Random thoughts on the appointment of a new Pope
- Forget this "Benedict" crap, I'm always going to think of him as Pope Ratzinger.
- Former Hitler Youth
and Nazi?* Why am I not surprised? - Those sunken eyes, that soulless grin…I'm thinking Zombie Pope.**
- Weren't there any Borgias in the running?
- Giblets is going to be sooooo pissed.
- The last guy was considered relatively progressive, and he was a tight-sphinctered reactionary when it came to women, gays, and, well, just about everything. This one is a conservative hardliner…does that mean return of the Inquisition, or that we'll have a dramatic rebound with the appointment of the first lesbian cardinal?
- Personally, I was rooting for Sophia Loren.
- "the driving force behind crackdowns on liberation theology, religious pluralism, challenges to traditional moral teachings on issues such as homosexuality, and dissent on such issues as women's ordination." Yeah, that's the man to represent orthodox religion in the 21st century.
- Boo yah, atheism is going to be more popular than ever!
*Edited because we must be accurate.
**Or vampire.***
***Or lich. It's getting very hard to keep up with all the suggestions; can we just say some generic form of evil undead?
The other bulleted points are, of course, completely true.
Whoa. Matthew just put up a few links that have completely changed my view of this pope.
Separated at birth? Pope Ratzi and the Evil Bilbo.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2190/xDsCkqBR/


Kevin said: "I am a Celiac. This means that because of the risk of anemia and eventually, GI cancers, I cannot receive Christ in the species of the consecrated host as I have all my life, but only in the species of his precious blood."
From a news story: "The issue made national headlines in 2001 when the parents of a 5-year-old Boston girl with celiac disease left the Catholic Church after their pastor and subsequently Cardinal Bernard Law would not allow them to substitute the wheat host with a rice wafer for her First Communion."
This is just so we all know what poor Kevin is facing. To Kevin's fervently-beloved Catholic Church, his health disorder disqualifies him -- and about 1 in 130 other Catholic Americans -- from full participation in the practices of their religion. Apparently only a wafer with wheat in it is holy enough for the Catholic hierarchy.
But that's just a little aside to my main comment, which follows:
Kevin, the basic content of your posts here is "Me victim, you victimizers."
Which ain't gonna end up being true no matter how many words you sling at it.
The first part seems true enough. In one way, you do seem like a victim. You have a pretty good grasp of English, which -- being an editor -- I always unconsciously equate with intelligence. But you're damaged in some way, and it sounds to me like one of the problems, maybe the main problem, is what I sometimes refer to as "religious illness."
But nobody here is responsible for that. Nobody here has hurt you, or is hurting you. (Just by the by, nobody here is capable of injuring the Catholic Church, or the Catholic faith.)
The new political correctness in America, it seems to me, is the claim of victimization. The way the thing works is that if you can claim someone is hurting you by the things they say or think, they automatically have to shut up and go away, and you get to move in and take over the field of discussion.
(The thing seems to work even if you’re rich and politically powerful: Thus the Christian Right can claim they are being wickedly discriminated against by people resisting them putting their religious icons into courthouses, schools and public commons. And they actually gain ground.)
So here you are, Kevin, practicing your victim chops, “and if you answer back, it just proves you’re being mean to me!” and you’re all hurt because nobody’s buying it.
Get a grip, kid. You’re not MY victim, and neither is any other of the billion-plus body of Catholics. You’re just confused. And you’re looking in the wrong place for enemies.