Talk:Pope Francis

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Talk:Francis I)
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Making an issue out of his stance on gay marriage and abortion...[edit] a little like making an issue out of an old Rabbi's position on ham sandwiches or the Ayatollah's position on whiskey. Not really remarkable. Would be more interesting to deal with the Jesuit angle or his relationship with Communion and Liberation. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not both? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Because, like I said, one is not really remarkable. Were you really expecting a pro-gay-marriage pope? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 20:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't mean we can't still admonish him for it.--MikallakiM 21:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Low-hanging fruit. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
the same can be said of much of our criticism of various figures. --MikallakiM 22:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 22:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with the others. The idea that it shouldn't be made an issue out of because he's the pope is a faint echo of the notion that "muh religion" makes one's ideas immune to criticism. Bullshit A is still bullshit A, even if you're head of an organisation built on defending bullshit A. Not to mention the fact that this same pope has given the green light to contraception in some circumstances (as if said green light was his to give, go figure) and at some point in history a pope said "maybe we should stop being so virulently anti-semitic?" Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 13:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
It is important to point out these issues because people believe he is pro-LGBTQ or same-sex marriage. In fact, they are not low hanging fruit. The popes positions are hotly contested issues by most progressives. It not remarkable. But it's the opposite of what most people think. ShawnTheHumanist (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing really hotly contested. If people think it's wrong don't do it, but don't enforce ones morality on others. People think eating bacon is a sin...but that doesn't mean we limit or ban it. Which is part of what the Pope seems to endorse, even if he doesn't think it's correct, and to treat people like human beings even if you don't agree. Which doesn't seem liberal or conservative, it's how we should live. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First from the Western Hemisphere?[edit]

No. I knew this was wrong from memory and it's pretty easy to find people on WP's list who were born in the West: John XXI and Adrian IV are two that came up after less than 30s looking through the list. rpeh •TCE 21:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, someone doesn't know what "hemisphere" means. SophieWilder 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I know exactly what it means. WTF do YOU mean? rpeh •TCE 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
THERE. ME FIX. There have been Popes from west of the prime meridian (Rpeh cited a Portuguese and an Englishman) which makes them from the Western Hemisphere by certain definitions of the phrase, but they were all European (and possibly African), making Francis the first pope from the Americas by anyone's definition, which is what I should have said in the first place. Freemanp (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, if we assume the Earth to be a perfect sphere (it isn't, it's an oblate spheroid), a hemisphere is simply one half of the planet divided equally along any appropriate plane. But, in common parlance, yes, the dividing plane is the equator. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 02:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The joys of ambiguous terminology - from Wikipedia: "The term is often used in political rhetoric to refer to only North America and South America (or the New World) and adjacent islands", although Wikipedia also points out that the technical definition ("West of the IERS Reference Meridian") puts all of Ireland and Portugal and more than 50% of the UK and Spain in the western hemisphere. Best to just say "New World", or even safer "The Americas". Unrelated... I wonder why Ireland has never produced a Pope? VOXHUMANA 03:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
To busy under the thumb of the oppressive Anglican traitors. And the same reason that Italy has enough Cardinals to get its own spot on a pie chart--MikallakiM 03:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC).

Your comment about Italy made me go look up the numbers.

2013 World Representation in the College of Cardinals (source Wikipedia)
Region Total Population Catholics  % Catholic  % of Catholic total  % of College of Cardinals
Africa 885,103,542 135,211,325 15.27% 12.57% 8.17%
Asia and Middle East 3,889,093,723 123,851,272 3.18% 11.51% 9.62%
Europe 750,072,510 283,916,457 37.85% 26.37% 57.65%
Central America 42,883,849 32,317,384 75.36% 3.00% 1.00%
North America and Carribean 472,952,469 192,274,838 40.65% 17.88% 12.98%
South America 371,363,897 299,570,011 80.66% 27.87% 10.58%
Oceania 30,686,468 7,747,654 25.24% 0.72% 1.92%

South Americans have a legitimate gripe about representation apparently. (Although I regard those global population figures as a bit too precise to be trustworthy). VOXHUMANA 04:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

God this place can be a pedantfest sometimes. It's just like the why are there still monkeys talkpage which deteriorated into haggling about the difference between apes and monkeys. For a website that aims to make points, you sure love to miss it. (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to miss having a pope...[edit]

...who looks like Emperor Palpatine. --Edgerunner76Save me Jebus! 13:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the BBC's photographs of him, due to the effects of camera angle, reminds me of Maj. Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Take your pick. SophieWilder 14:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the above link proves that he looks like an old bloke who wears glasses.--Spud (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pedants' Corner[edit]

I believe he doesn't officially become Francis I, until there's a Francis II. Right now, he's Pope Francis, no numeral.--Albannach (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There's an edit button at the top of every page on this site. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg (formerly Ghostface Editah) 16:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I frequently edit from my mobile phone which not only obscures the edit button on some pages, but whose browser crashes on longer articles/sections... if it actually succeeds in submitting, and not losing it. -Albannach (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Angelo Luciano officially took the name John Paul I as his title - and it was always Franz Josef I of Austria-Hungary (though not always KuK), so 'precautionary numbering' has occurred in the past (and the Reuss dynasties are another kettle of fish)

Not as far as I can tell - he wasn't referred to as "PJPI" until PJPII had taken office. Wikipedia states he was just "John Paul" until his death. VOXHUMANA 00:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Could Francis I be both a 'Black Pope' #and# a 'White Pope'? (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

John Paul was a Exception, not a rule. You don't tend to call people "the first" until there is somebody to be a later one. When you DO call yourself the first, its a massive ego thing. --MikallakiM 17:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

JP I may have called himself that to make it clear that he was not 'John XXIV Paul VII'.

Black Pope - head of the Jesuits. (There is also a 'Red Pope') (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats cool but irrelevant. thanks for playing. --MikallakiM 17:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The name Cleon I always used to annoy me in the Foundation novels. SophieWilder 18:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

August 20 1914 is of relevance in this thread. (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Pius X dies, Germany invades Belgium... what am I missing? SophieWilder 21:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The head of the Jesuits also died (see the WP page on Pius): and Pius was not the intended Pope in 1903. (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

the first pope...,[edit]

  1. first pope from the New World
  2. first pope from the Southern Hemisphere, indeed, first pope from south of the Tropic of Cancer, maybe even south of 30° north latitude
  3. first pope not born in Europe in over 1000 years
  4. first pope who was/is a Jesuit
  5. first pope to use a name never used before, in several hundred years
  6. first pope to use a name that was neither ever used before, nor was his name at birth
  7. first pope from the Western Hemisphere in a few hundred years (Hello Portugal!!)
  8. first pope missing a lung
  9. first pope in likely a long time elected during the Ides of March
  10. first pope to become a priest after Vatican II
  11. first pope to become archbishop after Terminator Judgment Day|Judgment Day, the launching of Jupiter Two, and HAL being turned on (in the movie anyway) (all occurring in 1997)
  12. first pope to be cardinal in the 21st century/3rd millennium (whichever sounds more impressive)
  13. first pope born south of Rome in a while
  14. first pope born of Italian parents in over 35 years
  15. first pope following a resigned pope
  16. first pope to not be shocked SHOCKED to find that the priesthood is infested with pedophiles
  17. second pope elected in the 21st century/3rd millennium (whichever sounds more impressive)
  18. first pope elected in the 21st century/3rd millennium (whichever sounds more impressive) of Italian parents
  19. second pope in over 35 years who is younger than Elizabeth II
  20. third pope born after the Russian Revolution (or for that matter Reagan or Nixon)
  21. third pope to be a priest after World War II
  22. third pope who's not Italian (i.e. not born in the nation of Italy) in a few hundred years
  23. third pope born after 1400 A.H. (Anno Heigera).
  24. third pope to live through the Falklands War
  25. Argentina is the biggest country ever to have a pope
  26. first pope born after Elvis Presley

 Civic Cat    Talk to Civic Cat   23:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And the Austro-Hungarian ruler is often referred to as (KuK) Franz Josef I. (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


He'll die next month, and the next Pope will call himself Francis II, and then you'll be sorry! SophieWilder 21:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

He'll be MURDERED next month. (No reason not to go into full tinfoil hat mode on this). VOXHUMANA 00:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a redirect #from# Pope Francis I.

How many 'double numbered' rulers have there been: James 1 and VI, Elizabeth II and I (England and Scotland respectively) and who else? (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nominals are discretionary, not indicative. There is no "Elizabeth I" of Scotland, she is only "Elizabeth II". She could call herself Elizabeth MCMLIII (her year of coronation) if she felt like it. She is Elizabeth II in Australia in Canada, despite neither of those countries even existing when Elizabeth I was on the throne. VOXHUMANA 00:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

James is 'often' colloquially called 'Six and one'/'One and six' (possibly more common with 'old money'); there are occasional references to 'Louis I of England' (the one wandering around during John's reign); and I think 'north of the border' in some of the official materials she is locally referred to as Elizabeth.

More a case for the train-spotter-tendency group and those constructing Christmas/pub quizzes :) (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Child sex abuse[edit]

One source suggests Francis is tainted by the Child abuse scandal as are most/all clergy high up in the Roman Catholic hierarchy but the source claims he mended his ways at least partly.

But during most of the 14 years that Bergoglio served as archbishop of Buenos Aires, rights advocates say, he did not take decisive action to protect children or act swiftly when molestation charges surfaced; nor did he extend apologies to the victims of abusive priests after their misconduct came to light. [1]

In later years Bergoglio mended his ways and became active in getting abuse reported to the police. Bergoglio didn't offer financial compensation as cardinals in the United States frequently did. presumably Bergoglio knew Argentinian abuse victims were relatively powerless and couldn't insist on compensation the way United States victims could. [1]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Pope Francis was often quiet on Argentine sex abuse cases as archbishop

Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Says some blog or other. SophieWilder 08:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
One source suggests this, we need to look out and see if others confirm it or not. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Confirm or echo? Can you tell the difference? SophieWilder 10:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I found another source, this one looks like a lawyer who understands things.

It does not appear, however, that Pope Francis had earlier distinguised himself either as a senior Latin American bishop by condemning Fr. Maciel’s blatant abuses over many years, nor as a Jesuit has he seemingly to date clearly spoken out on the well reported extensive abuse of Native American children by some Jesuits. [1]
  1. Has Pope Francis Been Soft on Priest Abusers?
Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
You don't listen. That's another blog and you're using it as a "source" of opinion to echo your own, as Sophie pointed out. If you keep filling christianity articles with your bias I'm going to ask a few people to help me go through all the articles you've edited recently so I can put together a case to topic ban you from christianity related articles altogether.. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that you, proxi, are going through and redoing all the "undos" we did of your work, once again, without any attempt to understand why we made the changes, or alter your behaviors, and given your past, i'm more than ready to just block you, fully. And I don't really care if it means a loss of my uber special powers, prox, cause you are and have always made so much work cleaning up after you.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Gawd, tell me about it. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Have we ever had someone topic banned before? SophieWilder 18:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't been something I think anyone would have considered in the 4 years I've been here. Anyone remember? I'm not sure it's even possible or a good idea. i was probably talking to myself anyway. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It won't happen, I think we are still small enough that people track Proxima's edit and revert the weird stuff. Also I didn't know there was a new pope until recently! Not that I care that much, but I am surprised I didn't hear about it. The new guy seems like a pretty decent fellow, for a Catholic leader. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
A few months ago, Trent suggested creating a "crankspace" to isolate editors whom persistently crap all over the wiki, but that's the closest the wiki has ever come in its entire history to even discussing barring editors from certain topics. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we have a workable case in the fact there has to be a legion following proxima to fix anything she edits but refuses to actually listen to anybody calling her on it. --MikallakiM 00:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Proxima can be a pain but she is a very involved editor. There're one or two articles on here that were greatly influenced by her. Magdalene laundry (which I believe is one of our high rankers(?)) for one. She feels intensely and sometimes her feelings overcome her ability as an editor. Leave her alone & follow her with the sweeping brush. Scream!! (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Her Maggie Laundry article was a total mess. Try reading the version before this epic effort: But, yes, she does care, and is sort of generally on-mission, if our mission is Catholic bashing. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Francis has spoken out over child abuse worldwide, Pope Francis calls for action on clerical sex abuse. I personally feel that's as much as we can reasonably hope for 3 weeks into the papacy. A carefully thought out policy 3 months or 6 months into the papacy would be better than something hasty and badly prepared now. Still at least one survivors' support group is pessimistic and that support group understands the situation better than we do. We should watch carefully and check if words are followed by action. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You do that. I can tell how important it is because of the bold typeface you chose. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 18:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
3 weeks in and he's addressing it and yet you want dump all the hate you have for the RCC on him? Get a grip, Proxy, this guy might be your saviour. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Argentina's Dirty War[edit]

Today, Francisco/Franz Jalics, one of the two Jesuit priests kidnapped by the Argentine military, has denied Bergoglio's culpability: "Es ist daher falsch zu behaupten, daß unsere Gefangennahme auf die Initiative von Pater Bergoglio geschehen ist." ( It was all yet another smear campaign by Argentina's fascistoid government and their authoritarian supporters, aimed against those who dare to critizise the disastrous social consequences of their actions, as then Archbishop Bergoglio did.--Xyr (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Countering Church propaganda[edit]

Most people in the UK know about the Priest child abuse scandal and despise the RC's for it or are embarrassed and defensive if they are RC's. Despite this most UK people believe Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is and was a good man. RC's in the UK are a minority but Non-Catholics think that. Ratzinger's part in in the scandal isn't well known. RC's have centuries of practice making their popes look good, dressing them in spotless white silk goes part of the way. Pope Francis has good points, his concern for poor people may well be sincere though his opposition to contraception is seriously misguided.

Researching the good points of Bergoglio will be easy, the RC's will shower us with information. Researching bad points will be harder, sometimes we may need to track something down before Google is persuaded to forget about a link. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

" though his opposition to contraception is seriously misguided." What do you expect? A pope who will all of a sudden, out of the blue, oppose millenia-old Church doctrine on one of their core social positions? Criticizing Francis for not having the position you want him to have on contraception is like criticizing the sun for being hot. There may well be voices within the Church trying to work to change its positions on core social issues. It's completely unreasonable to expect that one of them will get the keys to the store from out of nowhere. Try to ground your critiques in the reality-based world. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh hey, look: ""But he takes a slightly more pragmatic view on contraception, believing that it can be permissible to prevent the spread of disease." So it seems like he's actually the first guy to come along since Vatican Roulette was deemed permissible to say that condoms can be okay. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I added that to the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure this line was coming out of the Vatican already. Ah, here you go. not fully ex officio but it's the same idea. SophieWilder 18:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Francis lives at as poorer level than he needs to and promotes himself as a man of the people, that puts poor people on his side and makes poor people more likely to listen to bad advice on contraception. For me this vehement support for poor people coupled with vehement opposition to contraception just intuitively feels wrong. Francis may be sincere but blinded by Catholic dogma. Francis may be cynically aiming at many large Roman Catholic families and less concerned about preventing poverty than he claims. Either way I fear poor people will suffer. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
"...just intuitively feels wrong..." "...may be..." "...I fear..." SophieWilder 11:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Proxy, the man lives what appears to be a penitent life, eschewing the riches and comfort he could take advantage of. You are a bit of an idiot, you know, sometimes? He wears the hair shirt, as it were, and seems to be willing to stop preventing the use of condoms for health reasons? You are so full of hate for the RCC, you can't see that this man might actually be a decent person? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Look, the Vatican's current strategy is very straightforward and sensible. It is going to be a very long time before the Church changes its position on social teachings some of which (abortion) still stir controversial even among secular people. Hence it is not surprising that the current Pope chooses to focus on Economic teachings rather than social ones which most people find unpalatable. In Europe the Economic teachings of the Pope won't significantly influence people at all but I'm from the USA. I DO have a pro-Church bias and I'm not even Catholic, and do you know why? Because nothing the Church has done or said in the past three decades has com even remotely close to the batshit crazy stances taken by the Evangelical protestants. Over in the UK you have inherited the notion of the Church being antiquated and medieval and fifty years ago that would have been accurate but the pre-Vatican II church does not exist anymore. You know whats crazy? What is crazy is that there are places in the United States where you would have an easier time learning about evolution in Catholic school than a Public one! Don't complain to me about Church propaganda, this site is visited by both Americans and Brits, and while across the pond the Church may seem conservative and anti-rational, in America it is not. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 05:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Background information[edit]

Profile: New pope, Jesuit Bergoglio, was runner-up in 2005 conclave. This was written just before we knew Bergoglio would become pope. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The week starting on the 8th of April will provide new information.

Experts are watching closely for the pope's appointments to key Vatican posts in the coming days, however, for signs of concrete action on challenges including the need for root-and-branch reform of the scandal-hit Vatican bureaucracy. Pope Francis completes installation as Pontiff

Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ole! Ole! Ole!! Did he doubt/Or did he try? 13:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In the war on the poor, Pope Francis is on the wrong side Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not a newspaper article, it's an op-ed piece, or what we call today a "blog". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


I cut references to human dignity because a blog, Pope Francis Reaches Out To the ‘Nones’: Can We Be The Pope’s Allies? suggests this can be "“ a euphemism for opposing abortion, banning contraception, and promoting the dogmatic belief that gay people are “broken.”. Atheists blogs at Patheos I find are good quality. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet more "some blog says so." Somebody somewhere said something on the internet - so fucking what? SophieWilder 12:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban her. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Liberation theology[edit]

This morning I came across the following:

Despite Bergoglio's reputation as an opponent of liberation theology during the 1970s, Bosca insists that wasn't actually the case. He said Bergoglio accepted the premise of liberation theology, especially the option for the poor, but in a "nonideological" fashion. Hard questions about Francis in Argentina and a lesson from Chile

I don't know how reliable Roberto Bosca is but we'll have to check if this nonideological support for liberation theology leads anywhere.

The National Catholic Reporter is a bit controversial, some Roman Catholics gave it an award for excellence but at least one bishop called them heretics. This looks like yet another example of how far Cafeteria Catholics have reached influential positions. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait, are you calling the Pope a "Cafeteria Catholic" because he may have accepted certain elements of liberation theology? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
A bishop called the National Catholic Reporter heretics and the Catholic Press Association gave them an award for excellence. I'm calling the Catholic Press Association and the National Catholic Reporter Cafeteria Catholics for being heretics and supporting heretics. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
All religionists are heretics to other religionists who disagree with them. You better expand your petty crusade to include who thinks who is a heretic in every single religion article we've got. Or better yet, drop it. Please. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Consortium News claims Francis has a traditional and limited approach to helping poor people.

Bergoglio’s approach fits with the Church’s attitude for centuries, to give “charity” to the poor while doing little to change their cruel circumstances – as Church grandees hobnob with the rich and powerful.[1]
  1. Pope Francis, CIA and ‘Death Squads’

Consortium News won the George Polk Awards so they should be reliable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is May 18, 2014. In Europe the Pope's endorsement of wealth redistribution appeared to be a non-story. In America it came down on the political scene like a bombshell. At this point only a hardcore Marxist would actually accuse the Pope of being a tool of the rich and powerful. How on earth does calling for the redistribution of wealth not change circumstances of the poor? Don't talk to me about how much money the Church has (admittedly the current Church is and has been for some centuries miserly when regarding its treasury) the mere fact that he endorsed that position at all undermines the point made by Consortium News. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 05:14, 18 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Reform of the Vatican[edit]

Pope Francis appointed eight cardinals to advise him, the people chosen have a track record of opposition to the status quo in the Vatican. He takes decisions himself and to guard against mistakes asks God. Bergoglio admits he has made many mistakes in his life. Pope Francis Advisory Council To Reform Church With Permanent The New York Times suggests this will lead to a more democratic government and a collegiate style of government. If the cardinals are advisers and Francis takes decisions how is this democratic? Francis has chosen advisers from around the world which should reduce the influence of the Vatican insiders and the Italians/Europeans. The first meeting will be next October though informal consultations will take place before that. Pope Francis Names Advisory Panel at Vatican The positive side is that delay will hopefully prevent anything hasty and ill considered. The negative side is that those who dislike proposed change have time to lobby and influence behind the scenes. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not Catholic. Why do you care so much about how an organization to which you don't belong is run? If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 12:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
They have vast influence worldwide and we need to understand them. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You various unwarranted and/or silly attacks on them seem to indicated that your have a very loose definition of the term understanding. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 15:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Please read the article on overpopulation before reverting.

Ecological carrying capacity is established scientific fact, but often denied, or more usually, ignored in the pursuit of endless economic growth.
Why is PowderSmokeAndLeather unpopular? — Unsigned, by: Proxima Centauri / talk / contribs 2013-04-25T16:14:03‎
Who says I'm unpopular? My mom says I'm cool. The idea that the problem with poverty and resource depletion is that "they" -- ie dark people -- are having too many kids as opposed to the fact that "we" -- ie fat white Western people -- are over-consuming is built on old racist tropes. Moreover, linking it to the Pope seems to imply that "they" aren't smart enough to put their own best interests before their religious beliefs. Moreover, a lot of the places that suffer from resource issues aren't even Catholic in the first place. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 16:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
God, i go away for a week and you become unpoular, and are now her favorite target. fun fun, Smoke & Leather! Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 01:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Other groups like Muslims also oppose contraception. Are you attention whoring? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think an article on the pope has much to do with overpopulation, unless he has specifically addressed concerns of overpopulation before.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
EC Muslims have little to do with the Pope. Stop trying to come up with facile analyses of complex problems in order to advance your one-person User:Conservative-like crusade against Christianity. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 16:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Overpopulation is real and playing the race card makes no difference. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Your analysis of the link between Pope Francis and any demographic issues is simplistic and facile. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 13:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
And that's not what the race card looks like. Sheesh how much do you hate the catholic church? Go write an essay about what they did to you. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh building collapse[edit]

There's no longer speculation and it's now all based on reputable sources. What's the problem? Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 13:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's minutiae in an article that already veers off course. I'm sure there's a source for his position on icecream flavors too. Leave this to the pros, whoever you are. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It's an example of his position towards the poor, or are we so averse to details that we cannot allow more than one per section? Also, go fuck yourself. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 13:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Grow up the pair of you. SophieWilder 14:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Cataloging every statement that a global polititcal figure makes and then analyzing it in a completely simplistic, speculative and facile way: ("This may encourage action to force improvements in workers' conditions." Really? Wow.) does not improve the article. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 15:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Sophie, this isn't about personalities and it's obviously way over this child's head. I do not understand why we even have this article. It's doesn't present honest criticism of the pope that anyone's going to find helpful. It's basically turned into a dumping ground for PC's anti-Catholic personal shit that requires people to parse all her edits in a manner we rarely have to do with editors. I've checked her cites and found that she sometimes just makes shit up. Or she's sloppy. I don't know. It doesn't help her that she occasionally defends it. This article has also become a magnet for tendentious editing.
This pope isn't an extremist. The church itself is pushing dangerous agendas in difficult places, so the main article makes sense. It even makes sense to add some of this material to it. But if this article is meant to present information from a skeptical perspective that anyone is ever going to find useful, it's a pointless failure. The WP article dwarfs ours in breadth and quality. If it's meant to present the personal bias of every editor who touches it, it's a reflection of broader problems at RW. We make too many assumptions about our readers. They're not the same character of people who use Recent Changes as the water cooler and self-select to enforce group think here. Be critical of religion. Don't assume that everyone's a leftist anti-theist.
I don't give a shit what PC's opinion is. Burying turds of selectively culled material calculated to give a one-sided and self-serving account is unacceptable. Let her have her essays in essay space or her own userspace. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Your insufferable attitude is growing tiresome Roux. All I asked for was for you to discuss the change further, but apparently engaging in something so common as dialogue is beneath you. As stated in the article, he had possible ties to the military junta of Argentina and was a major church figure during the Dirty Wars. As a result, and seeing as how he was elevated despite these questions, we have an article on him. Yes, it could be vastly improved and based on his/her performance, PC is almost certainly not the person to do so. However, this does not mean that you should A) scrub any and all edits if they were initiated by PC and B) Become a condescending dick. If you have deep problems with the article then either propose its deletion or improve it instead of passive-aggressively reverting anything PC adds simply because it's him/her. The only way this article is ever going to grow is if we add more detail, though perhaps not these particular details. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Way to not respond. This discussion has been going on a lot longer than you being a self-important tough guy. I've given very good reasons for reverting her on sight anymore and I'm not the only one doing it. There's nothing passive aggressive about it. LIke I said before, you don't seem to be fucking yourself enough. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to learn the difference between frustration over you being a complete condescending dick and "self-important tough guy." Your "policy" is shit, and this is a perfect example why. Another editor besides myself also said that PC's edit should stand. You, in your infinite wisdom, decided that you should revert anyways. You personally may have decided that reverting PC's edits on sight is the way to go, but I would think that you would at least consider looking at them more closely if others decide to be more professional and actually take the time to evaluate the edits based on merit, rather than on who made them. Maybe you should even engage in discussion. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 19:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
And another editor, besides Nutty, thinks the edits in question make the article worse. What's your point? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 19:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
My point was that since at least two other editors besides PC believed that the edit had some merit, perhaps it should warrant, I don't know, discussion of some kind, instead of blanket "I'm right, shut up" reverting. I tried to initiate such a discussion and was stone-walled. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 19:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, like I said hours ago, "Cataloging every statement that a global political figure makes and then analyzing it in a completely simplistic, speculative and facile way ("This may encourage action to force improvements in workers' conditions." Really? Wow.) does not improve the article." Discuss. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 19:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I supported adding it as an example of how his support, or lack thereof, for liberation theology is somewhat of a mixed bag. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 19:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think a comment on something that happened last week is a lame way to assess someone's position on a theological school that had its heyday several decades ago and relies on too much conjecture on your part. You seem to be using "liberation theology," which is a specific school of Marxist-oriented Catholic critique, historically rooted in Latin America in the 1960s-80s, with "concern about poverty." The two are not interchangeable. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with PowderS&L. We don't need to liveblog every aspect of Francis's reign & look for hidden clues. When he says or does things which are challenging or controversial, it will be worth commenting on. When he says or does things which suggest he might maybe have compassion for people when bad things happen to them, that's unremarkable. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't stonewall you any more than you made a point I thought was worth discussing. I'm just not not interested in having a conversation with you, that's all. Stonewalling would be ignoring you completely. I simply disagree with you and don't care what your opinion is. You get to disagree with me too. That's how opinions work. You're probably not going to get what you want, whatever that is, by inaccurately describing consensus when we've been trying to figure out how to deal with these articles for as long as you've been on RW and it's part of a broader discussion that's also apparently over your head. My "insufferable attitude" reflects my opinion of you, nothing more. I've been here trying to help. I know you disagree with me. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I get it, you don't like the way PC edits, nor the direction this page has gone, and are sick of talking about it, fine. Then fucking AFD it or overhaul it to be the way you want. That being said, if other editors disagree with you, which apparently a couple did, then you should perhaps should give more than a single line of reasoning and then revert any other attempts of discussion. I don't really care if you don't want to discuss it further, that doesn't give you carte blanche to revert edits you don't agree with. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 21:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure it does if I think you were dead wrong about consensus. Same as you were doing. If you want to argue that I'm overreaching, that might make actually sense, but it looks like the people who were concerned with these articles before you came over to tell me how it is also tend to agree that it's not appropriate to insert every potentially relevant thing. Of course the pope is at least ostensivly anti-poverty. He's Catholic. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
And I'd been a part of some of those discussions and, if you had bothered to discuss the edit, I would have mentioned why I felt this wasn't just another detail and why it should be included. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 21:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No, that would be PC who had that mix up. His stance on liberation theology and how it relates to Argentina as a whole needs to be expanded, since that is central the conflict regarding his stance on the junta, though Andrewstewart1's edit about his "Italian" stance was problematic. However, one of the reasons I would say this edit should stand is that it is not simply about "being poor." I felt the edit was at least indicative of his stance to the poor and how that related to his stance with liberation theology back in his days in Argentina, since this goes a bit further into the territory of desiring a fundamental change, rather than just sympathy for the poor. Perhaps that is dancing a bit close to WP:OR Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 19:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Parental/national determinism.[edit]

"His parents were Italians that immigrated when Mussolini took over, so while he is a Latin American Bishop, he is much more of the 'Italian' variety when it comes to Vatican politics..." Do not like. I disagree with my folks and many of my co-citizens on a number of political issues. All Italians think alike or something? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

the questions regarding his involvement with the junta have been addressed, this seems like an attempt to tie him to the junta. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 17:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
All the more reason. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 17:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Any connection[edit]

... between Pope Francis' given name and the name chosen for Baby Reptilian [1]? (More logically - Henry and Edward out - too many; Charles and William out - to avoid confusion; John and Stephen 'bad kings'; all three Richards died violently; both Prince Arthurs died untimely; many of the Saxon rulers' names not readily spellable - so either George or 'summat new.') (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Greg Reynolds[edit]

I removed the passage because: 1. one of the sources was a blog; 2. Both sources clearly say that no reason was given for the excommunication, and only assumed the link to his views. 3. The guy broke with the church and started his own sect. Of course he was excommunicated. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


Where his predecessor, Benedict XVI, wanted a smaller, purer church, Francis wanted an inclusive one which was a “home for all”. Pope Francis: Not so much a reformer as a revolutionary

Benedict XVI tried to get Cafeteria Catholics out of the Church but Francis wants them back.

I think this should be in the article because it's one clear difference between Francis and Benedict, many newspapers are talking about it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

and its important why?--Mikal | lakiM 17:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Mikalos, go away. PC, the better question is whether Pope Francis has called out to cafeteria Catholics specifically. Simply saying the church ought to be more inclusive doesn't give us much information.
Also remember to that you can't just add random facts into an article as you encounter them. The end result is a mess that is difficult to both read and navigate.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Proxima, you have no idea how to write for a wiki and virtually everything you do to this article makes it worse. Moreover, the way you use the idea of "cafeteria Catholics" makes it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about in this case. Finally, your sheer, narrow-minded, bitter, bigoted hatred of the Catholic Church and virtually anyone who has anything to do with it should keep you from editing any articles related to the topic. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Papal Concatenation[edit]

If Benedict, the Coptic Pope Theodoros II, Gregory XVIII of the Palmarian Catholic Church and the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa Theodore II attend the Saintification of John XXIII and John Paul II what will this collection of Popes be called (and would it trigger the Apocalypse)? (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Bringing the article up to date[edit]

It's needed. If others aren't satisfied with what I did perhaps the team can do something. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Inserting things that random bloggers have said (who is, and why should we care what they think?), random speculation about how "it is not clear how much real change there will be," a controversy about a bishop who is not the subject of the article, the cherry-picked opinions of an academic, or a note that something that's been a certain way for 2000 years is unlikely to change in the next six months do little to improve the article. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 14:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The article still needs bringing up to date, since you're not pleased with what I did do it yourself/yourselves. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Or maybe you could just actually learn how to bring it up to date in an acceptable manner?--Mikal | lakiM 16:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
If I do I risk getting it reverted and getting insulted again. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the part about "learn how to bring it up to date in an acceptable manner"--Mikal | lakiM 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Proxy, you have been asked several times to stop reproducing blog posts as though they were news reports -- see above re "globalpost" or here or here for examples. Do you not see how phrases like "it is not clear how much real change there will be" are not "updates," but empty and obvious phrases that add nothing of value to the article? Do you not understand that by micro-reporting every detail of a subject, that an article will become unwieldy and uninteresting? Do you not understand that all facts and developments are not equally important? Do you really believe that a hierarchical, conservative and hidebound institution with millenia of institutional history is going to change over a period of months or even a few years? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Do you not understand that all facts and developments are not equally important? Do you really believe that a hierarchical, conservative and hidebound institution with millenia of institutional history is going to change over a period of months or even a few years? " I think that comment sums up at least part of why I'm concerned over Pope Francis. The Catholic Church won't change so fast but the public think it's changing a great deal. Francis is an expert at Public relations and people are being deceived. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I venture to guess that people with a modicum of critical thinking skills and basic factual knowledge about the Catholic Church understand that Francis is a very different man from his predecessors, but that this makes him a voice of moderate and gradual reform, not a revolutionary firebrand. More to the point, I think that our article reflects that reality quite well, and there is room to accommodate significant developments in a concise, well-reasoned manner, when their significance has been made apparent. As long as you keep posting blogs as though they are news -- I am still wondering who "globalpost" is and why you think they should get a shout-out in the very first pgph of the article--keep posting updates about what His Eminence had for breakfast this morning,confusing "affect" with effect, and, most importantly, write meaningless and vapid sentences like "what effect this has remains to be seen", then your edits will in all likelihood get reverted. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Did someone figure out a way to stop PC from mucking up any article having to do with the RCC? If not, I really appreciate all the effort done to moderate the worst editor on this site in my many absences. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Peter thing[edit]

Whiskey fucking Tango Foxtrot? I'd delete on sight but perhaps there is a reason for it and it can be improved? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. I'd already removed it from the article on Pope Benedict where it's just as irrelevant as here. The Prophecy of the Popes is arcane enough that we don't need to reiterate its flaws on every page that mentions a Pope. Our article on the subject doesn't even explain who is supposed to believe in this prophecy, if indeed anybody does. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the article?[edit]

Rumours of nastiness[edit]

Francis had an uncomfortably close relationship with the Junta which ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983.

He is rumoured to have been involved in the junta's kidnapping of two priests, but no solid evidence linking him to the kidnapping ever surfaced,[1][2] and one of the kidnapped priests denies Francis' involvement.[3] There are further rumours about Bergoglio's involvement over pregnant women taken from their families and murdered after giving birth while their children were adopted by supporters of the junta.[4]

In Argentina, opinion is deeply divided, mirroring the deep political division between those opposing Argentina's current government and those supporting it: some strongly support Bergoglio and admire his austere lifestyle while others disapprove equally of his opposition to gay marriage and are uneasy about his claimed ties to the junta.[5]

There are further difficulties in his history: he commissioned a private report asserting the innocence of Julio Cesar Grassi, a priest convicted of sexually abusing boys in Buenos Aires. The report helped Grassi, who is currently appealing his conviction, avoid prison.[6]

  1. Associated Press. Argentine Cardinal Named in Kidnap Lawsuit, The Los Angeles Times. 2005 April 17.
  2. Hugh O'Shaughnessy. The sins of the Argentine church, The Guardian. 2011 January 4.
  3. Article in German
  4. Pope Francis and Argentina's 'disappeared', BBC
  5. Pope Francis divides opinion in Argentina, BBC
  6. Pope Francis was often quiet on Argentine sex abuse cases as archbishop
Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck no you idiot[edit]

"rumoured to have been involved"

"but no solid evidence linking him to the kidnapping ever surfaced"

"one of the kidnapped priests denies Francis' involvement"

"There are further rumours...." Goddamn you are an idiot.

You are seriously disturbed, PC. You prove the case against your stupid suggestion four times over. Just because he is the Pope doesn't mean he is an evil baby-eating monster, that you seem to think all RCC officials are. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

PS, I know that was a bit rude, but seriously, my good woman, you are utterly confused in your quest. The windmills are not even real, most of the time. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Look, I've got no part in whatever history PC may have. But way I see it, the existence of these rumours is backed up by several references, all of them from very reputable sources. If public figures are surrounded by such rumours, it bears mentioning. Especially if, as one of the BBC articles says, this is a talking point in Argentina. If we do not include this, we'd present a distorted view of his popularity. So yeah I definitely do think this should be in the article. Just because it says something (potentially!) negative about a RCC leader and comes from PC is no reason not to include it. Octo8 (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hm. Also, looking at your contribution list, you do seem to revert PC's edits rather often. Which leads to the question of whether that's simply a personal feud going on here. Octo8 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Or you don't know jack shit about a years long problem. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. That "years long problem" is irrelevant as to whether this should be included. It should. It's backed up by many reputable sources, and the existence of these rumours and what they are is a point to be mentioned. Octo8 (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Who cares? So long as they are "rumors" they have no place on RationalWiki. In fact, I would argue that reporting on rumors is antithetical to RationalWiki's mission. Indeed, there are rumors that vaccines cause autism and that a conspiracy killed Kennedy, but for us to report them as fact (note: WE DON'T) would make us laughing stocks. When any of that has been confirmed, we can have this discussion again. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
But this isn't about whether the rumours are true. It's about that the person this article is about is surrounded by controversy due to those allegations. And if a person who is an article's topic is involved in a controversy, surely that should be mentioned in the article of that person?Octo8 (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, perhaps. Here, however, there's so much on-mission stuff to go off of with this (or any) pope that has been proven as fact that I see no reason for us to resort simply to rumors and tabloids to help our mission along. Especially and particularly as it pertains to having entire sections of text devoted to nothing but rumor. A sentence or two, perhaps. But paragraphs of rumor hinder us. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Especially when the removed paragraph says numerous time that there is "no solid evidence." Makes me shudder. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
How odd. If there is a controversy about some US-American evangelical, you can be sure it's here on this wiki. And it should. But why would this be different with Francis? I think a double standard is established here. Reports of controversies and allegations are everywhere on the wiki. Plus, the "helping the mission" argument is too vague. It could be quite arbitrarily (!) used against pretty much everything. What should matter more is whether an article or section is within the guidelines, and whether we normally report about this.
I really don't understand this. The section as written here now is solidly written, does not accuse the Pope of anything, merely reports a controversy that truly exists and this is backed up by several reputable sources. It really seems to me you want to cut Francis some extra-slack, especially compared to evangelical leaders. Octo8 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
And here is the great divide: you and PC are claiming here that it is a controversy, and yet the contribution says it is a rumor. Is it a rumor or a controversy? The difference is in the framing. A controversy (such as Pat Robertson blaming 9/11 on the gays) can be proven by a simple youtube search. A rumor, such as Harry Potter causing kids to convert to Satanism, is based just on what people say and little else. So, which is it? Is it a rumor or a controversy? I'll let you tell me. But if you say it is more rumor than controversy, my attitude is exactly the same. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, for the record, PS has a history of inserting rumors into articles that are based on little substance. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The above can be used similarly with regards to allegations vs. rumors. As I stated above, it's all about framing. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you report about such controversies, you also have to report about the allegations which caused them, and you could call such allegations a subset of rumours. Not all rumours are equal. Serious and repeated allegations against influential people, which are reported and even discussed in reputable, major news outlets are not at all on the same level as "rumours that vaccines may cause autism". So, what reformulations and reframing do you want? Replacing every instance of "rumour" with allegation? Octo8 (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
See Human's original comment where he points to how flawed the wording is. The problem, again, is the framing. In summary, you are saying there are unsubstantiated rumors, rumors even denied by one of the victims, about an incident that occurred that you allege may be linked to Pope Francis (even though there's no direct evidence linking him). Come up with a way to make that sound better. Conservative Punk (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The wording needs work, but I see no reason for omitting these issues. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Does he have a Masters in Chemistry?[edit]

The regular wiki page doesn't reference it.

Even the reference on this wiki says he was simply a chemical technician.

Trying to figure it out I found this.

Which has the reason it isn't in the regular wiki - such a degree didn't exist at the time and it appears to have just been a bad translation. He had a secondary (high school level) technical qualification in chemistry and worked in a lab as a tech.

I researched that when I was looking at his academic background for the article a few years ago and was unhappy with the quality of information. Care to nail this down a bit more and come up with a cite to something reliable? Nutty Roux (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The Pope's Congressional Address[edit]

Hey there. [-Mona-], you have been making some great edits and doing good work cleaning up my stuff. I wasn't sure how far I was allowed to go in editorializing. Over all you have done a great job making the article better. I've then been expanding on what you have done. But there is something I don't understand.

You seem to be continuously implying that the Pope personally thinks gays are okay. For example, you talked about the difference between his personal and professional views. However, I see no difference. As both Pope and a personal person, he believes all people should be loved. And as both, he opposes same-sex marriage and believes acting on one's homosexuality is sinful. The fact that he likes gay people is important. But adding the bit of the dichotomy between personal and professional views seems unsupported. His views are centuries old. Love for humanity, and wanting the best for everyone. Gay = bad. Gay person = person, sinful like the rest of us.

I see you are still editing the document as I write this so I will leave this here and see where the edits you appear to be doing at this moment, as I keep getting notifications on them. Please let me know what you are thinking below. — Unsigned, by: ShawnTheHumanist / talk / contribs 16:37, 4 October 2015

Hi Shawn. The evidence I've seen strongly indicates that Francis is what in America we'd call a Dorothy Day Catholic. Very leftie on economic issues but Orthodox, and so adhering to the orthodox positions on the pelvic issues. As Day did, Francis has sought to de-emphasize the importance of those issues, but he ultimately does support the official dogma. Also, I think he lacks sufficient understanding of a country founded on separation of church and state. His "conscientious objection" thing is simply inapplicable to voluntary, government jobs. It isn't necessarily that way, however, in other nations. But it's pretty obvious Francis has not maintained a 19-year friendship with a man he knows is gay, and given him a private audience with his partner, just for PR. Among other things, that isn't going to go down well with the wingnut Catholics. By all reports, Francis is sincere in his soft approach toward gay people, which predates his ascension to the "Chair of Peter."---Mona- (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

D'aaw, so adorbs[edit]

Women thought they're people too ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)