusades against the Turks. The idea that anyone that doesn't share your belief is under the influence of Satan, and that they are evil and will one day be punished by eternal fire, that idea put into the wrong head causes the most horrific acts the worlds has ever seen. And it is Christianity that spreads that kind of mentality to those minds; it is all of Christianity, every last one of them are to blame. Until they stop putting that kind of "they're evil, we're good, they'll be punished in hell while we dine with God" mentality into the minds of people around the world, until that stops, Christianity will always have the world on the brink of another tragic and horrifying slaughter.
You gotta admit that the entire catholic church ever since it usurped its power has been filled with sadists, child molesters murders and thieves. It really is an unholy abomination. During WWII on both sides of the world they were antagonists provoking people on their side to go kiil the other people. They profited from that. They stood by silently and did absolutely nothingwhile innocent men, women, children were murdered. They even encouraged it in Germany!
I base my views on their own actions. I have zero issues with Catholics at all, except for the fact, the higher ups in that church decided to cover up the known abuses for DECADES. I have the same contempt for the boy scouts as well, who also covered up abuses for DECADES, but at least they somewhat came out and admitted that they did, and did not offer a cushy job to the ones who were accused of it, unlike Pope John Paul II, who gave a cushy Vatican job to Bernard Francis Law, who had to resign as Archbishop of Boston on December 13, 2002, in response to the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal after church documents were revealed which suggested he had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese. And how did Pope John Paul II respond to that? Why he appointed Law as Archpriest of the Papal Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome 2 years later.
But I am biased against Catholics because of bigotry? No I am biased against Catholics because their own leaders showed that they condoned the sex abuses by appointing people who sheltered pedophiles for DECADES to cushy jobs as rewards instead of defrocking them and casting them out of the religion.
Bernard Law should have been defrocked and removed from the church, not promoted the way he was.
Hey, it's not like the Catholic bashers don't also attack the teachers unions and universities when they protect their own!
Oh, that's right. They don't.
I've already chosen his name for him.
He should be called,
Pope Paul VII.
I think we're ready for another Paul.
Wow, Karla, didn't realize that you got to pick the pope's pope name for him! Cool...
Can't stand the suspense.
I can Big. Let the conclave last long enough to piss off catholics everywhere. Then go for the Phillipino or the Ghanan. Piss off the rest of the world with either.
I didn't realize that there is a Pope in the Bible! Is there??
Geez, it's about time they posted an article about picking a pope. It's like MSN hasn't heard that the cardinals are meeting in the vatican to choose a pope! Why do they ignore this big story?
This is not "msn." it is "nbcnews."
Thank-you for the correction BW, I can't seem to think straight, this pope stuff is SO exciting!
It is absurd to use a name not your own. Every "pope" should use his own name. Or are they ashamed of the name given by thier parents. Calling oneself after another leader in the church does not necessarily honor that other person. Be yourself pope! Your parents gave you a name--be proud of it!
Hey, when you're promoted to the right hand man of God Almighty, you get a new name. If God wants to give you a different name, you got it pal, no arguing with God! Sheesh...
Name change has its roots in the New Testament where Jesus tells Simon that he shall be called Peter. The other Apostles didn't get a name change. St. Paul's name was Saul before his conversion.
Catholics have their birth name and take another name at first communion. Which is our business, probably not so much yours.
The new name, generally a middle name, is taken at Confirmation, not First Holy Communion.
DavCramer - that's confirmation you're thinking about. You choose a new name at confirmation, not 1st communion.
It's the dual baptism thing. First you are baptized with water and your parents choose a name for you. Then at confirmation you are "baptized" with the Holy Spirit (anointed with Chrism) and you choose your confirmation name. (mine is Catherine)
Orange,
Peter's name was SIMON. Paul's name was Saul! OMG!!!! Keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you are saying.
Would it be proper to use their given name? Would a name have to be a Biblical name or not?
yes, MG from IL...if he wants to...he can keep his own birth name
Lisa from Wayland -
Thanks for your answer.
So, should we call your president by HIS given name? Barry? You prolly don't mind HIM using a fake name though.
Who is the idiot who wrote this article. AUH! Of course the choice of pope will affect the Catholic church: you felt it was required to actually say that?
The "duh" factor, as well as tons of non sequiturs, runs through most all comments. If you let it get to you, you'll become a raging, angry person. I find true the statement that "He who can make you angry, controls you."
Religion is sooooooo ridiculous.
Really just a bunch of old men in dresses deciding who gets to wear the prettiest hat.
Seriously, is this even necessary in the 21st Century?
As long as there is a Catholic Church...there will be a Pope
pretty sure it'll be Pope Bob I
"I hope that one day, one of these elected Popes chooses the name Corky. Wouldn't that be great? Pope Corky the Fifth? I think they'd have to start with five to make it work. Somehow, I don't think Pope Corky the First would command a lot of respect."
The only reason I care to comment on your articles on my beloved faith, is that you are so filled with Satan's lies, that I am wont to attack you in its defense...In case the public is not aware--as I am sure you are--Fr Reese is an avowed enemy of Benedict XVI, ever since he was fired by him for his heterodoxical tendencies towards the faith...to quote him again and again speaks to the propagandist interests of both you and Fr Reese: your bared teeth and claws are showing shamelessly in this one; Benedict XVI should take comfort that your hatred for his saintliness and his church are one...
In the public interest of accuracy in media, I must here also point out, that it was under your beloved JPII that most of these scandals began -- for which poor Benedict XVI had to experience the backwaters and the fleeing of the faithful...Quite to the contrary of your deceitful assertions, it is Benedict XVI who will be one day (and already is, in knowledgeable circles) be credited with sustaining Tradition (i.e., the Church) for the truly faithful Catholics--and introducing it to the young--while strapping in or exiting those who are sentimental of their heresies.
You watch, in about one or two generations the pedophile scandal/coverup will extend to Africa. As soon as those poor children are old enough to walk away, their stories will come out.
Being raped by a priest is very embarrassing. It's only a matter of time. And you'll be defending your despicable organization when that time comes too.
Gross and shameful. Have you no morals? I'll tell you one thing, I have more morals that your imaginary gods. Here's the difference: if I see a child being raped by a cardinal, I WILL CALL THE POLICE. Your god will let the child be raped. Let that detonate in your brain.
'I must here also point out, that it was under your beloved JPII that most of these scandals began...'
I am sorry but that is baloney...
It's more correct to say that the scandals became public since the Church no longer able to COVER it up as it used to with immunity.
The Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, as an example, went back a few decades... and in the US, the order of the Servants of Paraclete in Jemez Spring (NM) was set up in the 50s to help deal with paedophile priests amongst other issues... By the way, the founder of the order stated that paedophile priests could NOT be rehabilitated!
You seem to easily miss a contemporary issue such as sexual abuses by the Catholic clergy and that does not give me much confidence in your chance of figuring out fact from fiction things that happened 2000 years ago.
You mean Pope Benedict, the Coward? The second Pope to SHIRK his duties?!
Maybe. But reading b/t the lines, I think Benedict XVI must have realised the depth of problems. So deep that he was afraid he could not come out the other end unaffected being an intellectual person he is.
On that score, I think he has the integrity and personal courage to abdicate...
I feel comfortable with my reasoning in regards to his resignation, despite the official reason on the surface. Firstly, remember that the report is to be read by his successor... Secondly, false confidence of the incumbent tends to lead to disasters and everyone suffers in the end.
Sorry for it's not in the same vein but as an example of false confidence assumed by a leader, George W. Bush presidency comes to mind... His inflated ability and false confidence led to where the whole country is now paying for his expensive and colossal mistakes...
"Gross and shameful. Have you no morals? I'll tell you one thing, I have more morals that your imaginary gods. Here's the difference: if I see a child being raped by a cardinal, I WILL CALL THE POLICE. Your god will let the child be raped. Let that detonate in your brain." Atheist, you go ahead and call the Po-Po, then stand there for an hour, wait for the cops, and do nothing while the child gets raped, if I were to see it, I'd exercise my constitutional 2nd ammendment right and save the child.
I agree that the Pope might have seen and realized the depth of these problems - maybe, given his age and health conditions, he could not properly deal with them. You mention him being afraid he could not come out the other end unaffected. I am not trying to put Benedict XVI down, or deny his intelligence or integrity but question his motives. On the other hand, resigning and not having to deal with these real and horrible problems and conditions leaves him looking rather weak - another Pope further hiding the truth and avoiding the necessary actions needed to eliminate the problems regarding priests, their behavior, the money problems of the church and other wrongs. Surely someone, at sometime, will have to admit and deal with these actions. For the sake of the Catholic Church I would have thought the Pope would have/should have done something even if it meant not coming out of this looking good by all concerned. That would have been the mark of true personal courage.
scout one,
You said it better than I did. Indeed, I would stop the rape, then call the police. Good catch. Of course, God doesn't do a thing. Ever. Of course, that should be a hint that perhaps there isn't one?
Atheist, please please please... go to youtube and find the audio version of "The book of Enoch" Most of the questions you have about who you think GOD is will be answered, MOST not ALL. Enoch is refered to in scripture as Noah's great grandfather. The individual that narates was an atheist as well, until he read this uncannonized book of the dead sea scrolls. (also the book of adam and eve) Jesus himself refered to this document when he said "as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be at my return" (paraphrased) But before you do; I dare you to do something. God said seek and you will find, knock and THE door will be open to you. Ask, I AM THAT I AM (CREATOR GOD), IF YOU ARE REAL... REVEAL YOURSELF TO ME!
HE PROMISED THAT HE WOULD! But YOU have to ask, He also sayes you have not because you ask not... so ask and you shall receive. God designed Adam to have all power and authority over the garden (genesis is the history of time from the beginning of the garden NOT the beginning of the creation of the earth itself). The Great Deciever came and Decieved Adam and he turned ALL that power and authority that GOD gave him over to satan the "god" of this world. Satan is the (little g) god of this world. he maintains that ability because GOD gave it to Adam without revocation. Jesus said I am the Way (Back to GOD because of Adams fall) the truth (satan is the "father of lies" anything he sayes is a lie... not truth) and light or life (not darkness). Light displaces darkness (match in a pitch black room, light it and see what happens) Jesus said " satan comes to steal, kill and destroy (because he hates us... men and women...GODS creation) but I have come that you might have life and have it more abundant!
Anyone who sexually assaults a child is satanic, either oppressed by a demonic entity or possessed by one.
Jesus said to his diciples (imperfect men) before he left, after dying and shedding his precious blood to restore as a perfect sacarfice what adam gave away, took the keys of DEATH and HELL, came back in his glorified body and walked thru walls to prove he was glorfied, the works I've done and greater works will you do also because I go To My father, heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out devils in my Name! I've seen two of these things with my own eyes. I don't care about religeon, I only care about JESUS. HE said no man comes to the Father excent Thru Me! He is the only way to GOD!
IF you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that JESUS CHRIST is LORD... you shall be saved. You'll still have a lot of junk to sift thru, but you spirit man will live forever!!! (in eternity)
(do some REAL research for yourself) (seek and you shall find!)
The name "John" needs to be retired.
Yeah, retire it just like a jersey number, because this whole thing, as reverent and traditional as it is, is being treated like some kind of "March Madness" tournament!
Why?
let's see
Pope Sixtus VI , 666, the Mark of the Beast. And if that happens Fundamentalists will go crazy !
'I must here also point out, that it was under your beloved JPII that most of these scandals began...'
I am sorry but that is baloney...
It's more correct to say that the scandals became public as the Church has no way of COVERING it up anymore.
The Magdalene Laundries in Ireland, as an example, went back a few decades... and in the US, the order of the Servants of Paraclete in Jemez Spring (NM) was set up in the 50s to help deal with paedophile priests amongst other issues... by the way the founder of the order stated that paedophile priests could NOT be rehabilitated!
You seem to easily miss a contemporary issue such as sexual abuses by the Catholic clergy, that does not give me much confidence in your chance of finding out fairy tales 2000 years ago.
It would be refreshing if a pope chose his own baptismal name. It's the first sacrament and one embraced by all christians. It would signal a commonality with all of us who are known by the names our parents gave us.
Instead of a conclave, the Catholic Church should have held a 64-Cardinal tournament, with brackets.
The last time they did that, we had 3 Popes at the same time.
Not defending the president, but to people who believe Obama is a muslim. The only way islam would threathen another muslim is if he is considered a infidel, or who left his muslim religion
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — Hamas is warning that if President Obama visits the Temple Mount it would be a "declaration of war" against the Islamic world.
Israel National News reports the terror group made the threat during a protest march at the religious site following riots on Friday.
Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas spokesman, called for a third intifada if Obama visits the contested religious site in Jerusalem's Old City between Israelis and Muslims
100% off topic. Interesting, but 100% off topic.
Wonder why they don't use Moses, Abraham, Saul, Job, or one of the older biblical names?
Not Catholic Saints.
Moses is not generally referred to as a Saint, but he technically is since he is known to be in Heaven. His feast day is September 4th. Technically any of the prophets are considered to be saints. A saint is nothing more than a soul who made it to Heaven.
The patriarchs, prophets and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church's liturgical traditions.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 61
A saint is someone how believes and accepts the name of Jesus Christ..one that believes He died on the cross for the sins of the world AND has been baptized by water in the name of The Father, The Son and of the Holy Spirit.
DavCramer -
I guess you have answered part of my above question. In other words, a Pope's name must be that of a Saint. I guess that means not all names found in the Bible could be used.
I too am hoping for Leo XIV!!! Leo XIII was a great Pope - so this would be a great message to bringing bac to the forefront the dignity and the honor owed to workers!
I think it's too soon for a John Paul III .....but another idea is perhaps a John XXIV! Call for a Vatican Council III - to address issues with the priesthood. Cleanse - if not exorcise - the priesthood of the pedophilia abuse. End it once and for all
So - for me - either Leo XIV or John XXIV - would be great choices for the new Pope! It would most significantly mean getting away from the austere dogma of Benedict XVI - and back to the charisma and humanity of John XXIII, Leo XIII and John Paul II. These were men who inspired - and that is what is needed now!
If you choose the winning name, you win a free ride in a purgatory proof wiener mobile and a plenary indulgence.
I'm really hoping for Pope Mark II, but would also be happy with Pope Innocent XIV.