Smokestack Lightning! Your New Pope Has Arrived

Looks like the Papal party is over: They’ve got a new Pope. His name is Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, an Argentinian of Italian descent. Bergoglio is considered a doctrinal conservative who holds the standard Catholic positions on most social issues: no on abortion; no on homosexuality, etc. According to Wikipedia, he has lived in a relatively humble style, eschewing some of the luxuries available to Cardinals, but I doubt that this will continue once he goes to the Vatican.

The big question will be whether Bergoglio will address some of the issues that are rumored to have led to Ratzinger’s resignation: Questions about sex scandals, blackmail, child molestation cover-ups, and suspect banking practices aren’t going to go away.

If you aren’t Catholic (I’m not) then you might be tempted to consider this non-news. Don’t. The Church has always worked hand-in-hand with government powers for both good and ill, and and the doctrinal decisions of the New Guy in the Funny Hat could have global repercussions, especially considering that almost 18 percent of the world’s population is Catholic.

59 Comments on "Smokestack Lightning! Your New Pope Has Arrived"

  1. So basically he shares the same ideas of Ratzinger. Meet the new pope same as the old pope!

  2. As a pope, I do not recognize this new guy as a pope.

  3. emperorreagan | Mar 13, 2013 at 4:29 pm |

    If wikipedia is to be believed, he sold Jesuit priests down the river to the military junta in Argentina (though naturally it could never be proven).

    I guess that’s all you need to know about the man. I’d call that trading on moral and intellectual integrity for pursuit/retention of power. And of course, trading on your moral and intellectual integrity in pursuit of power is how you end up with a conservative piece of shit coming out of one of the more liberal Catholic orders.

  4. Anarchy Pony | Mar 13, 2013 at 4:48 pm |

    A new Pope? Just what I’ve always wanted. But not really.

  5. Anarchy Pony | Mar 13, 2013 at 4:48 pm |

    A new Pope? Just what I’ve always wanted. But not really.

  6. I am also a pope, and hereby excommunicate all of you and that bastard in Rome.
    As a recovering (recovered?) Catholic, I have no use for this authoritarian nonsense.
    We’d all be much better off if 18% of the population that identifies as Catholic would just wake the fuck up and call bullshit on the all forms of monotheistic, authoritarian xtianity.
    Besides, the god of Abraham is A PSYCHOTIC PRICK.

    • Anarchy Pony | Mar 13, 2013 at 5:39 pm |

      I heard that.

    • emperorreagan | Mar 14, 2013 at 1:09 pm |

      YOU CAN’T EXCOMMUNICATE ME, I QUIT!

      Now where’s my sweet retirement apartment and gucci slippers?!

    • emperorreagan | Mar 14, 2013 at 1:09 pm |

      YOU CAN’T EXCOMMUNICATE ME, I QUIT!

      Now where’s my sweet retirement apartment and gucci slippers?!

    • emperorreagan | Mar 14, 2013 at 1:09 pm |

      YOU CAN’T EXCOMMUNICATE ME, I QUIT!

      Now where’s my sweet retirement apartment and gucci slippers?!

    • Matt Staggs | Mar 14, 2013 at 3:15 pm |

      Oh, hell! Juan has become the Cobra Guy from DREAMSCAPE!

    • Matt Staggs | Mar 14, 2013 at 3:15 pm |

      Oh, hell! Juan has become the Cobra Guy from DREAMSCAPE!

    • Matt Staggs | Mar 14, 2013 at 3:15 pm |

      Oh, hell! Juan has become the Cobra Guy from DREAMSCAPE!

      • It seemed appropriate:)
        Since I’ve never seen it, I guess I should check out the movie. Wonder of it’s on Netflix.

          • I started watching it last night. About 5 minutes into it I remembered I had seen this a long time ago. Even baked to the gills I could only sit through about a half hour last night.

          • Sir Legendhead | Mar 15, 2013 at 10:18 pm |

            The villain played by David Patrick Kelly is the best part, but he doesn’t kick into high gear until the climax. Luckily I had it playing in the background while I was online. I’m not sure I could have devoted my full attention to the first half either.

  7. BuzzCoastin | Mar 13, 2013 at 7:47 pm |

    already they’re off to a bad start
    they got rid of Ratz & hired a Whore Hey
    can it get any weirder?
    does the Pope shit the woods

  8. BuzzCoastin | Mar 13, 2013 at 7:47 pm |

    already they’re off to a bad start
    they got rid of Ratz & hired a Whore Hey
    can it get any weirder?
    does the Pope shit the woods

  9. Sir Legendhead | Mar 13, 2013 at 8:28 pm |

    I still believe Lucifer won that bet in the book of Job. That’s where he tricked old Hova into revealing his true nature. God tortured his most loyal follower, killed his family, destroyed his property and for what? To show the world how great God was, that he could do these things to a man without losing his support.

    Now compare this to the guy who gave us free will and knowledge of good and evil. The one who came to us in the garden and said, hey, you don’t have to wander through life as an ignorant naked ape. Having read these stories and having understood them for what they are, the only Pope I’m interested in supporting is Anton LaVey.

  10. Sir Legendhead | Mar 13, 2013 at 8:28 pm |

    I still believe Lucifer won that bet in the book of Job. That’s where he tricked old Hova into revealing his true nature. God tortured his most loyal follower, killed his family, destroyed his property and for what? To show the world how great God was, that he could do these things to a man without losing his support.

    Now compare this to the guy who gave us free will and knowledge of good and evil. The one who came to us in the garden and said, hey, you don’t have to wander through life as an ignorant naked ape. Having read these stories and having understood them for what they are, the only Pope I’m interested in supporting is Anton LaVey.

    • Charlie Primero | Mar 14, 2013 at 10:15 am |

      ha-Satan is not Lucifer.

      • Sir Legendhead | Mar 14, 2013 at 6:07 pm |

        Ha. Feel free to expound on that.

        Not saying that I disagree with you, by the way. I’m familiar with the concept and would like to read more about your understanding of it, seeing as how you brought it up.

          • Sir Legendhead | Mar 15, 2013 at 3:44 am |

            Skimmed through a bit of that — not the entire thing, of course, 300+ pages is a bit much for casual web browsing — and came away with the impression that it’s basically just the usual Christian propaganda in regards to its depiction of Lucifer.

            What charlieprimero may have been getting at is how the “Morning Star” reference of the Old Testament was actually directed towards a Babylonian king of the era it was written in and not a reference to the eponymous fallen angel. I’ll avoid trying to recall the details because it’s been years since I studied the subject but that’s what it sounded like to me.

            Thanks for the link though. I’ll examine that in more detail somewhen in the future. 🙂

          • Sir Legendhead | Mar 15, 2013 at 3:44 am |

            Skimmed through a bit of that — not the entire thing, of course, 300+ pages is a bit much for casual web browsing — and came away with the impression that it’s basically just the usual Christian propaganda in regards to its depiction of Lucifer.

            What charlieprimero may have been getting at is how the “Morning Star” reference of the Old Testament was actually directed towards a Babylonian king of the era it was written in and not a reference to the eponymous fallen angel. I’ll avoid trying to recall the details because it’s been years since I studied the subject but that’s what it sounded like to me.

            Thanks for the link though. I’ll examine that in more detail somewhen in the future. 🙂

          • Kevin Leonard | Mar 15, 2013 at 4:34 am |

            Don’t know if there is any back story about why you deduced that from charlieprimero’s comment, but I know that there are many takes on the meaning of the “Morning Star.”

            The Anthroposophical take on the nature of evil and the role of Christ is anything but the “usual Christian propaganda.” In fact, when I get into deep discussions with “usual” Christians and speak from Steiner’s perspective, they almost invariably think I’m a heretic and start praying for my soul.

            Briefly, Anthroposophists consider Lucifer to be as Prometheus, granting the fire of consciousness to humanity, bringing powers of discernment and will to an otherwise spineless human. As such, Lucifer was necessary for our spiritual development. But they do not worship Lucifer. Problems arise with too much unchecked willfuness, like greed and arrogance. They think that Lucifer must be redeemed and it is our duty to do so by evolving spiritually. Keeping it even more relevant to the current thread, they would suggest that Lucifer’s influence is rampant in the Church.

            Satan is considered to be Ahriman. Ahriman is the embodiment of evil which denies anything other than the material realm. Modern medicine and other material reductionist viewpoints are the epitome of Ahrimanic influence. It has given us computers and spaceships and saved lives, but also gives us fracking, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and Monsanto. So you see, in this view, both aspects of evil have provided value to our species, but both must be transcended. However, while Lucifer’s destiny is redemption, Ahriman, the Cathar’s Rex Mundi, is to remain lord of the material realm and as such, more fits the description of “The Adversary” than Lucifer.

            But it gets much deeper than that 😉

          • Sir Legendhead | Mar 15, 2013 at 4:52 am |

            What I mentioned about the Babylonian king is a translation issue which gets brought up fairly often. This is why it was the first thing I thought of, simply because I’ve seen it so many times. It’s even featured in the wikipedia entry for Lucifer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#Lucifer_or_morning_star

            And my earlier post had been based on a mere glance towards what you had linked. Thanks again for the continued insight. I had never heard of the Anthroposophical take, yet it seems to be a close match for ideas I’ve had in mind to begin with…ha. Aren’t those always the ideas we like most? Great stuff though. 🙂

          • Sir Legendhead | Mar 15, 2013 at 4:52 am |

            What I mentioned about the Babylonian king is a translation issue which gets brought up fairly often. This is why it was the first thing I thought of, simply because I’ve seen it so many times. It’s even featured in the wikipedia entry for Lucifer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#Lucifer_or_morning_star

            And my earlier post had been based on a mere glance towards what you had linked. Thanks again for the continued insight. I had never heard of the Anthroposophical take, yet it seems to be a close match for ideas I’ve had in mind to begin with…ha. Aren’t those always the ideas we like most? Great stuff though. 🙂

  11. This pope election is just to mask the true headline.

  12. LucidDreamR | Mar 14, 2013 at 12:44 pm |

    Smoke and mirrors… It’s high time we stop giving these figurehead puppets our attention; whether they are from religion or government it’s quite clear the puppeteer does not represent the common man. The only power they have is the power we give them.

  13. LucidDreamR | Mar 14, 2013 at 12:44 pm |

    Smoke and mirrors… It’s high time we stop giving these figurehead puppets our attention; whether they are from religion or government it’s quite clear the puppeteer does not represent the common man. The only power they have is the power we give them.

  14. Matt Staggs | Mar 14, 2013 at 3:16 pm |

    I prefer Pope Classic.

Comments are closed.