The New Pope. Better than the old pope?

So what do you think? He's not European and has a strong sense of economic justice. Will he change things?

And what importance does the Pope have today outside of catholicism?

You and I hadn't yet been born, but during World War Two, FDR seriously proposed to the other Allied leaders that the Pope be involved in planning the look of the post-War world. Stalin's classic reply -- I'll spare you the original Russian -- was "The Pope?! How many divisions does he have?" Somehow that seems relevant to your question. Then too, on another front (so to put), the new Supreme Pontiff has upstaged that frothing hypocrite Barak Obama for a while. I'll bet that the latter is p----- or shall we just say (ahem) "vexed". If I were in the Vatican, I'd be on the look-out for drone craft. O to be so young and so cynical . . . but we are what life makes us. Peace to all. -- G

I want the original Russian!

I remember the good Pope, that Polish fellow, exhorting Christian conversion in Gujarat during a period of rioting there. My hope for this pope is nope not grope for trope you dope, to say nothing of soap on a rope.

It wasn't complicated. Stalin was famous for brevity in his second language, not for any reason of linguistic uncertainty, but to keep others squirming. Naturally I wasn't there, but I have heard it quoted as "Papa?! Skolko divizi u nyevo?" Rick, maybe some old Slovenians may have heard that same story; check it out. -- G

'Koliko odredo v ima?' is the Slovene, or 'Koliko divizija v ima?' The Slovenes probably will say that Tito said it. Have you read Generations of Winter? I just read a couple weeks ago.

Ah I'm glad someone's interested in this!

If you don't mind a somewhat lengthy response from this "lapsed Catholic" and once a theology student (at St John's University at Collegeville Minnesota) here goes:

Archbishop Bergoglio (of Italian lineage so the Itals got one of their own after all huh) of Buenos Aires is a jesuit but he has (necessarily it would seem) distanced himself from the "progressive" nature of Latin American jesuits especially in the 1970s when so called "liberation theology" was ascendent with many idealistic clerics. (Recall the struggles in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua in particular?)

In Argentina from the mid 1970s to mid '80s there ruled a military junta that conducted what is known as the "dirty war" in which thousands "disappeared" (often thrown from helicoptors over the Atlantic) for supposed "radical" beliefs. One of the most disturbing things I've heard re the new pope is that he may have been not just a "conservative" at that time but even an INFORMER re "leftist" priests.

Bergoglio opposed both more recent gay rights legislation in Argentina as well as he railed against government paid contraception; he yes rides buses, cheers the local "football" team, lived in a small apartment and cooked for himself it is said BUT there is a big difference in "identifying" with the poor and actually DOING something so that they are not "so poor" eh.

Re the name "Francis" (Francesco-Francisco-Francois) the man from Assisi never especially demanded that "the church" RELIEVE the suffering of poverty per se; HE only wanted to "join up" and live as poorly (or moreso) than those unwashed, unfed "masses."

Initially the church thought that a VERY dangerous idea and sought to suppress his "movement" but then it realized what a nice "screen" it would be -- a representation of concern amid the poverty stricken themselves that might "obscure" the palacial surroundings in which most cardinals, bishops and archbishops, particularly those in power in Rome, lived. Francis became a good "front" so to speak.

Also we may recall the patriarch of Venice, once John Paul I, the "thirty day pope" who succeeded the ailing (and deeply discouraged -- sound familiar?) Pope Paul VI amid the Vatican scandals of the latter '70s -- the Vatican bank, the Blackfriars bridge "suicide" hmm, among other mishaps.

JPI was supposed to be "modest," "humble," a charming writer who employed the popular folk figure of Pinocchio to make homey theological points. However it seems he was interested after all in "reforming" the curia and addressing these scandals but then oh some terrible "accident" -- he suddenly drops dead of a heart attack!

Now only the conspiracy theory buffs pay much attention to the details of that unexpected demise -- the advent of the evangelical, intellectual, "spiritual" (as is characterized now Pope Francis eh) rock star pontiff, the former cardinal from Krakow, obscured those scandals and brought to the center of attention the charismatic Pole who was in fact not so much a fan of John XXIII's Vatican II "reformation" and promoted a more "traditional" Catholicism as Francis purportedly adheres to.

So -- is he more Assisi? More (Francis) Xavier, the dynamic world wide evangelist of the jesuit order? More JPI? More JPII? Can't say at the moment but as per the old (apochryphal?) "Reaganism" -- "Stay tuned!" I certainly will...

I thought it pretty much went without saying that anyone elected Pope would have to be firmly against treating gays and women as fully human and worthy of making their own life choices. But it would be something substantial if the Catholic church once again championed the interests of the "poorest of these".

Michael, your Posts are industrial strength, and I (for one) appreciate them immensely, even if I differ with you on a detail here or there. Since you are so gracious as to tell us about your background, and thus (we assume) at-least some of your perspective, let me, as the saying goes, show you mine, by saying that I am an older married male, multi-lingual, active Christian -- that may astonish some of you -- and a student of European history and culture for decades.
That is a long prologue to my observation that the discussion in which we find ourselves is the kind of thing has occurred at fairly regular intervals since the invention of printing, namely the fervent desire to find some ineradicable stain on a celebrity. Me, I'm not bent out-of-shape in this matter for the simple reason that I assume that ANYBODY in a position like the Papacy has so many skeletons to hide that Trump Tower wouldn't suffice for a morgue: it's the nature of authoriatarian systems and the natural life-pattern of those sorry SOBs who seek to rise within them. Did Bergoglio fink on those priests? We may never know, but at the risk of appearing prejudiced, I don't mind saying that nothing would surprise me less. What surprises me -- and saddens me more than I can calmly express -- is the number of intelligent persons who assume that such things can't even be possible.
In the Thirties and Fourties, there were repeated attempts to "get the goods" on Hitler and Stali: to find Jewish heritage in the former, and to prove that the latter had been a police agent. Neither came to much -- though the fragmentary evidence against Stalin is pretty convincing to me -- and neither really addressed the cold hard fact those guys were immune from the righteous historico-investigative efforts of well-intentioned persons. They had the guns, and could well say, "so what?"
So, a "better" Pope? The best Papacy would a permanent state of sede vacante. And then we can turn to several other so-called "faiths", including the one where I camp these days. In the mean-time, we'd all better wear wash-&-wear duds for several months. The swill from the Church, from the fourty-eleven persuasions of Protestantism, and most of all, from the talking heads of network journalism will be an oceanic wave, and while you choose to stay tuned, I for one rejoice at the coming of Spring, with its gardening, baseball, and outdoor music.
Best to you and to all free spirits. -- G

Micheal, good post.

Thanks.

Yes well I agree with the understanding that NO ONE could possibly be elected pope who believed in present day SOCIAL liberalism but sure "we" hope for a renewal of what was known following Vat II as "the preferential option for the poor" eh.

My apprehension as per Francis is that IDEALIZATION of poverty in the original Franciscan perception as more "spiritual" etc. Now I understand that Archbishop Bergoglio also opposed "neo liberal" (so called "free market") reforms in the past decades after the end of the junta that were perceived to hurt the poorest in Argentina so I may be unfair to presume the new pope would be ONLY "show."

However it seems too that popes don't really "change" much in the actual political-economic world although they obviously affect attitudes in their own church and "flock"...

The thing I wonder is Where does Welch get so much information so quickly? Who is he working for?

And Harry, reviving the word 'fink' puts you in my LT hall of fame.

Looking in from the outside, the two previous popes were less than desirable. The crackdown on catholic universities was lamentable. Also, I assume their tenures must be counted as failures rather than successes since the decline in the number adherents and priests quickened under their steady hands. They lost a lot of souls.

The new pope has some crazy utterances left in his wake (such as allowing gay couples to adopt children would be a form of discrimination against the children). But if he pushes the social justice line that is common to the Society of Jesus, then he can do good for all of us.

As for Papa Stalin--I haven't read much about his past, at least not for a long time, but something, somewhere that I read convinced me, too, that he had been an informer. And it sure fits with subsequent paranoia.

While I was writing the above two of you wrote me some compliments and I thank you!

Sometimes I think I may not be "snarky" enough for some discussions here but I TRY to say what I really think and I like responses even in disagreement but once "we" begin playing "word games" or "who's the cleverest response" I find myself out of my depth perhaps but also "out of interest" in what WAS "the topic"...

Re Harsch's remark I actually only listened to NPR today and "who I'm working for" HE well knows!

And yes the rumors were that Stalin did do some uh things for the Okhrana -- but then a number of other "revolutionaries" did too so he wasn't "alone"...

Stained on my own petard!

In re #11. Rick, I learned that from MAD magazine, which was Mother's milk to me from my earliest days of literacy. In my later days I had the good fortune to know and study with the late-lamented Archie Green, the greatest of scholar-workers/worker-scholars. I doubt you can find it where you are, but you should read his essay "That word 'fink': the labor connection". All his stuff is worth reading, though his prose is, well, unforgiving. -- Goddard

This Pope has a better track record than the Pope Emeritus (seriously? He has to keep a fancy title?) on being nice to other religions. He even wrote a book with a rabbi.

Rat fink.

Looks like I'll have to order an essay collection to get it--it's on a short list. thanks.

I guess if Francis can make it up with the Jews and maybe the Muslims that's progress -- although it just puts him with JPII. The "pope emeritus" I think HAD to retire eh...

In re #20. Rick, hold your fire. Let me get you a useful citation. I think you might ber able to read it on Guttenberg. Failing that, I might be able to send you a pre-pub copy. I have a whack of stuff from him. -- G

Oh my fire is held. No bullets. (thanks)

The late great Peter Sellers had a riff that the principal exports of the White, industrialized world were guns, bullets, and drip-dry shirts.